MGT603 Systems Thinking Assessment

ASSESSMENT 1 BRIEF

Subject Code and Title

MGT603: Systems Thinking

Assessment

Part A: Proposal Individual (500 Words) Part B: Critique (500 Words)

Individual/Group

Individual

Length

Part A: One (1) Original Post (maximum 500 words)

Part B: Two (2) Critiques, Each critique max. 250 words

Learning Outcomes

a) Critically evaluate the paradigms of Systems Thinking conceptualization and its application to contemporary business issues

Weighting

Part A: 20%{" "} Part B: 20%

Total Marks

Part A: 20 marks{" "} Part B: 20 marks

Assessment Attributes

Fail

(Unacceptable) 0-49%

Pass

(Functional) 50-64%

Credit

(Proficient)

65-74%

Distinction

(Advanced)

75-84%

High Distinction

(Exceptional) 85-100%

Knowledge and understanding (technical and theoretical knowledge){" "}

Understands theoretical models and concepts{" "}

Percentage for this criterion

25%

Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge

Key components of the assignment are not addressed.

Stakeholders, goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are not addressed. Tools and techniques of systems thinking such as Rich picture, Causal loop diagrams, etc. are not identified.

Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline.

Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas.

Often confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.

Stakeholders, goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are addressed at very preliminary level. Tools and techniques of systems thinking such as Rich picture, Causal loop diagrams, etc. are used but at very superficial level.

Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.

Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.

Stakeholders, goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are addressed at appropriate level. Tools and techniques of systems thinking such as Rich picture, Causal loop diagrams, etc. are used with clarity.

Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s.

Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.

Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.

Stakeholders, goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are addressed comprehensively. Tools and techniques of systems thinking such as Rich picture, Causal loop diagrams, etc. are used with high level of understanding.

A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s.

Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.

Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning. Stakeholders, goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are addressed thoroughly.

Tools and techniques of systems thinking such as Rich picture, Causal loop diagrams, etc. are used demonstrating mastery in the use of these tools.

Context,

Audience and Purpose

Percentage for

this criterion 

25%

Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.

Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.

Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.

Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment.

Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment.

Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge{" "}

Percentage for

this criterion

25%

Limited synthesis and analysis.

Limited application/ Recommendations based upon analysis.

No critique on the peers’ posts. Just summarized the peers’ posts.

Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application.

Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature.

Critiqued on the peers’ post however, there is lack of depth and insight.

Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations

linked to analysis/synthesis.

Critiqued on the peers’ post with appropriate depth and insight.

Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis of new with existing knowledge.

Application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.

Critiqued on the peers’ post comprehensively covering most of the missing aspect.

Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge.

Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed

models. Recommendations

are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases. Critiqued on the peers’ post comprehensively covering most of the missing aspects with creative insights.

Effective

Communication

Percentage for

this criterion

15%

Difficult to understand, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence. Audience cannot follow the line of reasoning. 

Information, arguments, and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical.

Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow.

Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments. Line of reasoning is easy to follow.

Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented; the proposal and critique is logical, clear and well supported by evidence.

Expertly presented; the proposal and critique is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments.