The purpose of this assessment is to provide the opportunity for students to explore a workplace incident that occurred on placement to provide learning insights about their work, about the management of organisation and people, or about their own values and attitudes.
Workplace incident analysis helps you look beyond the experience of the incident to the meaning of the incident.
A workplace incident is an incident on placement that has significance to you. It can be an event that made you stop and think, or one that raised questions about your organisation, its people or processes, or about your interaction(s) within the organisation. It may have made you question an aspect of your beliefs, values, attitude or behaviour. It is an incident which in some way has had a significant impact on your personal and professional development.
Students will also assess the organisation’s ability to adapt to change and whether the incident has led, or should lead to, change.
This will be assessed via the following:
SCENARIO ANALYSIS (WORKPLACE INCIDENT) – DUE MON BY 11.55PM WK 7
You have progressed in your placement, incidents will have occurred that have had an impact on your personal and professional development. Such incidents represent opportunities for reflection, analysis and learning.
Refer to the framework, instructions and prompt questions below to help explore your chosen incident:
Account of the Workplace Incident – 200 words guide
Provide context for the incident.
When, where, what happened and who was involved? What was your involvement with the incident?
Why was the incident significant to you?
Initial Responses to the Workplace Incident – 200 words guide
What were your thoughts, feelings, concerns at the time of this incident?
What were the responses of other key individuals to this incident? If not known, what do you think these might have been?
Issues/Dilemmas highlighted by this Incident – 200 words guide What practice dilemmas were identified as a result of this incident?
Which values and/or ethical issues are highlighted by this incident?
Are there implications for inter-disciplinary and/or inter-agency collaborations which you have identified as a result of this incident?
Learning and Meaning – 400 words guide
What have you learnt, e.g. about yourself, relationships with others, work tasks, organisational policies and procedures?
What theory (or theories) has (or might have) helped develop your understanding about some aspect of this incident?
What research has (or might have) helped develop your understanding about some aspect of this incident?
How might an understanding of the legislative, organisational and policy contexts explain some aspects associated with this incident?
Outcomes and Actions – 250 words guide
What are your thoughts and reflections now about this incident?
What future learning needs have you identified as a result of this incident? How might this be achieved?
Are there ways in which this incident has led (or might lead to) organisational change? If change is needed but has not occurred yet, how likely is it to occur in future and why?
Readings for the assessment
On the Student Support Centre (SSC) resource page there are a variety of academic resources and tips available to support students with their tasks and activities including reflective writing style.
This assessment is to be written in first person. First person point of view uses pronouns such as ‘I/we’, ‘me/us’, ‘my/mine’, ‘our/ours’. This is a reflective piece of writing therefore first person point of view is the most appropriate form of writing.
Further tips and examples may also be available on Moodle.
No specified reading material. Refer to the relevant class content, readings, theories and concepts from relevant academic units if applicable. Research from reliable academic and industry sources if applicable.
Numerous academic journals and text books can be accessed via MyAthens using your Office365 username and password – https://portal.office.com
Refer to the ICMS Style Guide and (if applicable) APA referencing method to correctly reference material in the body of your report (in-text citations) and in the alphabetical Reference List. See the Student Support Centre (SSC) resource page for guidance.
Grading Criteria / Rubric Please see below
WIL301A: Assessment 2 – Scenario Analysis (Critical Incident) – Marking Rubric
Criteria HD (85-100) D (75-84) CR (65-74) PASS (50-64) FAIL (0-49)
Incident was “real,” substantive, and relevant to the industry experience.
Incident is comprehensively described with context. Rationale for choosing this incident is clearly stated and illustrates complexity of business.
In-depth and reasoned description of thoughts, feelings, concerns relating to incident. Incident was “real” and relevant to the industry experience.
Incident is described and context explained. Rationale for choice of incident is clearly stated.
Detailed description of thoughts, feelings, concerns relating to incident. Incident was “real” and somewhat relevant to the industry experience.
Incident described yet lacks detail. Some identification of context. Rationale appropriate.
Description of either thoughts, feelings, concerns relating to incident. Critical incident lacked substance or relevance, or was unclear.
Incident described in very brief manner. Focus more on student themselves than in describing the incident itself.
Limited description of thoughts, feelings, concerns. Provides little or no introduction or description of the incident.
Incident lacks clarity and context.
Comprehensive identification of the issues and relationships involved in the incident. Perceptive description of the changes occurring and the dynamics of the persons involved. Provides deep, insightful analysis of the situation by way of its subtleties and nuance. Detailed identification of the issues involved in the incident, with insight into the complex relationships present. Able to clearly describe the situation with some nuance. Identification of the issues involved in the incident, yet may lack critical insights into the complex relationships present. Appropriate description of the situation. Provides a description of the incident. Analysis is attempted but lacks logical structure and/or shows limited awareness of the dynamics present in the incident. Description of the incident lacks clarity or is not provided. Analysis of the issues or relationships involved is not attempted or limited.
Evaluation: – Learning
( 30%) Comprehensively identifies factors and forces that emerged and were not anticipated. Clear assessment of one’s
role in critical incident and effectiveness of one’s personal involvement in that incident.
Includes references to business or management themes that relate to the critical incident.
In-depth and highly logical inferences of future learning and organisational change. Detailed assessment of one’s role and effectiveness of one’s personal involvement in incident.
Includes business or management themes that relate to the critical incident.
Detailed inferences of future learning and organisational change. Provides assessment of one’s role and effectiveness of one’s personal involvement in incident.
Some discussion of how theme relates to the critical incident and the practice of business and organisations.
Provides inferences of future learning and organisational change. Assessment of one’s role attempted and can be followed by may lack logical structure and clarity.
Limited inclusion of business or management themes; with limited connection to the critical incident.
Attempt made to describe future learning and organisational change but may lack detail and/or logic. Little or no conclusion provided. Lacking detail as to one’s role. Limited or no attempt to raise business or management themes or address future learning and organisational change.
Presentation and Writing
(20%) Exceptionally well written, logical flow and clearly organised and essentially free from grammar, punctuation and spelling errors. Well written and logically organised with minor errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. Above average writing style and logically organised with some errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. Average and/or casual writing style that is sometimes unclear and/or with some errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. Work may look as though it is in draft form. Poor writing style lacking in clarity with errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling.