Guiding questions:

• Introduction of the main subject/background.
• Possible definitions for terms relating to the questions.
• What will the assignment include and/or leave out (scope)?
• What topics will the assignment discuss, and in what order are they presented?

Guiding questions:

Critical discussion (800 words):

• Critically estimate and evaluate:
• The leadership you will adopt and its characteristics (link the adopted leadership style to the literature).
• What are the actions you will undertake to address these situations?
• Evaluation of the effectiveness of the leadership actions you will implement.

Reflection (700 words):

• How does this experience impact your personality, values and beliefs (i.e., adopted, modified, altered/changed, etc.)?
• The skills and/or strengths you will discover and/or develop.

30 marks

Guiding questions:

• Link back to the themes identified in the introduction.
• A reminder of what you discussed in the assignment.
• A critical summary of the key points.
• Recommendations.

Guiding questions:

• High-quality presentation of the material conforms to academic writing principles and contains minimal sentence construction, grammar, and punctuation errors.
• A logical structure is followed.
• The assignment follows appropriate academic conventions regarding in-text citations and references.

Grading criteria

• Exemplary attainment of all learning outcomes
• Demonstrates an outstanding synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the analysis of key issues in the subject area
• Wide-ranging emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
• Offers an exhaustive exploration of the literature and evidence-base
• The material coveredisaccurate andrelevant
• The argument is highly sophisticated
• The standard writing is refined
• No errors in the use of the specified referencing system
• Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.

• Excellent attainment of all learning outcomes,with some mention exemplary
• standard
• Demonstrates a comprehensive synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the analysis of key issues in the subject area. Wide-ranging emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
• Extends far beyond expected levels of engagement with the literature and evidence-based
• The material coveredisaccurate andrelevant
• The argument is generally very astute
• The standard writing is refined
• No errors in the use of the specified referencing system
• Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.

• Excellent attainment of all learning outcomes
• Demonstrates a thorough synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the analysis of key issues in the subject area
• Strong emphasis on knowledge and ideasthat are at the forefront of the discipline.
• Thorough use of the literature and evidence-based
• The material covered is accurate and relevant
• The argument is persuasive, and they are very perceptive elements
• The standard writing is refined
• No errors in the use of the the specified referencing system
• Well-presented andorganised in an appropriate academic style.

• Good attainment of all learning outcomes
• Demonstrates detailed synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the analysis of key issues in the subject area
• Good emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
• Good consideration of the literature and evidence-based that develops from recommended readings
• The material covered is accurate and relevant
• The argument is persuasive
• The standard writing is refined
• There are errors in the specified referencing system
• Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.

• Adequate attainment of all learning outcomes
• Demonstrates a limited but sufficient synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the analysis of issues in the subject area
• Some emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
• Sufficient consideration of the literature and evidence-based, but little consideration beyond recommended readings
• The material covered is mostly accurateandrelevant
• The argument is straightforward and relatively clear
• The standard writing is well clearand readable, with some sophisticated phrasing
• No errors in the use of the specified referencing system
• Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.

• Meets most, but not all learning outcomes
• Demonstrates limited synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the analysis of key issues in the subject area
• Less than expected emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
• Basic consideration of the literature and evidence-based, but restricted to recommended readings.
• Some inaccuracies or irrelevant materials that suggest confusion and misunderstanding
• The argument is relatively clear, although some elements are difficult to understand
• The standard of writing is well clear and readable but overly simplistic
• Minor errors in the use of the specified referencing system,but meets key principles
• Well-presented and organised in an appropriate academic style.

• Approximately half the learning outcomes are met
• Demonstrates very little synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the analysis of key issues in the subject area
• Little emphasison knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
• Minor consideration of the literature and evidence-based, with inadequate use of recommended reading and no exploration outside that
• Some materials are accurate, but the amount of inaccurate or irrelevant materials indicates an insufficient understanding of key concepts.
• The argument is poorly defined and defended
• The standard of writing is mostlyclear andreadable
• Some errors in the use of the specified referencing system, but meets key principles
• Generally, it is well presented and organised but does not always conform to conventions of academic presentation.

• Most learning outcomes are not met
• Demonstrates no synthesis of varied theoretical positions in the analysis of key issues in the subject area
• Little or no emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
• Superficial consideration of the literature and evidence-base
• There are major inaccuracies or significant amounts of irrelevant material
• The argument is very weak
• The standard of writing is reasonable, and there are very few areas of confusion and/or errors in spelling/grammar
• Attempts to use the specified referencing system. Meets key principles, but there are systematic errors
• Good presentation that may include some organisational errors and/or a tendency not to conform to conventions of academic presentation.

• Does not meet any learning outcomes
• Demonstrates misunderstanding of varied theoretical positions in the analysis of key issues in the subject area
• No emphasis on knowledge and ideas that are at the forefront of the discipline
• No engagement with the literature and evidence-based
• The material covered is inaccurate or irrelevant
• The argument is incoherent
• The standard of writing is acceptable. The structure is reasonable, but there are some areas of confusion and/or some errors in spelling/grammar.
• Attempts to use the specified referencing system, but there are significant errors.
• Acceptable presentation that may include some organisational errors and a tendency not to conform to conventions of academic presentation.