In this assessment task, you will critically evaluate your proposed technology solutions, focusing on their strengths, challenges and ethical implications. Using a reflective approach, you will continuously enhance your technology capabilities
|
|
ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF |
|
Subject Code and Title |
TED403:
Technology and Education |
|
Assessment Task |
Reflective
essay: Reflect on the impact of your proposed solutions and your evolving
capabilities and attitudes towards technology in education |
|
Individual/Group |
Individual
|
|
Length |
1,500
words (+/- 10%) |
|
Learning Outcomes |
The Subject Learning
Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below
include: a) Critically
reflect on own capabilities, dispositions and experiences around educational
technology. d) Apply high-level research and communication skills to examine the
impact of educational technology. |
|
Submission |
Due
by 11:55 pm AEST end of Wednesday, Module 11 (Week 11) |
|
Weighting |
35% |
|
Total Marks |
100
marks |
Assessment Task
Write a reflective essay drawing on what you have learned so far about educational technology, evaluation of the proposed technology solutions relating to a challenge in a learning community you chose, and the evaluation criteria you created in Assessment 2. Discuss the ethical implications, strengths and challenges of implementing the technology solutions, and reflect on any changes to your capabilities, viewpoints and experiences around technology in education.
Please refer to the Instructions for details on how to complete this task.
Context
In this assessment task, you will critically evaluate your proposed technology solutions, focusing on their strengths, challenges and ethical implications. Using a reflective approach, you will continuously enhance your technology capabilities and viewpoints, enabling you to make informed, evidence-based, ethical decisions for integrating educational technologies in the future.
Instructions
To complete this assessment task, you will follow the steps below.
1) Gather evidence of the effectiveness of your proposed technology solutions in the aspects of ethical implications, strengths and challenges of implementing solutions. The evidence can come from relevant sources, both scholarly (journal articles, books etc.) and nonscholarly (personal blogs, websites etc.).
2) Reflect on your solutions to reveal any changes to your capabilities, viewpoints and experiences around technology in education.
3) Write a reflective essay of 1,500 words (+/- 10%) using the suggested structure below. Headings are not necessary in an essay.
a) Introduction (approx. 150 words): Outline the purpose and structure of your essay.
b) Evaluation (approx. 600 words): Evaluate three main aspects: ethics, strengths and challenges of the implementation. Guiding questions:
− How do the proposed solutions impact stakeholders' privacy, autonomy and rights?
− What ethical implications or considerations arise from your proposed solutions?
− How do you ensure your proposed solutions uphold ethical standards and respect diverse perspectives? What ethical principles do you use?
− What are the main strengths of the proposed solutions?
− What evidence or examples support the strengths of similar technology solutions elsewhere?
− What are the main challenges of implementing the proposed solutions?
− How might resource constraints and/or resistance from stakeholders affect implementation in the learning community?
c) Reflection (approx. 600 words): Reflect on any changes to your capabilities, viewpoints and experiences. Guiding questions:
− What new skills or competencies have you developed through this experience of proposing and evaluating the technology solutions?
− How have these skills enhanced your ability to achieve your goals with educational technology?
− How have your perspectives of educational technology evolved during this experience? What factors influenced these changes in your viewpoint, if any?
What wouldn’t you want to change and why?
− What lessons have you learned from this experience?
− How do you plan to further develop your capabilities based on these reflections?
d) Conclusion (approx. 150 words): Summarise the key points in your essay.
4) Write in the first person. This is about YOU and your evaluation, reflection and interpretation. Try to be as specific as possible, use relevant evidence from the literature to illustrate your points, and try to select examples that enable you to demonstrate your learning against the attributes in the rubric. All other principles of academic writing apply, including acknowledgement of the work of others and avoidance of plagiarism.
Referencing
It is essential that you use current APA style for citing and referencing the sources that you use.
Please see more information on citing and referencing guidelines on the Academic Skills webpage.
