DAP404:
Working with Others in Academic and Workplace Settings
Module and Assessment Guide 2017
Business School Paula Jenkins Dr Andy Clegg
Working with Others in Academic and Workplace Settings
Working with Others in Academic and Workplace Settings Introduction
Welcome to this module which is intended to develop your skills in working effectively with others which is essential to success at work and in studying at university. It will provide opportunities to consider and try out techniques and approaches in the ‘soft’ skills domain to work effectively with others in the workplace and also explore the thinking skills for studying at university and working in the 21st century workplace. The module will focus on three main areas of attention: presenting skills, thinking skills and engaging with the published knowledge of others and working collaboratively. The opportunities provided will consider both a personal and group perspective for each of the three main areas of focus in the module.
Learning Outcomes
Learning Strategy
Knowledge and Understanding: On successful completion of this module students will have demonstrated their developing skills in: •
Presenting to communicate effectively to an audience
•
Thinking collaboratively
•
Negotiating for a positive outcome
•
Identifying and criticising reasoning/argument
•
Reflective thinking
The module will comprise a series of workshops, normally for no more than 16 students, and directed tasks for independent study. The focus will be on participating actively and learning by reflecting on that activity. The module is concerned with skills more than subject knowledge. Workshops will take place every week. If you wish to contact us outside the sessions please do so by email. We are always happy to help with any learning issues. Like anything you do, the more effort you put in the more you will benefit. This is particularly the case with this module where the focus is on personal skills development for effective collaborative working. Our expectation is that you will be engaged during the workshops and complete the indicated reading/ tasks between sessions. It will not be possible to pass at a higher grade if you are not able to complete the tasks set. Reading about the different theories and ideas we will explore will be very useful. The approach we take to broaden and deepen your understanding is to use participation in discussions, group exercises, research, reports and observations of varying degrees of complexity throughout the module. These will be in pairs and small groups and the purpose is to experience the concepts and discuss, challenge and learn from them. p. 2
Working with Others in Academic and Workplace Settings
Module Content
26/9/17
Week 4:
Introduction to the Module and the Transition to Higher Education
3/10/17
Week 5:
Getting Started - Introduction to Library Resources and Academic Research
10/10/17
Week 6:
Collaborative Working
17/10/17
Week 7:
Communicating Effectively 1: Presentation Skills/Presenting Data
24/10/17
Week 8:
READING WEEK
31/10/17
Week 9:
Communicating Effectively 2: Academic Writing
7/11/17
Week 10: Working with Assessment Criteria and Feedback
14/11/17 Week 11: Thinking Critically
Module Resources
21/11/17
Week 12: Reflective Thinking
28/11/17
Week 13: Group Presentations
The specific learning outcomes for each session are provided on a weekly basis, and can also be accessed and downloaded via the DAP404 Moodle homepage. Module resources are available via the DAP404 homepage on Moodle. You will be introduced to the resources available to you during the module. If you run into problems please do not hesitate to ask the Business School Subject Librarian, Gail Graffham for help.
Self-Directed Activities
As part of the 150 hours for each module, you will also be asked to complete short tasks that will form part of the next lecture session. While not assessed, these tasks are intended to support your own learning, and to explore specific issues and themes covered during the module. Specific tasks will be allocated on a weekly basis. It is essential that these tasks are completed, as student feedback resulting from these tasks will feature as an important part of the programme.
Student Support
Andy and I can be found on the top of floor of the Dome on the Bognor Regis campus. If you have any problems please do not hesitate to come and see us. While usually around, teaching, consultancy work and University duties does influence our availability. Therefore while you are welcome to pop in informally, please email us to make an appointment (p.jenkins@chi.ac.uk / a.clegg@chi.ac.uk) to guarantee that we are in to see you.
p. 3
Working with Others in Academic and Workplace Settings
Evaluation
At the end of the module, you will have the opportunity to complete an evaluation form to comment on the overall structure, content and quality of the module. If you have any immediate concerns about the quality of the module then please do not hesitate to come and talk to us directly. The module evaluation form will be hyperlinked via the DAP404 homepage on Moodle. You can also make comments throughout the course of the module by using the comment and suggestion wall that has been embedded into the DAP404 homepage.
