To encourage the students to use concepts and theories of corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and business ethics, to analyse current events and personal experience.

Assignment 1 - Learning Journal Briefing

Module Name

Managing Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development

Module Code

BS7302

Assignment Title

Assignment 1- Learning Journal

Type of Submission

Individual written report

Word Count/Time allocation (for presentations)

2,000 words (+/- 10%)

Date of Feedback to Students

20 working days after submission

Where feedback can be found

Brief comments on the electronic script, summary comments in the “Comments” box and a breakdown of the allocation of marks in the “rubric” on Canvas

Assignment Task

The purpose of the learning journal is to encourage students to reflect on course material on a regular basis. The journal is designed to encourage the students to use concepts and theories of corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and business ethics, to analyse current events and personal experience. The journal will be submitted as a report (see coursework submission details above).

Journal entries should apply relevant concepts and theory to analyse current events or students’ own experiences, re: CSR / SD / BE issues. The entries do not have to cover all the topics discussed in the lectures, but each entry should focus on a different theme.

While the topics of journal entries will vary according to students’ interests and individual experiences, each entry should include the following elements:

  1. Description of the event.
  2. Examination of (1) through the application of a relevant theoretical framework.
  3. Reflection on how useful or how well theoretical concepts and models describe or explain the event.

Three journal entries should be made in the journal. The length of the individual entries can vary, but the overall journal should not exceed 2,000 words (+/- 10%). This does not include appendix material, but the appendices will be judged in terms of their relevance.  The journal should be clearly argued and structured.  Using headings and referencing makes it easier for the reader to follow the arguments.

Allocation of Marks

 

Allocated Marks

Correct use of theoretical concepts and models

 

34%

Depth and insightfulness of the journal entries

 

33%

Clarity of argumentation and thoroughness of research

 

33%

Penalty (if any) for exceeding word count

Will be taken into consideration in overall structure and if superfluous content is included, marked

down accordingly

 

University Grade Criteria – Postgraduate

 

CLASS

 

%

 

GRADE

OVERALL DESCRIPTION

 

GUIDELINE GRADE DESCRIPTIONS

Distinction

85-

100

A+

Outstanding

Your work is of an exceptionally high standard which has the potential for submission for publication in a peer reviewed journal or equivalent.

 

75-84

A

Excellent

Your work demonstrates a sophisticated and comprehensive knowledge of the subject area. You have shown an exceptional ability in the appropriate use of the relevant literature, theory, methodologies, practices or tools to analyse and synthesise at Masters level. Your work is well-constructed and demonstrates a professional approach to academic practice (citation and referencing; appropriate presentation format; clear, accurate English). It addresses the learning outcomes/assessment criteria fully.

 

70-74

A-

Very Good

Your work demonstrates strong knowledge of the subject area and the ability to develop an independent and sophisticated argument or evaluation. The ideas you put forward demonstrate exceptional clarity and focus and your work adheres to the principles of good academic practice (citation and referencing; appropriate presentation format; clear, accurate English). It addresses the learning outcomes/assessment criteria fully.

Merit

67-69

B+

Good

Your work demonstrates a well-developed critical and comprehensive understanding of the topic. It shows evidence that you have thoroughly researched the topic(s) and are able to construct an independent, logical argument or evaluation.  Your work demonstrates a high degree of ability in the appropriate use of relevant literature, theory, methodologies, practices or tools to analyse and synthesise at Masters level. Your work is well-structured and logically written and demonstrates good academic practice (citation and referencing; appropriate presentation format; clear, accurate English). There is a good attempt to address the learning outcomes/assessment criteria, meeting all of them to some extent and some of them well.

 

64-66

B

 

 

60-63

B-

 

Pass

57-59

C+

Satisfactory

Your work demonstrates knowledge of the subject area and the ability to develop an independent, logical argument or evaluation. It shows competence in the appropriate use of literature, theory, methodologies, practices or tools. The development of some ideas in your work is limited but it attempts to analyse materials critically. At times the expression and structure of your work is not clear and you have not consistently followed good academic practice (citation and referencing; presentation format; clear, accurate English). Your work provides some level of response to the learning outcomes/assessment criteria but does not fully address all of the criteria.

 

54-56

C

 

 

50-53

C-

 

Marginal Fail

45-49

MF

Unsatisfactory

Your work contains some weaknesses. It provides some evidence that you have understood the topic and that you are able structure arguments or evaluation. Your work demonstrates some ability in the appropriate use of literature, theory, methodologies, practices or tools

but not at Masters level. Your work fails to address one or more

 

 

 

 

criteria fully.

Fail

35-44

F

Poor

Your work is unsatisfactory in it demonstrates very limited knowledge

of the subject area and does not succeed in grasping the key issues There is little evidence of development of ideas and critical analysis is very limited. The presentation is confused and lacks coherence. Your work does not meet the learning outcomes/assessment criteria.

 

0-35

 

Very poor

Your work demonstrates no real knowledge of the subject area and

does not display the critical ability required at this level. Your work does not attempt to address the learning outcomes/assessment criteria adequately.

 

 

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions