Initial Reflection – 10%Reflective journal entry (1000 word max)

This is a first-person narrative covering major insights, discoveries, and aims arising from 8000 and 8001 within the context of your practice area and with respect to your development as a professional practitioner. Key elements include discussion of what you learnt about yourself and your community (which might be your organisation / place of work, and includes stakeholders).

In addition to and arising from the previous, Initial Reflection must address (a) your learning aims for the course (8002), (b) your self-assessment with respect to collaboration, and (c) an initial statement of problem or opportunity. Discussion of how and why your problem or opportunity has shifted or evolved during the previous period of time would be especially appreciated. You may refer to the Collaboration Assessment Inventory to get you thinking about skills and dispositions toward collaboration.

Consider these provocations to help you reflect:

What were your personal objectives when you started studying the Applied Practice programme? Are your objectives being met? How have they changed? What have been your major learnings? What have you observed about yourself with respect to your approach to study and work? What are your habits, strengths, and limitations? What has / have been the hardest thing(s) to learn, change, or accept for you through, about, and from your study so far, and why? What do you want to learn in this course? How have your perspectives and perceptions changed concerning your area of practice and its opportunities and challenges, and your role in that context? What do you really want to accomplish through conduct of a project for the Applied Practice programme?

Initial Reflection 10% 7 - 10 3 - 7 0 - 3

Personal Learning Journal through 8000 and 8001 and arrival into 8002.

All provocations listed above are written about with detail, completeness, depth, and insight.

Inclusion of additional relevant dimensions.

Ability to show “big picture” (context within which reflections occur and their relevance and interrelationships).

Clear evidence of balanced critical reflection using ample and richly-descriptive evidence and examples from multiple sources

Meets word limit (+ or – 5%).

Most or all of the provocations above are addressed, albeit somewhat basically and at a high level.

Sufficient effort is made to show relevance, draw conclusions, and extend thoughts to implications for practice and professional development.

May go somewhat over or under word limit (+ or – 10%).

Provocations above are not included at all or are covered superficially.

Little evidence is provided. Examples lack detail and specificity.

Writing sounds like unfounded opinion, or is biased, unbalanced, and uncritical.

Implications are not discussed.

Word limit seriously breached (much too much or much too little ( >10%)).

Evolution of issue and perspective

Research Question and / or proposed project topic or focus are clearly, specifically, and compellingly described and justified with respect to demonstrated understanding of context, stakeholder needs and values, personal objectives and ambitions.

Student clearly describes the genesis and evolution of a stated Research Question or potential focus for a project in his or her practice area, and explains how the previous courses (8000 and 8001) and / or other circumstances have influenced understanding of the practice area in question and its context, and shaped the Research Question or topic.

Focus and direction are brought to how the present course (and subsequent project) may be used to attain further clarity on the area of practice and one or more problems or opportunities residing in that context.

A basic preliminary Research Question or potential project is identified, along with a modest level of detail regarding how and why it was formulated and / or how it has evolved over time.

Explanation or characterisation of an evolving Research Question or project topic is provided, but detail is sketchy on how and why it has changed or become more defined.

There is some evidence that student is seeing the problem or opportunity (and related Research Question or project topic) through multiple perspectives and different lenses (not merely his or her own).

Little definition, focus, or explanation is provided concerning a potential Research Question or project.

A potential Research Question or project topic is identified but no detail is provided on how it was derived or little justification for it is added.

Little to no detail is provided concerning problems and opportunities within student’s area of practice or how his or her perspectives or perceptions on that area of practice or its context have evolved.

Where insights and observations characterise the practice context and potential Research Questions or project focuses, perspectives and perceptions are decidedly individualistic, biased, or subjective, rather than informed by or considering other views.

Critical Awareness of Context

Presented is a thorough, balanced, critical, and convincing depiction of the practice context.

The “practice” in and for which the project will ultimately be conducted is explained, as is the student’s professional role within it.

Contextual features and circumstances are described, including strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats within the practice area or posed to it by the environment.

Respective stakeholders and stakeholder groups are characterised sufficiently to determine what problems or opportunities might be perceived as most important and how they might need to be approached.

Description of the context leads to a defensible Research Question or project topic.

The practice area and its context / environment are sufficiently described to lend support for the assertion that a particular project or Research Question is justified.

Stakeholders and their various roles and relationships are identified.

Readiness for change is sufficiently assessed,

There is little evidence that the context is understood or has been analysed in any objective way.

Significant features of the practice area and its context have been excluded or only peripherally described.

Description or analysis focus on only one or two dimensions and / or appears biased.

Collaboration Self-Assessment

Student presents a well-rounded, balanced, objective, and well-structured assessment of his or her collaborative skills and dispositions.

Ample examples and other evidence of collaborative style and abilities are included.

Collaborative skills and dispositions are discussed across a diverse range of tasks or situations giving credibility and balance to any assessment.

Students shows appreciation for strengths, habits, and opportunities for development and their implications for study, project, and / or professional practice.

Some relevant skills and dispositions toward collaboration are identified and described in basic or general terms.

Examples and evidence provided but lack detail, specificity, or conviction.

Few examples are provided or provided for a limited range of tasks and situations.

Student shows only a basic appreciation of his or her collaborative skills and dispositions and how they might impact on professional practice or apply to professional development.

There is little indication that student understands collaboration or has any objective idea of his or her collaboration skills or dispositions.

There is little evidence or example provided that inform or affirm any assessment of collaboration, positive or negative.

Examples and other evidence given are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Student emphasises one or a limited range of collaboration skills and dispositions at cost of a more comprehensive and balanced assessment.

There is little to no discussion of implications for practice.

Format

Style, Neatness, Appearance, Punctuation, Grammar, Syntax, Structure / Organisation, Flow

Journal is exceptionally well-structured and presented.

There are few, if any, errors of punctuation, grammar, or spelling.

Organisation of the material makes for an interesting, complete, and convincing story.

Journal is well-structured and presented.

There are some, but mostly minor and not detracting, errors of punctuation, grammar, or spelling.

Organisation is logical for the most part and conveys sensical meaning.

Journal is poorly-structured and presented.

There are many or significant errors in punctuation, grammar, or spelling.

There is little coherence or continuity amongst elements of the reflection. Pieces are not linked and do not reinforce one another.