Order now
     

Change Management process.

Referencing: In the main body of your submission you must give credit to authors on whose research your work is based. Append to your submission a reference list that indicates the books, articles, etc. that you have read or quoted in order to complete this assignment (e.g. for books: surname of author and initials, year of publication, title of book, edition, publisher: place of publication).
Disclosure:
I declare that this assignment is all my own work and that I have acknowledged all materials used from the published or unpublished works of other people. All references have been duly cited.
Student’s Signature:
Assignments will not be accepted without a signature here
Date:
Late submission will result in a late penalty mark, as follows:
Up to four weeks late, maximum mark of 40% for first attempts and 0% for resubmissions.
(Academic Quality Handbook 2015/16 7.5 (5))

Learning Outcomes tested
(from module syllabus)

1. Evaluate strategies to implement organisational change initiatives, and tactics to minimise resistance to change.

TASK DESCRIPTION
To achieve the learning outcomes of the module you must complete all tasks below, use only up-to-date and relevant information and submit the assignment in report format. The report should largely adhere to the ’Report format’ guidelines overleaf, and should be approximately 2000 – 2500 words.

It is essential to demonstrate your research activities. Each report section must refer to sources that have contributed to your understanding of the topic (including relevant online sources, articles, books and journals). Give credit to authors on whose work your discussion is based; this avoids plagiarism, and reflects the breadth of your research.
Report structure:
• Title Page: Your name, course name, module name and submission date.
• Table of Contents: including section headings and page numbers.

Change Management

For an Organisation of your choice complete the following tasks:
• Introduce Change Management in relation to an Organisation of your choice.
• Research and review the changing nature of the Organisation and identify internal and external drivers for change.
• Using Lewin’s Force-field Analysis identify forces for and against change.
• Evaluate relevant Change Management theories and strategies that could be used to help reduce resistance and lead to a successful change process.
• Recommend Contemporary Leadership / Management styles that could assist the change process.

Conclusions & Recommendations:

• In your own words summarize and synthesize your research evaluation and identify key-findings.
• Based on your evaluation recommend a Change Management Strategy for the Organisation.

• References: append to your submission a ‘Reference list’ and if appropriate a ‘Bibliography’. Please refer to the ‘Report format guidelines’ below for more information.
• Appendices: relevant supplementary information.

Report format (helpful advice):
A report must convey an impression of professionalism in terms of presentation, layout and grammar. The following points outline some basic report writing considerations:

IMPORTANT Avoiding Plagiarism: It is essential in the main body of your submission to give credit to authors on whose research your work is based.

At this level of education it is ESSENTIAL you demonstrate your research activities. A good submission will cite at least 10 sources including several books and journal papers published within the last 3 years in addition to a variety of up-to-date on-line articles. Example sources:

Articles: www.google.com
Books: http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/library/catalogue/ & books.google.com
Journals: http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/library/catalogue/ & scholar.google.com

Citations: Include citations within your report and append to your submission a ‘References’ list that specifies the books, web sites, journals etc. that you have cited in your report using a standard referencing method e.g.

• Book example:
Main body:
Schwartz [4] states that “information is the life blood of an organisation”.
Or
Schwartz (1997, [4]) states that “information is the life blood of an organisation”.

References list:
[4] Schwartz, E I, Webonomics, London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1997.

• Web example:
Main body: Williams [6] argues that “web standards provide both interoperability”

References: [6] Williams, J (2008) http://www.internet.com/clientside/review.html
Bibliography: Append to your submission a ‘Bibliography’ section that indicates additional sources e.g. books, web sites, journals etc. that you have reviewed and contributed to your understanding of the topic. These sources are not directly cited in the main body of the report.
 Title page: Including author name and affiliation (relationship with project).

 Sections: Ensure a TOC ‘Table of contents’ page is provided at the beginning of the report listing all report sections.

 Numbering: Each report section including main headings and sub-headings should be numbered throughout.
All pages should be numbered, Arabic numerals (1, 2, 3, etc.) on all pages consecutively throughout the text, appendices, and bibliography. All preliminary pages, pages that precede the report such as the TOC should be counted and numbered using lower case roman numerals (i ii iii iv etc.). All page numerals should be centered on each page.

 Consistency: A document is consistent if, for example, it always uses the same type style including face and size for document objects such as headings, sub-headings, references and content text and all lines should have the same spacing etc.

