|
Short introduction to the task:
|
Assessment
|
|
Component form
(eg. Essay or Online test)
|
Magnitude
(eg. 2,000 words
or 2 hours)
|
Weighting
and/or
Pass/Fail
|
Assessment Deadline
|
Feedback Date
|
Objective(s) assessed
(eg. 1, 2)
|
|
Portfolio Parts 3 & 4
|
2,000 words
|
50%
|
|
15 days after submission
|
1,3
|
Portfolio
Portfolio part 3
Firstly, you are asked to undertake a literature review of multi-agency working concentrating on either vulnerable children or vulnerable adults. For this you will gather a number of articles and review these looking for any themes that occur in them or differences of opinion, you will conclude the work by drawing together the main points for leaders and managers to be aware of.
Portfolio part 4
This section is a learning evaluation, this will be in the form of a reflection, using a reflective model you will review the learning across the module and highlight your main learning and discuss this.
The word limit is 2,000 for this component you MAY wish to utilise 1,500 for the literature review and 500 for the reflection on learning. This are simply a guideline, and you may find you decide to use more or less for any given section.
|
Key Resources:
Essential Reading
Dacre-Pool, L. and Qualter, P. (2018) An introduction to emotional intelligence. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Dickinson, H. and Carey, G. (2016) Managing and leading in inter-agency settings. 2nd ed. Bristol: Policy Press.
Frost, N. and Robinson, M. (Eds) (2016) Developing multi-professional teamwork for integrated children’s services. 3rd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Iszatt-White, M. and Saunders, C. (2020) Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Northhouse, PG. (2019) Leadership: theory and practice. 8th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE
Prosser, S. (2018) Effective people: leadership and organisation development in healthcare. Boca Raton: CRC Press
Further Reading
Manangariva, S. Ward, D. Randhawa, M. Edge, R. (2018) Leadership in today’s NHS (National Health Service): Delivering the impossible. The King’s Fund & NHS Providers. Available from: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-07/Leadership_in_todays_NHS.pdf
Cooper, C. and Hesketh, I. (2017) Managing health and wellbeing in the public sector: a guide to best practice. London: Routledge.
Daft, RL. (2015) Organization theory and design. Boston: Cengage.
Department of Health and Social Care. (2018) Empowering NHS leaders to lead – Sir Ron Kerr. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sir-ron-kerr-review-empowering-nhs-leaders-to-lead
Northhouse, PG. (2015) Introduction to leadership: concepts and practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, California: SAGE
Thompson, K. (2016) Strengthening child protection: sharing information in multi-agency settings. Bristol: Policy Press.
Timmins, N. (2019) Leading for Integrated Care: if you think competition is hard, you should try collaboration. The King’s Fund Available from: (https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/leading-integrated-care
Thornton, G. Mansi, V. Carramenha, B. Cappellano, T. (Eds) (2018) Strategic employee communication: building a culture of engagement. Basingstoke, Hampshire.
Walker, G. (2018) Working together for children: a critical introduction to multi-agency working. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Wate, R. and Boulton, n. (2015) multi-agency safeguarding in a public protection world: a handbook for protecting children and vulnerable adults. Hove: Pavillion Publishing.
Journals
Healthcare Leadership Review
Journal of Healthcare Leadership
Journal of Leadership Studies
Leadership Excellence
Leadership in Health Services
Websites
www.kingsfund.org.uk/
www.cqc.org.uk/
www.gov.uk/
www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk
www.skillsforcare.org.uk/
www.open.ac.uk/
www.scie.org.uk/
|
Template
Portfolio part 3: GUIDE: 1,500 words
This will be a literature review of multi-agency work based on a selected group (either vulnerable children or adults).
You will be asked to select ONE ‘group’ that you want to base your literature on, this should be based on your experience or your interest area. The topic is multi-agency working, so you will need to do a literature search of the databases looking for the most recent articles you can find on the subject.
You will then present the most relevant ones, the aim being to allow the reader to understand the subject matter and the papers you have chosen. The piece of work should be split into the following sections:
Introduction – Here you will say what this section of the portfolio aims to do. It should state the type of research that you are doing (a literature review) and the aims of it. You will need statistics to support this and these should support your choice – you will need to justify WHY you have chosen this are to research. 150 words (guide)
Literature Review – You may find you want to split your review into themes. You will have received lessons on thematic analysis, and you should also perform research as to the methods on how to do this. You are not required to write a methodology.