Assessment Support For a range of additional resources and support to help you complete your assessment, please consult the Study Support page on the Student Hub.
Academic Integrity All students are responsible for ensuring that all work submitted is their own, is academically written and appropriately referenced following the Academic Writing Guide. Students need to have read and be aware of the Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Academic Integrity Procedure and subsequent penalties for academic misconduct. For more information, please refer to the Academic Integrity guidelines. Students must also keep all required evidence in making an assessment, a copy of all submitted material and any assessment drafts. AI Tools – Statement of Acknowledgment Torrens University Australia requires all students to submit an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement of Acknowledgment with every assessment. If you have used AI tools, you must clearly describe how they were used. If you have not used any AI tools, you must state this clearly in your acknowledgment. Please refer to the Statement of Acknowledgment template and the Torrens University Library for additional guidance on the appropriate use of AI tools or speak with your learning facilitator.
• Submission Instructions
Submit this task via Briefs & Submissions in the main navigation menu. Please name your file using the following format:
• SubjectCode_Surname_FirstNameInitial_AssessmentNumber
e.g., TED403_Jones_S_Assessment 3.docx
Your marked assessment can be viewed in MyLearn.
Assessment Due Dates and Late Penalties
You can submit your assessment on or before the due date.
Late penalties apply for assessments that are submitted after the due date, unless an Application for Assessment Special Consideration Form has been submitted to your learning facilitator.
For information on the Torrens University Australia late penalties policy, please consult the Assessment Policy for Higher Education Coursework and ELICOS.
Please consult with your learning facilitator if you need to submit your assessment after the due date.
Special Consideration
To apply for special consideration for a modification to an assessment task or exam due to unexpected or extenuating circumstances, please consult the Assessment Policy for Higher Education Coursework and ELICOS and, if applicable to your circumstance, submit a completed Application for Assessment Special Consideration Form to your learning facilitator.
Assessment Rubric
|
Assessment Criteria |
High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100% |
Distinction (Advanced) 75-84% |
Credit (Proficient)
65-74% |
Pass (Functional) 50-64% |
Fail (Yet to achieve
minimum standard) 0-49% |
|
Understanding and application
of educational technology concepts and principles Percentage
for this criterion = 20% |
Demonstrates an
exceptional understanding and application of key concepts and principles. Concepts and principles
are articulated with depth and insight, showcasing mastery of the topic. Shows an
outstanding integration of relevant concepts and principles to provide
comprehensive analysis, demonstrating critical thinking and originality. |
Shows a
thorough understanding and application of key concepts and principles. Concepts and principles
are well-explained and effectively applied to the topic. Demonstrates a strong
integration of relevant concepts and principles to enhance analysis and
discussion. |
Demonstrates a clear
understanding and application of key concepts and principles. Concepts and principles
are adequately explained and applied to the topic. Shows some integration of
relevant concepts and principles to support analysis. |
Shows basic understanding
and application of some key concepts and principles. Concepts are mentioned but lack clarity or depth. Limited integration of
relevant concepts and principles into analysis. |
Demonstrates little to no
understanding and application of key concepts and principles relevant to the
topic. Concepts are misunderstood
or inaccurately applied. Lack of relevant
integration of key principles. |
|
Depth of the evaluation
|
Exceptional evaluation of
the proposed solutions, backed by rigorous evidence and analysis. Demonstrates
an outstanding |
Thorough
evaluation of the proposed solutions, supported by evidence. |
Adequate evaluation of the
proposed solutions. Discusses ethical considerations, strengths |
Basic
evaluation of the proposed solutions with some gaps. |
Limited
or no evaluation of the effectiveness of proposed solutions. |
|
Percentage
for this criterion = 30% |
understanding of ethical
considerations, strengths and limitations. Presents
a profound and sophisticated analysis of the impact of solutions on
stakeholders, integrating multiple perspectives and considerations
effectively. |
Provides insightful analysis of ethical