 Grammar: Technical documents use `passive voice’ expressions, for example your report should avoid using the word `I’ as much as possible. Correct spelling &grammar. Word processed, strict word limit.

 Submission: Please submit the assignment in a report folder or simply stapled in one corner – not in poly-pockets. The assignment brief should be the front page of your submission.

GUIDANCE FOR STUDENTS IN THE COMPLETION OF TASKS

You are required to produce a correctly formatted report of approximately 2500 words in length, the main body comprising of the sections outlined in the task description page. An acceptable report format contains a Title Page, Table of Contents, Page Numbers, Numbered Sections and Headings.
It is essential that you demonstrate background research activities and knowledge gained. The report should refer to sources of information that have contributed and enhanced your knowledge and understanding (e.g. online sources, books, journals, articles). The report must include a list of references / bibliography, following the Numeric Referencing System.

You will be assessed against the five common assessment criteria as follows:

1. Research-informed Literature (20%)
Marks will be awarded based on the extent of research and/or own reading, selection of credible sources, application of appropriate referencing conventions.

2. Knowledge and Understanding of Subject (20%)
Marks will be allocated based on the extent of knowledge and understanding of concepts and underlying principles associated with Managing Change for example stimulants/drivers for change (such as technology, nature of the workforce, social trends, competition, etc.) and sources of individual and organisational resistance to change and tactics to overcome the resistance.

3. Analysis (20%)
Marks will be awarded for Analysis, evaluation and synthesis of key-findings.

4. Practical Application and Deployment (30%)
Marks will be awarded based on the deployment of relevant methods, tools and techniques, application of concepts and creative solutions to solve problems for example, planned versus emergent change, Lewin’s force field analysis and three step model, action research, organisational development.

5. Skills for Professional Practice (10%)
Skills for Professional Practice will be assessed based on the written and presentational quality of the report.

MARKING CRITERIA AND STUDENT FEEDBACK
This section details the assessment criteria. The extent to which these are demonstrated by you determines your mark. The marks available for each criterion are shown. Lecturers will use the space provided to comment on the achievement of the task(s), including those areas in which you have performed well and areas that would benefit from development/improvement.

Common Assessment Criteria Applied Marks available Marks
awarded
1. Research-informed Literature
Extent of research and/or own reading, selection of credible sources, application of appropriate referencing conventions.
20
2. Knowledge and Understanding of Subject
Extent of knowledge and understanding of concepts and underlying principles associated with the discipline.
20
3. Analysis
Analysis, evaluation and synthesis; logic, argument and judgement; analytical reflection; organisation of ideas and evidence
20
4. Practical Application and Deployment
Deployment of methods, materials, tools and techniques; application of concepts; formulation of innovative and creative solutions to solve problems.
30
5. Skills for Professional Practice
Attributes in professional practice: individual and collaborative working; deployment of appropriate media; presentation and organisation.

10

Assignment Mark (Assessment marks are subject to ratification at the Exam Board. These comments and marks are to give feedback on module work and are for guidance only until they are confirmed. ) Late Submission Penalties (tick if appropriate) %
Up to four weeks late
First Attempt?
MASTERS COMMON ASSESSMENT AND MARKING CRITERIA
FAIL FAIL SATISFACTORY GOOD VERY GOOD EXCELLENT EXCEPTIONAL
Assessment Criteria FAIL 0-39% FAIL 40-49%* PASS 50-59% PASS 60-69% MERIT 70-79% DIST’ION 80-89% DIST’ION 90-100%
1. Research-informed Literature
Extent of research and/or own reading, selection of credible sources, application of appropriate referencing conventions

Little or no evidence of reading.
Views and findings unsupported and non-authoritative.
Referencing conventions largely ignored. Poor evidence of reading and/or of reliance on inappropriate sources, and/or indiscriminate use of sources.
Referencing conventions used inconsistently. References to a limited range of mostly relevant sources. Some omissions and minor errors.
Referencing conventions evident though not always applied consistently.

Inclusion of a range of research-informed literature, including sources retrieved independently. Referencing conventions mostly consistently applied.

