Workbook Task Description 2015

ST01: SEB104 Assessment Task

Description: Workbook
Task

Workbook

Unit Learning
Outcomes
Addressed

On completion of this unit you should be able to:

1. Apply principles of independent and teamwork including demonstration of

roles within a multi-disciplinary teams and awareness inter-cultural factors.

2. Collect, record, analyse and interpret information based on source and

perspective, and form educated judgments of their scientific merit.

3. Synthesise knowledge to produce arguments which draw on multiple

scientific perspectives and apply the written and visual conventions of

science to communicate scientific concepts to scientific peer groups
and/or the broader community.
Due Dates

Scientist recorded interview: Beginning from Week 3 in workshop time

Annotated bibliography: Week 5, 5pm Monday 23rd March
Reflections on group work/peer assessment: Week 9, 5pm Friday 1st May

Marks

30% of total mark for the unit comprising 10 % for each of the three items listed.
Individual Assessment.

Specifications

Collection of written and recorded works

Overview

Throughout the semester you will build a collection of three specific work items as described below,
which constitute your workbook. The workbook will provide evidence of your writing ability, as well as
your ability to reflect critically upon the concepts and ideas covered in this unit.
What you will do
It is important that you attend each workshop and complete the tasks assigned to you each week.
You are advised to keep a logbook that will document your progress in developing group work
capabilities, as well as information retrieval, organisation and presentation skills. You may be
required to produce this as evidence supporting claims that you make in your critical reflection. For
your workbook assessment tasks you will:
1.

Conduct and record a short (~10 minute) interview with a scientist. You must obtain the
scientists permission to record the interview and replay it to a small group of your peers. This
interview is to be arranged by you and should involve a scientist who is active in research,
such as one of the 350 academic staff, or 900+ postgraduate research students enrolled in
the Faculty. The purpose of your interview is to understand why your scientist is working on
their particular topic. Do not explore the technical details, but ask them to discuss the social,
political, ethical or legal implications of their research and whether these affect their
decisions. Play your recording to your group at one of the assigned workshops and be
prepared to critically analyse the interviews recorded by your team members. Hint: The QUT
website is a good place to start.

2.

In the annotated bibliography you will record and augment your reading around your

Criteria and Standards for Grading Assessment Item 3 - Individual

Workbook Task Description 2015

chosen challenge/problem. This assessment provides the opportunity to seek formal

feedback on your approach to your poster and scientific report, and will also be assessed as
part of your workbook. For the annotated bibliography you will:
a. Conduct research to find at least ten (10) relevant information sources. This may
include government reports, industry or associated reports, reputable web sites
and at least 6 peer reviewed journal articles that relate to your problem or solution.
b. Read each source and critically analyse the arguments or research presented and
evaluate how this is useful to you in preparing your poster or writing your research
paper.
c. Create an annotated bibliography using ten of your most relevant sources
including at least 6 peer reviewed journal articles. Each entry in your annotated
bibliography should include an accurate citation for the reference using QUT APA
format or similar, a brief summary of the article (2-3 sentences) and an evaluation
of the article and its relevance or value to your research paper (1-2 sentences).
d. Submit your annotated bibliography via Blackboard
3.

Write a critical reflection (1 to 3 pages max) on the way in which your group has functioned
during the semester (good and/or bad). You will be required to provide the following items as
evidence of your claims (not included in the 3 page limit):
a. Your group contract
b. Some meeting agendas and minutes that document your group processes and
procedures. Your GoingOK summary would be useful here.
c. Any peer review items you have received on your poster or scientist interview.
Note this should not be an exercise in character assassination, but may include a reflection
on the strengths and weaknesses of your group members and their contributions. If you are
disappointed with the performance of a group member it is important to document why you
think that person struggled to contribute, what you did about it, whether this worked or not
and what you could do differently next time.
You should also describe how the group functioned as a whole, how you communicated, how
often you met, the level of attendance at meetings, and whether the meetings were effective
or not. Again, if your group did not function well explain why, what you tried and what you
didnt try but might try in the future.
What you will submit

Interview with a Scientist:

1. A recorded interview with a scientist: this will be presented and marked during a workshop
you do not need to submit this again at end of semester
Annotated Bibliography:
2. An annotated bibliography submitted via BB in week 5 (.doc., .docx or .pdf file format)
Reflection on group work:
3. A summary of your reflections on the process of group work experienced during the semester
and any relevant supporting documentation. Submitted via BB.
Resources and Useful References
1. Blackboard Folder/Workshop activities
2. Google Sites
3. Library guide

Criteria and Standards for Grading Assessment Item 3 - Individual

Workbook Task Description 2015

Criteria and Standards for Grading Interview with a scientist

Criteria
Playback of recording

Standards
Interview recording replayed to group with few technical
problems and on agreed date
Interview not conducted, or interviewer fails to produce
recording on agreed date, or interviewer fails to ensure
that equipment required for playback is suitable and
functioning correctly on the day

Total mark

Possible
marks

Your
Mark

100

100

Criteria and Standards for Annotated Bibliography

Criteria

Standards

Use of relevant and

current reputable
sources of information
and peer reviewed
journal articles
(minimum of 6)

Annotation of sources

Presentation

Uses 10 reputable sources, including at least 6 peer

reviewed journal articles that are highly relevant to the
chosen topic
Presents 10 articles from mostly reputable sources,
including at least 5 peer reviewed journal articles that are
somewhat relevant to the chosen topic.
Fewer than 10 articles, from poorly chosen sources, with
less than 5 peer reviewed journal articles.
Accurately and succinctly paraphrases the thesis or key
points of the source and the supporting arguments.
Succinctly paraphrases the thesis or key points of the
source and the supporting arguments, with some errors.
Fails to summarise the key points of the source or the
supporting arguments
Well-structured and organised; framework appropriate for
a scientific presentation, consistent referencing style.

40

Satisfactory structure and level of organisation.

10

Poorly organised and presented.

0
100

Total mark

Possible
marks

Criteria and Standards for Grading Assessment Item 3 - Individual

20
0
40
20
0
20

Your
mark

Workbook Task Description 2015

Criteria and Standards for Grading Reflection on group work
Criteria
Description of
events

Refection on
effectiveness of
group work
strategies

Supporting
documentation

Standards
Clear and concise description of selected events, why the events
were relevant, what caused individuals to behave in certain ways,
what impact this had on the groups ability to complete its tasks
and what was done to try to correct or improve things.

40

Description of events with limited insight into behaviour and/or

some lack of detail around impact or actions taken.

30

Purely descriptive, outlining behaviours with little or no insight,

and/or lacking in description of actions or impact.

20

Excessively long or short submission lacking in detail, clarity or

relevance.

10

No attempt to document or understand group behaviours.

Critical analysis of the strategies used to maximise group

effectiveness, or improve poor performance, with a clear
indication of whether or how well these strategies worked, plus
clear suggestions on how to improve group work in the future.

30

Some statement on the effectiveness of the strategies used, but

lacking in ideas for future improvements.

20

No evaluation of the strategies used and no suggestions for future

improvements.

(May include group contract, meeting minutes and agendas,

written peer feedback, self-assessment of group roles)
3 relevant documents submitted

30

2 relevant documents submitted

20

1 relevant document submitted

10

0 relevant documents submitted

Total mark

Possible
marks

Criteria and Standards for Grading Assessment Item 3 - Individual

100

Your
Mark