Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T2 2020
Unit Code HI5017
Unit Title Managerial Accounting
Assessment Type Individual Assignment
Assessment Title Reflective Journal
Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping) The purpose of this assessment is to ensure each student is able to provide a critical reflection of their personal learning process, as experienced during this unit (ULO 1).
Weight 10% of the total assessments
Total Marks 10
Word limit 1,000 words. Please use “word count” and include the word count in the assignment cover page.
Due Date Week 11 Monday, 28 September at 11.59 p.m.
Submission Guidelines • All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.
• The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style.
• It is the responsibility of the student who is submitting the work, to ensure that the work is, in fact, her/his own work. Incorporating another’s work or ideas into one’s own work without appropriate acknowledgement is an academic offence. Students should submit all assignments for plagiarism checking on Blackboard before final submission in the subject. For further details, please refer to the Unit Outline and Student Handbook.
HI5017 MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING INDIVIDUAL REFLECTIVE JOURNAL T2 2020
Individual Reflective Journal Specifications Purpose:
The Individual Reflective Journal is to ensure each student is able to provide a critical reflection of their personal learning process, as experienced during this unit. A significant aspect of the reflective journal will be your reflections on what you learnt and experienced from your individual assignment.
1. Reflections on any topics covered in the unit that interests you the most. Why was it interesting and what did you learn from it?
2. Reflections on what you learned from the individual assignment, including the relevance of your chosen costing system to businesses. What insights did you gain and what had you learnt from it?
3. Reflections on your overall research experience from the individual assignment (e.g. looking for journal articles, reading and reviewing the literature etc.) What was enjoyable, what was difficult, and any challenges you experienced?
The reflective journal should include the following components:
a. Assignment Cover Page clearly stating your name and student number
b. Table of contents (optional)
c. A brief introduction or overview of what the assignment is about
d. Body of the assignment with the written answers
There is to be no references provided, as these are your own thoughts, insights and experiences.
Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding Academic Integrity, as Academic Integrity is integral to maintaining academic quality and the reputation of Holmes’ graduates. Accordingly, all assessment tasks need to comply with academic integrity guidelines. Table 1 identifies the six categories of Academic Integrity breaches. If you have any questions about Academic Integrity issues related to your assessment tasks, please consult your lecturer or tutor for relevant referencing guidelines and support resources. Many of these resources can also be found through the Study Sills link on Blackboard.
Academic Integrity breaches are a serious offence punishable by penalties that may range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.
Table 1: Six categories of Academic Integrity breaches
Plagiarism Reproducing the work of someone else without attribution. When a student submits their own work on multiple occasions this is known as self-plagiarism.
Collusion Working with one or more other individuals to complete an assignment, in a way that is not authorised.
Copying Reproducing and submitting the work of another student, with or without their knowledge. If a student fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent their own original work from being copied, this may also be considered an offence.
Impersonation Falsely presenting oneself, or engaging someone else to present as oneself, in an in-person examination.
Contract cheating Contracting a third party to complete an assessment task, generally in exchange for money or other manner of payment.
Data fabrication and falsification Manipulating or inventing data with the intent of supporting false conclusions, including manipulating images.
Source: INQAAHE, 2020
Marking criteria Weighting
1. Reflections on any one topic covered in the unit. 4%
2. Reflections on what you learned from the individual assignment. 3%
3. Reflections on the research experience. 3%
TOTAL Weight 10%
Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Reflections on any one topic covered in the unit (4 marks) (3.6 – 4 marks) Excellent reflections on a topic covered in the unit. (2.9 – 3.5marks) Very good reflections on a topic covered in the unit. (2.1 – 2.8 marks) Good reflections on a topic covered in the unit. (1.6 - 2 marks) Reasonable reflections on a topic covered in the unit. (0 – 1.5 mark) Unable to present a proper reflection on a topic covered in the unit.
Reflections on what you learned from the individual assignment
(3 marks) (2.1 – 3 marks) Excellent reflections on the insights gained from the individual assignment. (1.9 - 2 marks) Very good reflections on the insights gained from the individual assignment (1.6 – 1.8 marks) Good reflections on the insights gained from the individual assignment (1.1 – 1.5marks) Reasonable reflections on the insights gained from the individual assignment (0 - 1 marks) Unable to present a proper reflection on the insights gained from the individual assignment
Reflections on the research experience
(3 marks) (2.1 – 3 marks) Excellent reflections on the research experience. (1.9 - 2 marks) Very good reflections on the research experience. (1.6 – 1.8 marks) Good reflections on the research experience. (1.1 – 1.5marks) Reasonable reflections on the research experience. (0 - 1 marks) Unable to present a proper reflection on the research experience.
Total Marks (10) /10