Inclusion of a wide range of research-informed literature, including sources retrieved independently.
Selection of relevant and credible sources. Very good use of referencing conventions, consistently applied. A comprehensive range of research informed literature embedded in the work. Excellent selection of relevant and credible sources. High-level referencing skills, consistently applied.
Outstanding knowledge of research-informed literature embedded in the work. Outstanding selection of relevant and credible sources. High-level referencing skills consistently and professionally applied
2. Knowledge and Understanding of Subject
Extent of systematic knowledge, understanding and critical awareness of concepts and underlying principles associated with the discipline. Major gaps in knowledge and understanding of material at this level. Substantial inaccuracies. Gaps in knowledge, with only superficial understanding. Some significant inaccuracies. Evidence of knowledge and understanding of current and relevant concepts and underlying principles but with some gaps or errors. Knowledge is accurate with a good understanding of the field of study. Knowledge is extensive. Exhibits understanding of the breadth and depth of established and contemporary views. Excellent mastery of a complex and specialised area of knowledge and skills, with an excellent critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights at the forefront of the field. Clear awareness of challenges to established views and the limitations of the knowledge base. Exceptional mastery of a complex and specialised area of knowledge and skills, with an exceptional critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights at the forefront of the field. A critical awareness of the ambiguities and limitations of knowledge.
3. Analysis
Analysis, evaluation and synthesis; logic, argument and judgement; analytical reflection; organisation of ideas and evidence Unsubstantiated generalisations, made without use of any credible evidence. Lack of logic, leading to unsupportable/ missing conclusions. Lack of any attempt to analyse, synthesise or evaluate. Some evidence of analytical intellectual skills, but for the most part descriptive. Ideas/findings sometimes illogical and contradictory. Generalised statements made with scant evidence. Conclusions lack relevance. Evidence of some logical, critical thinking and some attempts to synthesise, albeit with some weaknesses.
Some evidence to support findings/ views, but evidence not consistently interpreted.
Some relevant conclusions and recommendations, where relevant. Evidence of logical, analytical, critical thinking and synthesis. Can analyse new and/or complex data and situations without guidance.
An emerging awareness of different stances and ability to use evidence to support the argument.
Valid conclusions and recommendations, where relevant Evaluates methodologies, current research and ideas critically and, where appropriate, proposes new hypotheses/ideas. Evaluates and synthesises complex issues both systematically and creatively. Makes sound judgements and proposes convincing arguments in the absence of complete data. Sound, convincing conclusions / recommendations. Excellent critical evaluation of methodologies, current research and ideas and, where appropriate, proposes new hypotheses/ ideas. Evaluates and synthesises complex issues systematically and creatively. Makes excellent judgements and proposes convincing arguments in the absence of complete data. Strong, persuasive, conclusions, justifiable recommendations. Work is of conference publishable quality. Exceptional critical evaluation of methodologies, current research and ideas and, where appropriate, proposes new hypotheses/ ideas. Evaluates and synthesises complex issues at a high level of mastery. Makes outstanding judgements and proposes highly convincing arguments in the absence of complete data. Highly persuasive conclusions. Work is of journal publishable quality.
4. Practical Application and Deployment
Effective deployment of appropriate methods, materials, tools and techniques; extent of skill demonstrated in the application of concepts to a variety of processes and/or contexts; formulation of innovative, original and creative solutions to solve problems. Limited or no use of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Little or no appreciation of the context of the application.

Rudimentary application of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques but without consideration and competence. Flawed appreciation of the context of the application.

A satisfactory awareness and mostly appropriate application of well-established methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Some appreciation of the context of the application.
A good and appropriate application of standard methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Good appreciation of the context of the application, with some use of examples, where relevant.
A very good application of a range of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Very good consideration of the context of the application, with perceptive use of examples, where relevant.
Evidence of some originality, innovation and creativity. An advanced application of a range of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
The context of the application is well considered, with extensive use of relevant examples.
Application and deployment extend beyond established conventions. Originality, innovation and/or creativity evident throughout. Outstanding levels of application and deployment skills. Assimilation and development of cutting edge processes and techniques.
5. Skills for Professional Practice
Demonstrates attributes expected in professional practice including: individual initiative and collaborative working; deployment of appropriate media to communicate (including written and oral); clarity and effectiveness in presentation and organisation. Communication media is inappropriate or misapplied.
Little or no evidence of autonomy in the completion of tasks.
Work is poorly structured and/or largely incoherent. Media is poorly designed and/or not suitable for the audience.
Poor independent or collaborative initiative.
Work lacks structure, organisation, and/or coherence Can communicate clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences in a suitable format but with some room for improvement.
Can work autonomously and as part of a team, but with limited involvement in group activities.
Work lacks coherence in places and could be better structured. Can communicate effectively in a suitable format, but may have minor errors.
Can work effectively autonomously and as part of a team, with clear contribution to group activities.
Mostly coherent work and is in a suitable structure. Can communicate well, confidently and consistently in a suitable format.
Can work very well autonomously and as part of a team, with very good contribution to group activities.
Work is coherent and fluent and is well structured and organised. Can communicate professionally and, confidently in a suitable format.
Can work professionally autonomously and within a team, showing leadership skills as appropriate, managing conflict and meeting obligations.
Work is coherent, very fluent and is presented professionally. Can communicate with an exceptionally high level of professionalism.
Can work exceptionally well and professionally autonomously and within a team, showing advanced leadership skills.
Work is exceptionally coherent, very fluent and is presented professionally.