Student Conduct
The University’s Commitment Charter (Section C) sets out the codes of behaviour that staff and students can expect from one another. Every member of the University community is expected to uphold the Charter commitments and to help to maintain a respectful and constructive learning environment for themselves and for others. In contact (class) time, and outside of it, the University expects you to show consideration towards other students and the staff of the University. In lectures, seminars and workshops it is your responsibility to avoid behaviour which distracts the learning process for yourself and others. Behaviours which may seem insignificant to you, such as whispering to friends, or texting during a seminar, are almost always noticed! They can have an accumulative, negative impact on the group and the tutor. Such behaviours signal lack of respect for others - even if this was not your intention. To help illustrate these points, here are some behaviours that students and tutors have found distracting: •
Talking or whispering in lectures, outside times set aside for group discussion
•
Talking or whispering while other students are making points
•
Interrupting other students or the tutor while they are talking
•
Habitually arriving late or leaving early (without forewarning the tutor)
•
Sending and receiving texts / mobile phones ringing
•
Using MP3 players / playing electronic games
•
Surfing the net in class
Students whose behaviour disrupts a class persistently may be asked to leave the session. However we are sure that as adult learners you’ll use common sense and be willing to help create the best possible learning environment for everyone.
p. 4
Working with Others in Academic and Workplace Settings
Attendance
Students are reminded that attendance at all modules is compulsory. On arrival at each scheduled/timetabled session you will be expected to ‘tap in’ to the SAM reader located near the entrance to the teaching room. It is your responsibility to register your attendance. Failure to register your attendance will be treated as non-attendance. If you miss a session, for whatever reason, you should complete and submit a student absence via ChiView - guidance on how to do this will be provided at the start of the module. It is also courteous to let the module tutor know of any absence in advance or immediately after the session that was missed. You are reminded that persistent absence can potentially result in your de-registration from the module. The full University regulations regarding attendance can be found in your student handbook. You are also asked to arrive punctually for your lectures. Students that are persistently late will be marked as absent. A record of your punctuality will also be captured via the SAM system.
Assessment
The assessment for this module will consist of the following assessment elements, which will be discussed in more detail during the course of the module. Assessment 1: Use of the opportunities in the module workshops to develop their skills in presenting to an audience and in assisting their colleagues to do likewise (500 words equivalent; 20% weighting). Assessment Criteria: •
Criteria will be negotiated with students within the workshops
Assessment 2: An assessment of a peer’s use of the opportunities in the module workshops to develop their skills in presenting to an audience (750 words, 30% weighting). Assessment Criteria: • •
Ability to apply assessment and grading criteria Ability to provide constructive feedback
Assessment 3: A short reflective essay of 1,250 words (50% weighting) Assessment Criteria: • • • • •
Accuracy of written English Quality of presentation Quality of referencing Use of evidence Criticality
p. 5
Working with Others in Academic and Workplace Settings
Submission Dates
Key dates for your diary: •
Assessment 2 must be submitted by 1pm on Tuesday 5th December
•
Assessment 3 must be submitted by 1pm on Tuesday 19th December
Re-Assessment In the event that you fail this module, you will be required to re-submit the relevant assessment elements. The same assessment criteria will apply.
Study Skills Support
Please also make use of the fantastic array of study skills resources that can be found at academicskills.chi.ac.uk. You can also book appointments to discuss study skills via the SIZ. Please be sure to take advantage of all the available support to help you gain confidence with the requirements of degree level work. The following textbooks will also help to get you started: Cameron, S. (2005) The Business Student’s Handbook, Third Edition, FT Prentice Hall, Harlow. Cottrell, S. (2010) Skills for Success: The Personal Development Planning Handbook, Second Edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke. Cottrell, S. (2013) The Study Skills Handbook, Fourth Edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke. De Bono, E. (2000) Six Thinking Hats, Penguin Books, London Hale Evans, R. (2006) Mind Performance Hacks, O’Reilly, California. Nosich, G.M. (2005) Learning to Think Things Through, Second Edition, Pearson, New Jersey. Pears, R. and Shields, G. (2010) Cite Them Right the essential referencing guide, Eighth Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Siddons, S. (2008) The Complete Presentation Skills Handbook, London: Kogan Page. Thomson, A. (2008) Critical Reasoning: A Practical Introduction, Third Edition, Routledge, London. Van Edam, J. (2016) Presentation Skills for Students, Third Edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
p. 6
Non-submission of work
Contains little of relevance to the objectives of the assessment task. Fails to answer and address the set topic
Contains limited relevance to the objectives of the assessment task. May address the topic but not the assignment brief. May be scanty and brief.