There does need to be a purpose to your literature review, so you may want to think that you are arguing a case for multi-agency working, or you may prefer to look at the issues with multi-agency working; this will help you concentrate your literature to be more manageable.
When you conduct your search, you should choose between 3-7 articles, and consider the six steps as detailed in the evidence. Please make sure that you help the reader understand the reliability of the article/information you are citing, as well as helping them understand the main points of the literature. You may wish to do this in a table and include in the appendix? Please use the articles on Moodle to support the six-stage process and guide you. 1000 words (guide)
Conclusion – Here you should draw your conclusion what have you found out and what can you recommend?
Portfolio part 4: GUIDE: 500 words
Learning Evaluation
This should be a reflection on your learning throughout this module and your own development of leadership and team working skills.
Please use either Gibbs (1998) or Rolfe et al (2001) as a template.
  Your work should consider the impact that these lessons have had on your learning and on how you act (or may act) in different scenarios. You may have developed your communication skills or enhanced your awareness of collaboration. The piece may also detail where you need to improve for the future, you may wish to set out a plan on how you will do this, this can be included in the appendix if you wish.
|
|
Rubric used to mark:
|
Classification:
Criterion:
|
Exceptional 1st
100, 95
|
Outstanding 1st
85
|
1st
75
|
2.1
68, 65, 62
|
2.2
58, 55, 52
|
3
48, 45, 42
|
Fail
38, 35, 32
|
Abject Fail
25, 20, 10, 0
|
|
Knowledge and Understanding
|
Polished grasp of subject. Astute and authoritative approach to complexity.
|
Comprehensive and confident grasp with strong sense of subject complexity.
|
Thorough understanding evident and well applied to specific assessment task.
|
Secure, general understanding and reasonable application to assessment task.
|
Sound knowledge relevant to the assessment task.
|
Limited knowledge shows basic understanding. Some awareness of the context of the assessment task.
|
Faulty understanding of assessment task or concepts. Irrelevant or mostly absent content.
|
No understanding of assessment task or concepts. Irrelevant or absent content.
|
|
Structure and Argument
|
Effective and integrated over-arching argument or structure, clear, insightful synthesis. Highly creative understanding of topic.
|
Effective overall argument with clear and insightful connections between claims. Creative understanding of topic.
|
Clear and logical focus and direction with valuable connections made between claims. Good level of creativity.
|
Well-focused on the question with some clear connections made between claims and some overall direction. Some creativity.
|
Addresses the topic with some direction and makes some connections between claims or different parts of artefact/assignment.
|
Argument is weak and difficult to detect. Connections made between statements limited
|
Lack of argument. Faulty connection between statements.
|
No argument. Many faulty connections between statements.
|
|
Analysis and Conclusions
|
Original and searching analysis, critical appraisal of task and judicious conclusions.
|
Searching analysis with pertinent conclusions drawn.
|
Insightful analysis throughout with appropriate conclusions drawn.
|
Strong analysis of salient illustrative examples. Some general conclusions drawn.
|
Some conclusions drawn based on some reasonable comparisons and examples.
|
Basic analysis. Remains descriptive, little evaluation or comparison. Few clear conclusions.
|
Insufficient evaluation or attempt to make comparisons. Conclusions illogical insufficient.
|
No evaluation or attempt to make comparisons. Conclusions illogical or absent.
|
|
Sources & Evidence
|
Extensive and evaluative use of evidential support for argument.
|
Extensive use of evidence with some evaluation.
|
Clear support of argument with well selected evidence.
|
Draws on relevant independent sources and evidence to support claims.
|
Makes simple use of evidence from recommended sources.
|
Relies on superficial statements with little supporting evidence.
|
Lack of evidence or relevant sources.
|
No evidence or relevant sources.
|
|
Adherence to Referencing Conventions, Technical Skills
|
Flawless referencing or technical skills.
|
Flawless referencing or technical skills.
|
Excellent referencing or technical skills.
|
Consistent and accurate referencing or technical skills.
|
Largely consistent accurate referencing or technical skills.
|
Limited referencing/ adherence to convention or technical skills.
|
Inadequate referencing or technical skills.
|
Inadequate or no referencing or technical skills.
|
|
Written/Visual/ Oral
Style & Clarity
|
Professional and sophisticated with exceptional clarity and coherence. Excellent, controlled, confident delivery, pace, and audience engagement.
|
Professional and fluent with great clarity and coherence. Confident delivery, pace and audience engagement.
|
Fluent and accurate with great clarity and coherence. Mostly confident delivery, pace and audience engagement.
|
Clear and coherent. Good delivery, pace and audience engagement
|
Some lapses of clarity. Some expression is ineffective. Satisfactory delivery, pace and audience engagement
|
Adequate, but awkward expression throughout with little clarity. Poor delivery, pace and audience engagement
|
Inadequate and unclear presentation. Impaired communication. Error-strewn.
|
Grossly inadequate and unclear presentation. Severely impaired communication.