BACHELORS COMMON ASSESSMENT AND MARKING CRITERIA
OUTRIGHT FAIL UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD VERY GOOD EXCELLENT EXCEPTIONAL
Assessment Criteria 0-29% 30-39%* 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-100%
1. Research-informed Literature
Extent of research and/or own reading, selection of credible sources, application of appropriate referencing conventions Little or no evidence of reading.
Views and findings unsupported and non-authoritative.
Referencing conventions largely ignored. Poor evidence of reading and/or of reliance on inappropriate sources, and/or indiscriminate use of sources.
Referencing conventions used inconsistently. References to a limited range of mostly relevant sources. Some omissions and minor errors.
Referencing conventions evident though not always applied consistently. Inclusion of a range of research-informed literature, including sources retrieved independently. Referencing conventions mostly consistently applied. Inclusion of a wide range of research-informed literature, including sources retrieved independently.
Selection of relevant and credible sources. Very good use of referencing conventions, consistently applied. A comprehensive range of research informed literature embedded in the work. Excellent selection of relevant and credible sources. High-level referencing skills, consistently applied. Outstanding knowledge of research-informed literature embedded in the work. Outstanding selection of relevant and credible sources. High-level referencing skills consistently and professionally applied.
2. Knowledge and Understanding of Subject
Extent of knowledge and understanding of concepts and underlying principles associated with the discipline. Major gaps in knowledge and understanding of material at this level. Substantial inaccuracies. Gaps in knowledge, with only superficial understanding. Some significant inaccuracies. Evidence of basic knowledge and understanding of the relevant concepts and underlying principles. Knowledge is accurate with a good understanding of the field of study. Knowledge is extensive. Exhibits understanding of the breadth and depth of established views. Excellent knowledge and understanding of the main concepts and key theories. Clear awareness of challenges to established views and the limitations of the knowledge base. Highly detailed knowledge and understanding of the main theories/concepts, and a critical awareness of the ambiguities and limitations of knowledge.
3. Analysis
Analysis, evaluation and synthesis; logic, argument and judgement; analytical reflection; organisation of ideas and evidence Unsubstantiated generalisations, made without use of any credible evidence. Lack of logic, leading to unsupportable/ missing conclusions. Lack of any attempt to analyse, synthesise or evaluate. Some evidence of analytical intellectual skills, but for the most part descriptive. Ideas/findings sometimes illogical and contradictory. Generalised statements made with scant evidence. Conclusions lack relevance. Evidence of some logical, analytical thinking and some attempts to synthesise, albeit with some weaknesses.
Some evidence to support findings/ views, but evidence not consistently interpreted.
Some relevant conclusions and recommendations, where relevant Evidence of some logical, analytical thinking and synthesis. Can analyse new and/or abstract data and situations without guidance.
An emerging awareness of different stances and ability to use evidence to support the argument.
Valid conclusions and recommendations, where relevant Sound, logical, analytical thinking; synthesis and evaluation. Ability to devise and sustain persuasive arguments, and to review the reliability, validity & significance of evidence. Ability to communicate ideas and evidence accurately and convincingly.
Sound, convincing conclusions / recommendations. Thoroughly logical work, supported by evaluated evidence. High quality analysis, developed independently or through effective collaboration.
Ability to investigate contradictory information and identify reasons for contradictions.
Strong, persuasive, conclusions, justifiable recommendations. Exceptional work; judiciously selected and evaluated evidence. Very high quality analysis, developed independently or through effective collaboration.
Ability to investigate contradictory information and identify reasons for contradictions.
Highly persuasive conclusions
4. Practical Application and Deployment
Effective deployment of appropriate methods, materials, tools and techniques; extent of skill demonstrated in the application of concepts to a variety of processes and/or contexts; formulation of innovative and creative solutions to solve problems. Limited or no use of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Little or no appreciation of the context of the application. Rudimentary application of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques but without consideration and competence. Flawed appreciation of the context of the application.

