Plan Makes meaning of the experience and its implication of the future practice Demonstrates plan with a view to improving practice Development gained from the learning process is hardly observed Make entries are mere descriptions of events rather than showing a plan for the future learning Demonstrates no plans for future learning

Evaluate Critical analysis and evaluation of the event; writing demonstrated objectified thinking; evidence of critical analysis and integration of relevant literature Minimal analysis of the event or issue; Contemplation of the event or issue for the purpose of deeper understanding; Integration of evidence based literature and other resources to inform practice Superficial analysis of the event or issue; minimal integration of theory and evidence based literature and other resources basic analysis and/or evaluation of the event; does not employ any critical thinking approach. fails to analyse or evaluate adequately; cannot apply critical thinking approaches

Explore Writing is well-focused; arguments or perspectives are precisely defined and explained Arguments or perspectives are clearly stated; organized flow in writing but not deep enough to be very insightful Arguments or perspectives are vaguely mentioned; the writing lacked an organized flow and the ideas were hard to follow Unclear arguments or perspectives; the writing lacks the original perspectives Do not show any original thinking or perspectives; chaotic in organization and presentation of ideas

Marking criteria for Reflective Journal MARKING CRITERIA Very good Good Average Poor Very poor Description Clear & comprehensive description of an event/issue in a professional matter Clear description of an event/issue in a professional matter with minimal elaboration of a comprehensive nature Includes description of events, and a little further consideration behind the eventsand a little further consideration behind the events Only includes mere descriptions of theoretical knowledge; unclear reflection is demonstrated beyond the descriptions Unclear or disjoint description of the event; no reflection is demonstrated

Mark allocations: Section to be included in the report Description of the section Marks Part A: Reflective journal for five weeks (4*5=20 Marks) Weekly reflective journal Overall quality of reflective journal 1 Technical relevance Depth (technical) of the review presented to the subject matter. 2 Critical reflection Does the report submitted by the student demonstrate reflection? 1 Plagiarism Did the student do any of these without reference and reflection? - Copy from other student(s) - Copy from Internet source/textbook - Copy from other sources -4

Reference style Clear styles with excellent source of references. Clear referencing/ style Generally good referencing/style Unclear referencing/style Lacks consistency with many errors Report structure and report presentation Proper writing. Professionally presented Properly written, with some minor deficiencies Mostly good, but some structure or presentation problems Acceptable presentation Poor structure, careless presentation

Sophistication and effectivity The presented solution demonstrated an extreme degree of sophistication and effective. The presented solution demonstrated a high degree of sophistication and effective. The presented solution demonstrated an average degree of sophistication and effective. The presented solution demonstrated a low degree of sophistication and effective. The presented solution demonstrated a poor degree of sophistication and effective. Explanation All elements are present and well integrated. Components present with good cohesion Components present and mostly well integrated Most components present Lacks structure.

Marking Rubric for Telecommunications Problems Grade Mark HD 80%+ D 70%-79% CR 60%-69% P 50%-59% Fail < 50% Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Evaluation Logic is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments Consistency logical and convincing Mostly consistent and convincing Adequate cohesion and conviction Argument is confused and disjointed

Submission Guidelines • All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page. • The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body) font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings. • Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using APA or IEEE referencing style for School of Business and School of Information Technology and Engineering respectively. Extension • If an extension of time to submit work is required, a Special Consideration Application must be submitted directly to the School's Administration Officer, in Melbourne on Level 6 or in Sydney on Level 7. You must submit this application three working days prior to the due date of the assignment. Further information is available at: http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-procedures-and-guidelines/specialconsiderationdeferment