Error-strewn.
|
85-100%
Knowledge and Understanding
- Exceptional comprehension of the implications of the question and critical understanding of the theoretical and methodological issues for this level
- Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate and exceptionally sophisticated usage.
Argument
- A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and well-supported
- Evidence of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the question’
- Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument; demonstrates the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline
Presentation
- Extremely well presented: no grammatical or spelling errors; written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary referencing and bibliographic formatting.
75%
Thank you for submitting this piece of work, your knowledge is clear and application has begun to shine in places. This is not just apparent in the topics but, also in the literature review.
Knowledge and Understanding
Excellent knowledge seen in areas and a clear understanding of the subject. You have shown direct understanding of theoretical however I would have liked to have seen deeper methodological issues highlighted.
Your technical vocabulary, where appropriate is at times accurate and sophisticated usage however this is not on all occasions. Please consider referring yourself to academic skills and participate in all formative activities to continue to improve in this area.
You demonstrate a coherent argument that is logically structured and supported by evidence. This evidence is of good quality and shows good researching skills.
Your work demonstrates a capacity for intellectual initiative and independent thought. You have an ability to engage with the material critically and successfully.
You show a use of appropriate material from a range of sources extending beyond the reading list – well done!
Some high-quality organisation and style of presentation (including referencing); some grammatical or spelling errors evidenced however this is also written in a fluent and engaging style.
62, 65, 68%
Knowledge and Understanding
- Very good knowledge and understanding of the subject and displays awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological issues
- Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: attempts use, but occasionally without full understanding or success
Argument
- A generally critical, analytical argument that is reasonably well structured and well-supported
- Some critical capacity to see the implications of the question, though not able to ‘see beyond the question’ enough to develop an independent approach
- Some critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of works beyond the prescribed reading list; demonstrating some ability to be selective in the range of material used and to synthesise rather than describe
Presentation
- Well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors; written clearly and concisely; largely consistent referencing and bibliographic formatting.
52, 55, 58%
Knowledge and Understanding
- Good comprehension of the subject, though there may be some errors and/or gaps, and some awareness of underlying theoretical/methodological issues with little understanding of how they relate to the question
- Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: limited, perhaps attempted, but not always successful usage
Argument
- Capacity for argument is limited with a tendency to assert/state opinion rather than argue on the basis of reason and evidence; structure may not be evident
- Tendency to be descriptive rather than critical, but some attempt at analysis
- Some attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the unit; displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and non-relevant material
Presentation
- Adequately presented: writing style conveys meaning but is sometimes awkward; some significant grammatical and spelling errors; inconsistent referencing but generally accurate bibliography.
42, 45, 48%
Knowledge and Understanding
- Limited and/or basic knowledge and understanding with significant errors and omissions and generally ignorant or confused awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues
- Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: little and/or inaccurate usage
Argument
- Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a case; underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but used inappropriately or incorrectly
- Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive description.
- Limited, uncritical, and generally confused account of a narrow range of sources
Presentation
- Satisfactorily presented: but not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and spelling errors; limited attempt at providing references (e.g., only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions.
32, 35, 38%
Knowledge and Understanding
- Shows very limited understanding and knowledge of the subject and/or misses the point of the question
- Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: no usage, or misunderstood
Argument
- Incoherent or illogical structure; evidence used inappropriately or incorrectly.
- Unsatisfactory analytical skills
- Limited, uncritical, and generally confused account of a very narrow range of sources.
Presentation
- Unsatisfactory presentation e.g., not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and spelling errors and limited or no attempt at providing references and containing bibliographic omissions.
0, 10, 20, 25%
Knowledge and Understanding
- Shows little or no knowledge and understanding of the subject, no awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues and/or fails to address the question
- Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: no usage, or fundamentally misunderstood
Argument
- Unsuccessful or no attempt to construct an argument and an incoherent or illogical structure; evidence used inappropriately or incorrectly
- Very poor analytical skills
- Limited, uncritical, and generally confused account of a very narrow range of sources
Presentation
- Very poor quality of presentation and limited or no attempt at providing references and containing bibliographic omissions.
|