An adequate awareness and mostly appropriate application of well-established methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Basic appreciation of the context of the application.
A good and appropriate application of standard methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Good appreciation of the context of the application, with some use of examples, where relevant.
A very good application of a range of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Very good consideration of the context of the application, with perceptive use of examples, where relevant.
Evidence of some innovation and creativity. An advanced application of a range of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
The context of the application is well considered, with extensive use of relevant examples.
Application and deployment extend beyond established conventions. Innovation and creativity evident throughout. Outstanding levels of application and deployment skills. Assimilation and development of cutting edge processes and techniques.
5. Skills for Professional Practice
Demonstrates attributes expected in professional practice including: individual initiative and collaborative working; deployment of appropriate media to communicate (including written and oral); clarity and effectiveness in presentation and organisation. Communication media is inappropriate or misapplied.
Little or no evidence of autonomy in the completion of tasks.
Work is poorly structured and/or largely incoherent. Media is poorly designed and/or not suitable for the audience.
Poor independent or collaborative initiative.
Work lacks structure, organisation, and/or coherence Can communicate in a suitable format but with some room for improvement.
Can work as part of a team, but with limited involvement in group activities.
Work lacks coherence in places and could be better structured. Can communicate effectively in a suitable format, but may have minor errors.
Can work effectively as part of a team, with clear contribution to group activities.
Mostly coherent work and is in a suitable structure. Can communicate well, confidently and consistently in a suitable format.
Can work very well as part of a team, with very good contribution to group activities.
Work is coherent and fluent and is well structured and organised. Can communicate professionally and, confidently in a suitable format.
Can work professionally within a team, showing leadership skills as appropriate, managing conflict and meeting obligations.
Work is coherent, very fluent and is presented professionally. Can communicate with an exceptionally high level of professionalism.
Can work exceptionally well and professionally within a team, showing advanced leadership skills.
Work is exceptionally coherent, very fluent and is presented professionally.

FdSc & HN COMMON ASSESSMENT AND MARKING CRITERIA
OUTRIGHT FAIL UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD VERY GOOD EXCELLENT EXCEPTIONAL
Assessment Criteria REFER (equivalent to 0-29% REFER (equivalent to 30-39%* PASS (equivalent to 40-49%) PASS (equivalent to 50-59%) MERIT (equivalent to 60-69% DISTINCTION (equivalent to 70-79% DISTINCTION (equivalent to 80-100%
1. Research-informed Literature
Extent of research and/or own reading, selection of credible sources, application of appropriate referencing conventions Little or no evidence of reading.
Views and findings unsupported and non-authoritative.
Referencing conventions largely ignored. Poor evidence of reading and/or of reliance on inappropriate sources, and/or indiscriminate use of sources.
Referencing conventions used inconsistently. References to a limited range of mostly relevant sources. Some omissions and minor errors.
Referencing conventions evident though not always applied consistently. Inclusion of a range of research-informed literature, including sources retrieved independently. Referencing conventions mostly consistently applied. Inclusion of a wide range of research-informed literature, including sources retrieved independently.
Selection of relevant and credible sources. Very good use of referencing conventions, consistently applied. A comprehensive range of research informed literature embedded in the work. Excellent selection of relevant and credible sources. High-level referencing skills, consistently applied. Outstanding knowledge of research-informed literature embedded in the work. Outstanding selection of relevant and credible sources. High-level referencing skills consistently and professionally applied.
2. Knowledge and Understanding of Subject
Extent of knowledge and understanding of concepts and underlying principles associated with the discipline. Major gaps in knowledge and understanding of material at this level. Substantial inaccuracies. Gaps in knowledge, with only superficial understanding. Some significant inaccuracies. Evidence of basic knowledge and understanding of the relevant concepts and underlying principles. Knowledge is accurate with a good understanding of the field of study. Knowledge is extensive. Exhibits understanding of the breadth and depth of established views. Excellent knowledge and understanding of the main concepts and key theories. Clear awareness of challenges to established views and the limitations of the knowledge base. Highly detailed knowledge and understanding of the main theories/concepts, and a critical awareness of the ambiguities and limitations of knowledge.
3. Analysis
Analysis, evaluation and synthesis; logic, argument and judgement; analytical reflection; organisation of ideas and evidence Unsubstantiated generalisations, made without use of any credible evidence. Lack of logic, leading to unsupportable/ missing conclusions. Lack of any attempt to analyse, synthesise or evaluate. Some evidence of analytical intellectual skills, but for the most part descriptive. Ideas/findings sometimes illogical and contradictory. Generalised statements made with scant evidence. Conclusions lack relevance. Evidence of some logical, analytical thinking and some attempts to synthesise, albeit with some weaknesses.
Some evidence to support findings/ views, but evidence not consistently interpreted.
Some relevant conclusions and recommendations, where relevant Evidence of some logical, analytical thinking and synthesis. Can analyse new and/or abstract data and situations without guidance.
An emerging awareness of different stances and ability to use evidence to support the argument.
Valid conclusions and recommendations, where relevant Sound, logical, analytical thinking; synthesis and evaluation. Ability to devise and sustain persuasive arguments, and to review the reliability, validity & significance of evidence. Ability to communicate ideas and evidence accurately and convincingly.
Sound, convincing conclusions / recommendations. Thoroughly logical work, supported by evaluated evidence. High quality analysis, developed independently or through effective collaboration.
Ability to investigate contradictory information and identify reasons for contradictions.
Strong, persuasive, conclusions, justifiable recommendations. Exceptional work; judiciously selected and evaluated evidence. Very high quality analysis, developed independently or through effective collaboration.
Ability to investigate contradictory information and identify reasons for contradictions.
Highly persuasive conclusions
4. Practical Application and Deployment
Effective deployment of appropriate methods, materials, tools and techniques; extent of skill demonstrated in the application of concepts to a variety of processes and/or contexts; formulation of innovative and creative solutions to solve problems. Limited or no use of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Little or no appreciation of the context of the application. Rudimentary application of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques but without consideration and competence. Flawed appreciation of the context of the application.