Inconsistency of relevance to the objectives of the assessment task. Addresses topic but not always the assignment brief. May be significantly short of required length/ time.
May be some deviation from objectives of the assessment task. May not consistently address set question or assignment brief. May be short of required length/time.
Satisfactorily addresses most objectives of the assessment task Completed to acceptable tolerance, limits of time/length.
Competently addresses objectives of the assessment task, but may contain minor errors or omissions at the lower end, where treatment of issues may be superficial. Completed to required time length etc
Clearly addresses the objectives of the assessment task, especially those elements requiring critical analysis. At the higher end the work will not contain errors or omissions.
Authoritatively addresses the objectives of the assessment task, especially those components requiring critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
Innovatively addresses objectives of the assessment task, especially those components requiring sophistication of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
Professionally addresses the objectives of the assessment task, especially those components requiring originality of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
Fail
Fail 1-9% Minimal quality
Fail 10-19% Very poor quality
Fail 20-34% Poor quality
Fail/PP 35-29% Weak quality
3rd 40-49% Acceptable quality
2(ii) 50-59% Sound quality, competent with some limitation
2(i) 60-69% High quality, skilled work
1st 70-79% Outstanding quality
1st 80-89% Outstanding quality
1st 90-100% Exceptional or distinguised quality
Consistent line of profound critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop original ideas from an innovative synthesis of the work of others. Creative flair in advanced theoretical and conceptual analysis.
A clear and consistent line of highly critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop oneâ€&#x;s innovative ideas from the work of others. Creative flair in theoretical and conceptual analysis.
A clear and consistent line of critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop oneâ€&#x;s own insightful ideas from the work of others. Excellent engagement in theoretical and conceptual analysis.
Generally clear line of critical and evaluative argument, with ability to develop own ideas from the work of others. Ability to engage in theoretical and conceptual analysis.
Some limited critical discussion, but argument is unconvincing, particularly at the lower end where the work is more descriptive. More reliance on work of others rather than developing own arguments. Limited theoretical and conceptual analysis.
Work is descriptive with minimal critical discussion and limited theoretical engagement. Too much reliance on the work of others rather than developing own understanding and application of the material
Descriptive or anecdotal with little or no critical discussion and theoretical engagement. Unconvincing or minimal line of argument. Mostly reliant on the work of others, displaying little understanding or ability to apply the material.
Descriptive or anecdotal work with scanty or no argument. Reliant on the work of others and does not use this to develop own arguments. No critical discussion or theoretical engagement. Little practical and intellectual application.
Work is descriptive and anecdotal. Minimal or no argument. May be entirely reliant on the work of others, with no practical and /or academic application to demonstrate understanding of the material.
No practical, academic or intellectual application.
Argument (Reasoning)
Focus your attention on the criteria for 1st and above!
Relevance
Class Marks/Overall Quality
Undergraduate Assessment Criteria
Wide range of relevant and recommended sources used in a profound and consistent way as supporting evidence. Use of cutting-edge sources beyond the recommended texts, including in-depth use of complex material demonstrating advanced independent research.
Wide range of recommended and relevant sources used in an innovative and consistent way to support arguments. In depth use of sources beyond recommended texts, demonstrates creative flair in independent research.
Wide range of relevant and recommended sources used in an insightful and consistent way as supporting evidence. Some in depth use of sources beyond recommended texts, to demonstrate independent research.
Good range of relevant and recommended sources used in an imaginative and largely consistent way as supportingevidence. Use of some sources beyond recommended texts including more complex materials.
Range of relevant and recommended sources are used, but this may be in an unimaginative or literal manner, particularly at the lower end of the range. Limited use of sources beyond the standard recommended materials.
