6MU010 Assessment 2 2016/17 General information Assessment name Personal Development Planning (PDP) Journal Deadline date 08/05/2017 Tutorials Week 11 and Week 12 Module code and name 6MU010: Employability and Enterprise in Music Learning outcomes addressed LO4 Weighting for this assessment 50% Academic Year 2016-17 Module Leader Dr Aglaia Foteinou Task Personal Development Planning (PDP) Journal Individual Task. You will maintain a Personal Development Planning (PDP) journal PDP is defined as 'a structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon your own learning, performance and/or achievement and to plan for your personal, educational and career development'. You will reflect on lecture activities and document career development tasks such as skills analysis, development planning and career action plan. You will also examine the key qualities of an enterprising musician/ industry practitioner/teacher, thus demonstrating your ability to rationalise the concepts of flexible employment and the characteristics of career resilience in the 21st century. You will receive an individual grade and feedback for this task. Evidence required PDP Journal: 1500 words - Individual submission Large planning and evidence docs to be referenced to appendices which do not affect the word-count. Style and formatting Any written work should use the course style guide/template linked below: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFuiEGM9qmX5qprSrswwqJkELb64fGBB8FqirLlufhs/e dit?usp=sharing It is expected that all work submitted for academic credit will be your own. You will need to make use of the Harvard reference system to distinguish your own ideas from those of others. This includes information gained directly and indirectly. At this level, it is expected that you will use at least 15 relevant references in your report. See the university’s guide to Harvard referencing for more information: http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills-for-learning/referencing/ http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills-for-learning/referencing/harvard-referencing/ The completed written work should be submitted as a Google Drive document, PDF, HTML, RTF or Word file. Other file formats will not be marked. All work should be directly related to the specified task and be easily navigable. Submission details For both assessments, (Group report and PDP Journal), the documents should be submitted via e-Submission on WOLF topic. ● The Group report should be submitted by one member of the group. Please let us know which students you represent. ● The Portfolio is the PDP journal which needs to be submitted individually. Arrangements for feedback Written, verbal, audio and/or video feedback will be given within four working weeks of the deadline. More details will be given in the sessions and shared via WOLF. Assessment criteria The work will be assessed using the criteria detailed below. Grade Description 90–100% Exceptional level of analysis, a mature reflection on the individual roles and responsibilities. Giving an honest with extreme clarity interpretation of the skills and the flexibility to refine them. Clear evidence of understanding of the learning outcomes in the context of the module. 80–89% Demonstrating the ability to reflect the individual roles and responsibilities, giving an honest interpretation of the skills and career development plans. 70–79% Showing a promising desire and ability to reflect on the individual roles and responsibilities and giving an honest interpretation of the skills and career development plans in the context of the module. 60–69% Reflecting directly on the individual roles and responsibilities. All main issues of the task covered, giving a plausible interpretation of the skills and career development plans in the context of the module. 50–59% Acceptable way of reflecting on the individual roles and responsibilities, giving a mostly persuasive interpretation of the skills and career development plans in the context of the module. 40–49%: Pass Meeting the minimum requirement of the task. Reflection on the individual roles and responsibilities, and acceptable interpretation of the skills and career development plans in a basic way. Limited coherence of the structure. 30–39%: Retrievable fail An unsatisfactory PDP. Some learning outcomes not met. Inadequate content with issues not addressed. Inadequate reflection on the individual roles. Incomplete interpretation of the skills and career development plans in the context of the module. 20–29% An unsatisfactory PDP. Little evidence of attempts to engage with module. Not reflecting convincingly on the individual roles. Incoherent interpretation of the skills and career development plans in the context of the module. 10–19% Inadequate PDP. Little attempt to address the assignment brief and has not met learning outcomes. 0–9% No PDP has been provided. No real attempt to address the assignment brief or learning outcomes.