An adequate awareness and mostly appropriate application of well-established methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Basic appreciation of the context of the application.
A good and appropriate application of standard methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Good appreciation of the context of the application, with some use of examples, where relevant.
A very good application of a range of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
Very good consideration of the context of the application, with perceptive use of examples, where relevant.
Evidence of some innovation and creativity. An advanced application of a range of methods, materials, tools and/or techniques.
The context of the application is well considered, with extensive use of relevant examples.
Application and deployment extend beyond established conventions. Innovation and creativity evident throughout. Outstanding levels of application and deployment skills. Assimilation and development of cutting edge processes and techniques.
5. Skills for Professional Practice
Demonstrates attributes expected in professional practice including: individual initiative and collaborative working; deployment of appropriate media to communicate (including written and oral); clarity and effectiveness in presentation and organisation. Communication media is inappropriate or misapplied.
Little or no evidence of autonomy in the completion of tasks.
Work is poorly structured and/or largely incoherent. Media is poorly designed and/or not suitable for the audience.
Poor independent or collaborative initiative.
Work lacks structure, organisation, and/or coherence Can communicate in a suitable format but with some room for improvement.
Can work as part of a team, but with limited involvement in group activities.
Work lacks coherence in places and could be better structured. Can communicate effectively in a suitable format, but may have minor errors.
Can work effectively as part of a team, with clear contribution to group activities.
Mostly coherent work and is in a suitable structure. Can communicate well, confidently and consistently in a suitable format.
Can work very well as part of a team, with very good contribution to group activities.
Work is coherent and fluent and is well structured and organised. Can communicate professionally and, confidently in a suitable format.
Can work professionally within a team, showing leadership skills as appropriate, managing conflict and meeting obligations.
Work is coherent, very fluent and is presented professionally. Can communicate with an exceptionally high level of professionalism.
Can work exceptionally well and professionally within a team, showing advanced leadership skills.
Work is exceptionally coherent, very fluent and is presented professionally.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!

Place a similar order with us or any form of academic custom essays related subject and it will be delivered within its deadline. All assignments are written from scratch based on the instructions which you will provide to ensure it is original and not plagiarized. Kindly use the calculator below to get your order cost; Do not hesitate to contact our support staff if you need any clarifications.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page:
 Total:

Whatever level of paper you need – college, university, research paper, term paper or just a high school paper, you can safely place an order.