Assessment 1
Worth: 30%
Due: Thursday 11 April 2024 11.59 PM (AWST)
Length: 1800-2000 words
Overview
One of the challenges in leading for health is the complex, adaptive nature of the system in which we are trying to affect change. This assessment is a case study analysis of leadership styles and perspectives. We want you to imagine that you are a Chief Executive Officer in a medium sized hospital (200 beds) that offers a range of services, including day procedures and general surgical. Over recent months, evidence has emerged that the hospital is not performing as intended, with conflict occurring between managers and significant staff turnover, as well as increased medical errors. Drawing on published literature, compare and contrast different styles and definitions of leadership, and how they would seek to address these kinds of problems described in the case study.
The aim of this assessment is to provide a summary and critical analysis of the literature to demonstrate current knowledge and understanding of a topic, and is to be presented in an essay format. (see https://libguides.library.curtin.edu.au/uniskills/assignment-skills/writing/essays) for further guidance on essay writing). The assessment will be marked using the rubric provided in this document.
Your Assessment should include the following sections, however please use subheadings where appropriate.
• Introduction
• Discussion
• Conclusion
General instructions
• Arial font, size 11
• Include a cover page, plagiarism declaration, contents page and reference list (as per the Guide to Assessment Presentation) • Use numbered headings
• Please submit as one document
• Use your Student number, surname and ref assessment number in the title when saving the file: i.e. 536251JCAMPBELLA1
References
• You should demonstrate a good grasp of the relevant literature and contemporary issues. This will require you to read widely.
• At least 15 peer reviewed references should be evident.
• Make judicious use of government reports and other non- peer reviewed literature.
Weight 80% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 50%
• Excels in responding to assignment, and demonstrates mastery of course concepts and materials
• Thesis presents a clear, focused, and compelling argument
• Paper recognizes the strengths, weaknesses and complexities of its argument throughout the analysis • Responds appropriately to the assignment, demonstrates clear understanding of course concepts and materials
• Good argument, clearly articulated in paper, though might need refining
• Begins to acknowledge the complexities of its argument • Doesn’t fully respond to the assignment, demonstrates some basic understanding course concepts and materials
• Paper has a weak argument, thesis is too general
• Fails to acknowledge other views • Doesn’t respond appropriately to the assignment, disconnected from course concepts and materials
• Argument is unclear, thesis is weak
• Thesis too vague or general to be nuanced or complicated • Does not respond to the assignment, displays no familiarity with course concepts or materials
• No identifiable argument or thesis
• Argument is thoroughly supported by strong, specific, and appropriate evidence from peer reviewed literature.
• Evidence is clearly introduced, analyzed and connected to the argument • Paper’s argument is supported in the most part by relevant peer reviewed literature, although not always.
• Analysis and connection of evidence to the argument needs further development • Paper’s argument is supported by limited peer reviewed evidence that is only occasionally relevant.
• Connections between argument and evidence are somewhat unclear • Peer reviewed evidence is
insufficient, misconstrued or misrepresented
• Unclear connections between evidence and argument • Argument is based on little to no peer reviewed evidence
• Connections between evidence and argument are inconclusive and incorrect.
• Paper flows logically to create a cohesive argument
• Paragraphs clearly guide the reader
through a progression of ideas
• Uses transitional sentences to develop strong relationships between ideas • Generally well-constructed flow of ideas
• Paragraphs are ordered thoughtfully, each paragraph relates to central argument
• Transitional sentences create a logical progression of ideas • Paper jumps from one idea to the next, lacking a clear structure
• Occasional connection of ideas between paragraphs
• Simple sequential rather than transitions based on logic • Paper wanders from one idea to the next, making it difficult to distill the argument
• Limited connection of ideas between paragraphs
• Paragraphs may lack topic sentences or connection of ideas • Lacking organization and coherence
• No connection of ideas between paragraphs
• Disjointed connection of ideas between paragraphs
• Displays a unique critical voice • Style fits the paper’s audience
• Chooses words carefully, for their precise meaning
• Demonstrates thorough and thoughtful editing and revision • Displays a clear critical voice
• Style is conscious of paper’s audience
• Uses words effectively, if too generally at times
• Demonstrates revision and editing • Displays a critical voice that is generic
• Style only occasionally displays awareness of paper’s audience
• Sentence structure and word choice frequently too unfocused, wordy or confusing • Critical voice is unclear
• Style isn’t appropriate for paper’s audience
• Simple, awkward, or monotonous sentence structure and word choices
• Minimal revisions and editing • Lacking critical voice
• Unaware of paper’s audience
• Many awkward sentences and misused words
• No evident revisions or editing
• Almost entirely free of spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors
• All sources are cited correctly and Completely with a consistent referencing style • May contain a few spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors, but they don’t impede understanding
• Sources cited correctly and completely • Several spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors that distract the reader
• Minor citation errors • Contains many spelling, grammar, or punctuation
errors
• Incomplete citations • Pervasive spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors
• Missing citations