Limited range of relevant and recommended sources are used, but with some inadequacies in their use and employment as supporting evidence. There may be some reliance on dated or unreliable sources.
Very limited range, use and application of relevant and recommended sources. Demonstrates lack of real understanding. Too much reliance may be placed on dated, unreliable or non-academic sources.
Minimal and inadequate knowledge of relevant and recommended sources. Their use as supporting evidence may be inaccurate, inappropriate or negligible. Reliance on dated, unreliable or nonacademic sources.
Irrelevant or minimal use of recommended sources, resulting in a lack of understanding and inadequate supporting evidence. Non-academic sources that lack intellectual integrity are relied upon.
Based on little or no evidence. Lacks academic and intellectual integrity and quality. Use of non-academic sources limits intellectual understanding.
Evidence
Distinguished visual and written presentation. Highly sophisticated yet clear and accessible style. Extremely good standards of vocabulary, syntax, spelling and punctuation. Innovative yet logical and fluent organisation and development of materials. Highly articulate, coherent and succinct. Relationships between statement and sections are precisely made with great clarity. Referencing is accurate and appropriate. innovative yet logical and fluent organisation and development of materials. Articulate, coherent and succinct. Relationships between statements and sections are clear and precise. Referencing is accurate and, appropriate.
Outstanding visual and written presentation. Sophisticated yet clear and accessible style. Very good standards of vocabulary, syntax, spelling and punctuation. Possibly Possibly innovative yet logical and fluent organisation and development of materials. Articulate, coherent and succinct. Relationships between statements and sections are clear and precise. Referencing is accurate and, appropriate.
Excellent visual and written presentation. Very clear and accessible style. Good standards of vocabulary, syntax, spelling and punctuation. Logical and fluent organisation and development of materials. Coherent and succinct. Relationship between statements and sections are very clear. Referencing is accurate, appropriate and extensive.
Good visual and written presentation. Clear and accessible style. Generally good standards of vocabulary, syntax, spelling and punctuation. Logical organisation and development of materials. Coherent. Relationship between statements and sections are easy to follow. Referencing is accurate and appropriate.
Generally sound presentation. Style is largely clear and accessible. There may be minor errors of vocabulary, syntax, spelling and punctuation but these should not detract from the overall meaning. There may be inconsistencies in the organisation and development of materials. The relationship between some statements and sections may not be easy to follow. Some points may not be made coherently or succinctly. Work is referenced accurately with few errors.
Acceptable presentation. Some aspects of the style may be unclear. Points may not be made coherently or succinctly. Some errors of vocabulary, syntax, spelling and punctuation but these are not serious distractions from the overall meaning. Some lack of logical development and organisation of the materials. The relationship between some statements and sections may be hard to follow. Work is referenced accurately with some errors.
Weak presentation. Some aspects of the style may be inappropriate, unclear and inaccessible. Some points will not be made coherently or succinctly. Errors of vocabulary, syntax, spelling and punctuation may seriously detract from the overall meaning. The materials may lack logical development and organisation. The relationship between some statements and sections may be difficult to recognise. Limited use of references and some may be inaccurate.
Poor visual and written presentation. The style may be inappropriate, unclear and inaccessible. Points may not be made coherently or succinctly. Errors of vocabulary, syntax,spelling and punctuation may seriously detract from the overall meaning. The materials may lack logical development and organisation. Relationship between statements and sections may be difficult to recognise. References may be absent, inaccurate or incorrect.
Presentation is inappropriate, unclear and inaccessible. Points are not made coherently or succinctly. Compound errors of vocabulary, syntax, spelling and punctuation seriously detract from the overall meaning. Materials lack logical development. Relationship between statements and sections are hard to recognise. References may be absent or incorrect.
Presentation is inappropriate, unclear and inaccessible. Work is not coherent or succinct. Serious errors of vocabulary, syntax, spelling and punctuation obscure the overall meaning. No logical development or organisation of the materials with few links between statements and sections. References are absent, incorrect or inaccurate.
Structure and Presentation
Working with Others in Academic and Workplace Settings
p. 7
DAP404 Business School
Paula Jenkins Email: p.jenkins@chi.ac.uk Dr Andy Clegg Email: a.clegg@chi.ac.uk