considerations, strengths and limitations. Offers a comprehensive
analysis of the impact of solutions on stakeholders, demonstrating critical
thinking and clarity of thought. |
and limitations with
reasonable depth. Provides
a coherent analysis of the impact of solutions on stakeholders, though some
aspects may be underdeveloped. |
Some discussion of ethical
considerations, strengths or limitations but lacks depth. Analysis of the impact of
solutions is superficial or lacks clarity. |
Little to no discussion of ethical considerations,
strengths or limitations. Lack of analysis or depth
in assessing the impact of solutions on stakeholders. |
|
Depth of the reflection
Percentage
for this criterion = 25% |
Exceptional reflection on
changes in capabilities, viewpoints and experiences, showcasing deep insight
and selfawareness. Offers profound analysis of new learning insights,
illustrating their significance and implications. Presents
a well-articulated plan for future development. |
Thorough reflection on
changes in capabilities, viewpoints and experiences, demonstrating insight. Provides
a detailed analysis of new learning insights and their impact. Presents a coherent future
plan with a clear pathway for development. |
Adequate
reflection on changes in capabilities, viewpoints and experiences. Identifies
and discusses new learning insights with reasonable clarity. Describes a future plan
with some coherence; some aspects may be underdeveloped. |
Basic reflection on
changes in capabilities, viewpoints and experiences. Some discussion on new
learning insights but lacks depth or integration. Vague or limited future
plan mentioned without clear development. |
Reflection lacks depth and
coherence. Little to no discussion on
changes in capabilities, viewpoints or experiences. Absence of new learning
insights or future plan. |
|
Effective communication Percentage
for this criterion = 15% |
Communicates
eloquently, coherently, concisely and creatively in a manner that adheres to
the given format. Meaning
is always easy to follow. Information, arguments and evidence are insightful,
persuasive and expertly presented. |
Communicates coherently
and concisely in a manner that adheres to the given format. Meaning
is mostly easy to follow. Information, arguments and evidence are
well-structured and sequenced clearly, logically |
Communicates
in a coherent and readable manner that adheres to the given format. Meaning
is mostly easy to follow. Information, arguments and evidence are
well-structured and sequenced clearly and logically. |
Communicates in a mostly
readable manner that largely adheres to the given format. Meaning is sometimes
difficult to follow. Information,
arguments and evidence are not always |
Presents information that
is not clearly organised or easy to follow. Meaning
is repeatedly obscured by errors in the communication of ideas, including
errors in the structure and logical sequence that render information,
arguments |
|
|
Engages and sustains
audience’s interest. Discerningly
selects and precisely employs a wide range of specialised language and
terminology. The
spelling, grammar and punctuation are free from errors. |
and persuasively. Engages
audience interest. Accurately employs a wide
range of specialised language and terminology. Occasional minor errors
are present in the spelling, grammar and/or punctuation. |
Accurately employs
specialised language and terminology. Occasional errors are
present in the spelling, grammar and/or punctuation. |
structured and sequenced
clearly or logically. Employs specialised
language and terminology with some inaccuracies. Some errors are present in
the spelling, grammar and/or punctuation. |
and evidence unclear and
illogical. Specialised language and
terminology are inaccurately or rarely employed. Numerous
errors are present in the spelling, grammar and/or punctuation. |
|
Citation and referencing of key
resources and evidence Percentage
for this criterion = 10% |
Demonstrates use of
credible and relevant resources to explicitly support and develop arguments
and position statements. Uses the most recent
edition of APA referencing with no errors.
|
Demonstrates use of
credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and
statements. Uses the
most recent edition of APA referencing with minor errors. |
Demonstrates use of
credible and relevant resources to support and develop most of the ideas. Uses the most recent edition of APA referencing with
occasional errors. |
Demonstrates use of
credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are
not always explicit or welldeveloped.
Uses the
most recent edition of APA referencing, but there are frequent errors. |
Demonstrates inconsistent
use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas. Referencing
does not resemble the most recent edition of APA or is omitted. |
