| Category |
Assignment |
Subject |
Management |
| University |
University of Roehampton |
Module Title |
RBP020L063H Leadership and Change Management |
RBP020L063H Assessment Deadlines
Formative Assessment:
- Deadline: Individual reflective 12th of July 2024 (Tentatively)
- Feedback from tutors during seminars within 2 weeks, in-class.
Summative Assessment: 3 components.
To pass this module, students must have an overall 50% mark, independent of whether all tasks listed have been started and/or completed.
Note that deadlines may change.
Please keep checking your Moodle page and announcements.
1. MCQ: 50% marks for the MCQ online test
- Accounts for 50% of the total module's mark
- The MCQ online test covering most areas of study and learning (randomly) consists of 50 questions with 60 60-minute limit to answer them.
2. Group presentation
- Accounts for 30% of the total module's mark.
- A presentation of 10 minutes, followed by a 2 to 5-minute Q&A session, was examined live by one or two tutors.
- Group presentation: 10th and 11th of July 2024. Note: your group presentation's exact day and time will be confirmed in due course; stay informed/Moodle announcements regularly.
- Slides used for the group presentation: only submitted slides can be presented.
3. 1000 words individual reflective account based on group work experience as above
Accounts for 20% of the total module's mark.
Critical report of your experience working in a group and thoughts on its application for your future.
Submission deadline: 18th of July 2024 from 08:00 to 23:59.
Formative Assessment Task and Feedback
The formative assessment consists of working as a group to consider the future of leadership within the context of one of the nine teaching topics as listed on the Moodle page and the LTAF document:
1. Organisations and their changing global environments
2. Approaches and Theories of Leadership
3. Organisational Culture & Management of Change
4. Power and Politics in Organisations
5. Organisational Change and Individual Sense-Making Processes
6. Organisational Development
7. Leading people through change
8. Employee voice and engagement
9. Leadership, culture and diversity
So, your presentation will tackle the following question: “The future of leadership within the context of (your topic: e.g. “culture and
diversity”)”
You are asked only to prepare one presentation per group of max. Eight students. The LCM team allocates groups, which will be communicated to you by Moodle notification and your seminar tutor.
Each group should assign one group representative—this group rep. You should upload the formative assignment as a PDF. The format of your presentation can be discussed with your seminar tutor. The maximum accepted file size is 50MB. The first page should contain the student ID numbers of all group members, and subsequent pages should include the core presentation addressing the topic.
Seminar tutors will discuss the most appropriate presentation formats, style, and structure with students.
The purpose of the formative submission is to allow you to receive oral in-person feedback during the seminar and be advised about the points with the highest potential to improve your work, which will enhance your learning and increase your chances of succeeding with your summative assessment.
Note that no indicative marks on the formative or the summative assessment draft will be provided at any time.
Summative Assessment: Components Overview and Structure
Task 1: Randomised online MCQ test (50% marks)
- You can take the test (only once) at any time during the allowed period; please check Moodle to know the exact time of the MCQ.
- You will have 60 minutes to answer 50 multiple-choice questions.
- Once you start the test, it cannot be paused, meaning you must complete it in one go.
- Students can skip questions; in the end, they can verify all their answers before submitting.
- Every question must be answered. No answer is considered a wrong answer.
- Your test will be submitted automatically if you do not submit it within 60 minutes.
- Release of the mark will be subject to the exam board.
- Questions can cover anything from the taught coursework.
Task 2 Group presentation (30% marks):
Live, in-person evaluation.
Assessment requirements
- Groups will be formed by the module convenorship team and communicated to students in due course. The number of students in a group must be at least 5, a maximum of 10, with a median of 8.
- Present your work as a group in person. The deadline for slide submission will be communicated via Moodle, as they are subject to change. Only submitted slides can be presented.
- One of the group members will upload PPT slides to Moodle Turnitin. The student ID number of each active contributor to the group presentation should be indicated on the first slide.
- Each group will present in front of one to two assessors. Students from other groups will be kept out of the room.
- Length of presentation: 10 minutes maximum. After 10 minutes, the presentation will be stopped.
- After the presentation, a session of questions and answers for 2 to 5 minutes will follow. The answers given by the students will form part of their presentation mark.
- All relevant citations and references should be given in the slides. The references list in Harvard format should be added at the end of the presentation.
Notes :
-All students are expected to participate in the group presentation and preparation as part of their summative assessment.
-Students who do not contribute may be attributed marks accordingly or receive a zero for this summative submission. The slide set to be submitted will have a front sheet with the student ID number of each active individual contributor, contain section headings, clearly show what topics are covered, and indicate the contribution of each group member as an appendix slide.
