Journal Discussions
Length: each of four Journal item discussions Min. of 200 – max. pf 400.
Due: Journal 1 – 11.00pm Sun of Week 2 Journal 2 –11.00pm Sun of Week 5 Journal 3 –11.00pm Sun of Week 9 Journal 4 –11.00pm Sun of Week 11
Format: Discussion board journal posts reflecting upon items set by the Unit Assessor for that Journal task.
Weighting: 25% of total unit marks.
Submission: In the PROJ5005 Discussion Board
Referencing: Harvard (in-text and Reference List)
Brief
The Unit Assessor will post (in the Assessment Task and Submissions folder) the task for each of the four Journal Discussion items. The task will be specific to the content taught in the Week/s immediately before the due time for submission, and will be designed to reinforce your learning of a key aspect of Stakeholder thinking.
The timing of when each is due in your Session may be adjusted to better align with other Assessment tasks, holidays etc.
For guidance as to the style of writing a reflective journal please read the SCU guide at the following site
Your journal reflections are to be a critical analysis of your developing knowledge and insights as to the importance of the stakeholder and your stakeholder management skills in your being an effective engineer.
In order to achieve the highest mark for this assignment, you must provide a journal reflection for each of the 4 posts which is built around a minimum of two peer- reviewed academic references for each post.
General guiding information for the Journal posts:
Start writing early
As each Journal task will require you to go beyond the Unit materials you must access readings, websites, articles, academic literature and industry and government publications, typically using the internet.
Please ensure that you access the Library and seek one-on-one assistance from the Library experts.
Focus on the current literature, industry and government publications i.e. 2010 to 2018.
As discussed in class you must read widely and deeply.
Remember to critically think about engineering infrastructure when looking for sources.
A Reference list is to be placed on the end of the post.
Please review the following marking guide (Rubric) so that you can understand and meet all the requirements.
Please ensure that your document is written legibly so that it will be acceptable in an academic and industry context.
PROJ5005 Assessment 2 JournalExcellent 85%‒100%Very Good 75%‒84%Good 65%‒74%Satisfactory 50%‒64%Unacceptable 0%‒49%Structure: Very comprehensiveComprehensive andHad a sound structureGenerally suitableStructure not at alland had excellenthad very soundand appropriatestructure although somesuited to assessmentstructure with nostructure with somecontent but with someaspects could haverequirements.errors. 20/100errors.errors.been improved Response toResponded directlyResponded directly toResponded directly toTaken as a whole,assigned topic:to the topic and tothe topic and to everythe topic but with somethe paper did notResponded directlyevery separate partseparate part of thedigressions andrespond adequatelyto the topic and toof the topic in atopic in a reasonablyirrelevancies. Someto the topic. Importantevery separate partbalanced mannerbalanced manner,aspects of the topicaspects wereof the topic in anwith minimalperhaps with a smallwere not developedoverlooked and/orexceptionallyirrelevant material.amount of irrelevantproperly and some lessmuch of the materialbalanced manner material and someimportant aspects maywas irrelevant.with no irrelevant issues not properlyhave been overlooked. material. 30/100 developed. Grasp of core unit theory:Demonstrated deep,DemonstratedSound grasp of unitOne or moreDemonstrated deep,accurateaccurateprinciples and concepts,important unitaccurateunderstanding ofunderstanding of unitperhaps one-concepts or principlesunderstanding of unitunit principles andprinciples anddimensional andseriouslyprinciples andconcepts.concepts, although asuperficial in places andmisunderstood, or noconcepts at a very little superficial orperhaps somerelevant theoreticalhigh level of flawed in places.misconceptions.frameworksophistication. established.30/100 Matters of detail:Spelling, syntaxSpelling, syntax,Spelling, syntax,Unacceptably highSpelling, syntax,grammar,grammar, punctuationgrammar, punctuationnumber of minorgrammar,punctuation andand referencingand referencing wereand/or numerouspunctuation andreferencing nearly allgenerally correctacceptable but thereserious errors.referencingcorrect althoughalthough there werewere frequent minor or completely correct.there were two ormore than three minorserious errors. 20/100three minor errors.errors.
Get expert help for PROJ5005 Stakeholder Engagement and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
The post PROJ5005 Stakeholder Engagement in Engineering appeared first on Universal Assignment.