-If a student does not present for whatever reason, the markers will ask the group if this student is considered an active contributor. If the group confirms, the student will receive the mark the group gets. If not, the student will receive a mark of “0” in the group presentation component.
-If you believe in your capacity and role as a group member and that your group does not incorporate your contributions and include you in good faith or a fair manner, you would need to discuss your concern with them before you could approach the seminar tutor.
-Suppose a group feels that a particular group member does not object to contributing to the group presentation. In that case, the issue must be raised with the seminar tutor at least two weeks before the group summative presentation deadlines. We can only exclude a group member from the group and ask for an individual presentation by that group member in well-documented circumstances and evidence provided of the non-contribution claims made. Hence, you should make brief minutes and email them after each group meeting from the very beginning of the project. After claims have been made, notes conducted retrospectively will be acknowledged with a different credibility.
-Note that groups have been allocated and cannot be changed.
Task 3: Individual reflective account (20% mark)
Based on your group presentation and preparation experience,
- You must write an individual reflective report of a maximum of 1000 words. It should reflect your personal experience working in a group. You may choose to focus your reflections on how you worked as part of a team or as part of the group for the assessment, any problems encountered, your role and impact, the type of leadership required to make things happen, and how you coped with any forms of change in the group work.
- You could also include how your learning will influence your work in the future and how it may inform your leadership type. Please indicate what you will do to fill any learning gaps.
- An evidence-based reflective framework, such as Gibbs’ reflection model, should be identified and used.
- You could also indicate which leadership, change theories and practices influenced you in developing your group assignment or your overall learning. Please use Harvard referencing in your text references and your bibliography.
Instructions for Re-sit
The exact task for the main assignment period applies to the re-sit; with further instructions, see below.
Re-sit deadlines will be published via Moodle. Visit the module’s Moodle site and check your Roehampton email account regularly.
The school is not obliged to check whether you have noticed re-sit deadlines. For your group presentation
You will be asked to record the presentation and submit the recording via the link provided. Information will be communicated on Moodle.
For the MCQ
Instructions communicated in the section before (for original submission) remain valid for the re-sit.
For your report
You are required to improve and resubmit your original work. You must resubmit your work using the specific re-sit Turnitin link on Moodle.
The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking grid in Appendix). The reflective commentary demonstrates how you learned from the feedback and what you did the second time differently. The student should also reflect on how the module content could be beneficial as knowledge of best practices in their career.
You must submit work at the first opportunity to reflect on your feedback. However, in such a case, your reflective commentary section should reflect upon a) how the module’s concepts inform the professions and open up areas of future empirical research and b) how the module contents could be beneficial as knowledge of best practices for your current or future career.
If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity, you do not need to include the reflective piece as this is a first submission at a later date, not a re-sit.
The Reflective Essay is marked based on the criteria of Criticality and Evidence-based Logic of arguments. It is an independent writing task, and no supervision will be provided for conducting the essay.
How Will your Work be Assessed?
Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use either the marking criteria provided in the section “Instructions for assessment” or the Marking rubric enclosed in the Appendix, as appropriate for this module. When you access your marked work, you must reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.
Referencing and Submission
You must use the Harvard System.
The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site. They must be submitted as a Word file (not a PDF) and not include scanned-in text or text boxes. They must be submitted by 2 pm on the given date.
Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work or attend your presentation
The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website: Mitigating Circumstances Policy.
Marking and Feedback Process
Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days (exceptions may apply), there are several quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks that reflect their work. A summary is provided below.
- Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree on standards, expectations and how feedback will be provided.
- Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief.
- Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all teaching and marking team members will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback.
- Step Four – The Work then goes to an external examiner who will review a work sample to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair.
- Stop Five – Your mark and feedback are processed by the Office and made available to you.
Appendix: Marking Rubric for Summative Assessment
Component: Group Presentation
|
Rubric category (range)
Assigned mark >>
 Marking criteria (weight out of 100)
|
Outstanding 100
|
Excellent (80-89)
85
|
Very Good (70-79)
75
|
Good (60-69)
65
|
Adequate (50-59)
55
|
Marginal Fail (40-
49)
45
|
Fail (30-39)
35
|
Fail (20-29)
25
|
Not done 0
|
|
Introduction (10%)
Present the group project, the team members and the outline of the presentation
|
Outstandin g and flawless.
|
Introduction of outstanding quality that is fluent, exceptionally well structured and offers a clear explanation of the aim and structure of the group work.
|
Introduction of excellent quality with a very clear structure and fluently written. Clear aim and structure of the group work.
|
Good introduction with a clear statement of the aim of the presentation and a clear outline of the structure of the presentation.
|
Introduction is stating the aim of the presentation but needs better explicit focus on the topic discussed and the link with the group work.
|
Introduction is very descriptive and covers briefly the main aim of the presentation but lacks any critical approach for the topic chosen. There is no
outline of the structure of the
presentation.
|
Introduction lacks clear focus and does not state the aim and structure of the group work.
Wholly descriptive
.
|
Poor attempt, introduction only alluded to.
|
Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.
|
|
Future of leadership
(60%)
a. Critically present your group’s findings about the future of leadership
b. Clearly state and explain the chosen topic
|
Outstandin g and flawless.
|
Exceptional reference made to the theories, concepts and models/framew orks taught in the coursework and the elements related to the chosen topic with clear identification of the components
that support the future of
|
Very good identification of the theories, concepts and models/framew orks taught in the coursework and the elements related to the chosen topic. Critical appreciation of the supportive arguments.
|
Good ability to identify the theories, concepts and models/framew orks taught in the coursework and the elements related to the chosen topic. Some appreciation of the supportive arguments.
|
Ability to identify the theories, concepts and models/framew orks taught in the coursework and the elements related to the chosen topic. Some appreciation of the supportive arguments.
|
Ability to identify the theories, concepts and models/framew orks taught in the coursework and the elements related to the chosen topic.
, but wholly descriptive.
|
Wholly descriptive, with many key omissions.
|
Poor attempt, no analysis of relevance.
|
Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.
|
|
c. Critically display your arguments.
|
|
leadership. Outstanding critical appreciation of
the supportive elements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presentation (30%)
a. Look & feel of the material used
b. Communication
/ oratory skills
c. Team cohesion
|
Outstandin g and flawless.
|
Exceptional presentation: look & feel, communication skills, and perception of team cohesion.
|
Very good presentation: look & feel, communication skills, and perception of team cohesion.
|
Good presentation: look & feel, communication skills, and perception of team cohesion.
|
Adequate presentation: look & feel, communication skills, and perception of team cohesion.
|
Less than adequate presentation: look & feel, communication skills, and perception of team cohesion.
|
Non-adequate presentation: look & feel, communication skills, and perception of team cohesion.
|
Poor presentation: look & feel, communicatio n skills, and perception of team cohesion.
|
Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.
|
Component: Individual Report (reflective account)
|
Rubric category (range)
Assigned mark >>
Marking criteria (weight out of 100)
|
Outstanding 100
|
Excellent (80-89)
85
|
Very Good (70-79)
75
|
Good (60-69)
65
|
Adequate (50-59)
55
|
Marginal Fail (40-49)
45
|
Fail (30-39)
35
|
Fail (20-29)
25
|
Not done 0
|
|
Criteria 1: Analysis and discussion
(50%)
|
It cannot be improved on.
Exemplary in all aspects.
Outstanding analysis.
|
Excellent level of discussion/ analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection.
Highly developed/ focused work.
|
Very good level of discussion/ analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection clearly develops points appropriately with thorough consideration of alternatives.
|
Good level of discussion/ analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection & a few ideas/points could benefit from further development &/or
evaluation/comparison
|
Satisfactory level of discussion/ analysis, but more ideas/points could be addressed
/developed further.
|
Basic evidence of analysis/ or reflection, but some points superficiall y made so need further developme nt.
|
Relevant issues were poorly identified, discussed, and analysed.
|
Very poor analysis and discussion
|
Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.
|
|
Criteria 2: Application of a reflective model
(20%)
|
Outstanding and flawless.
|
Excellent use of theory.
Impressive choice and range of appropriate content.
|
Very good use of theory.
Evidence of a wide range of appropriate reading.
|
Good use of theory. Evidence of a Good range of appropriate reading.
|
Satisfactory use of theory. Range of appropriate reading is satisfactory.
|
Adequate use of theory.
May benefit from further research. Limited research often not including academic journals or
textbooks.
|
Insufficient use of theory.
Limited range of sources are used. Little attempt was made at researching the topic. A few websites or a couple of books are cited.
|
Little research and use of theory. Very limited range of sources.
Little attempt was made at researching the topic. For example, a website or a textbook can be
cited.
|
Missing.
Doesn’t meet the basic assessment criteria.
|
|
Presentation (30%)
a. Look & feel of the material used
b. Grammar, typos
c. Referencing
|
Outstanding and flawless.
|
Exceptional presentation: look & feel, grammar and referencing.
|
Very good presentation: look & feel, grammar and referencing.
|
Good presentation: look & feel, grammar and referencing.
|
Adequate presentation: look & feel, grammar and referencing.
|
Less than adequate presentati on: look & feel, grammar and referencin g.
|
Non-adequate presentation: look & feel, grammar and referencing.
|
Poor presentation: look & feel, grammar and referencing.
|
Missing. Wholly incorrect or not attempted.
|
