Complete thesis - Murdoch University

encouraged to refine their understanding of the problem context and reflect on the implicationsof the feedback from their manager on the success of that prior task in orderto commence the next. Again a small component of the mark was allocated to ‘rework’addressing issues raised in the feedback and amending/updating documentation as required.And again, not all groups chose to undertake the rework – and paid the penaltywhen their increased understanding of the problem context was not well reflected intheir submissions. Where reconceptualisations did occur, these were to be submittedas well, to be taken into account in the assessment• two individual components (the Performance Review as previously described (worth5%) and an estimation planning tool (worth 10%))• a Portfolio (now 20%, acknowledging its value in encouraging deeper learning) comprising,as its major element, the concept maps. This year, however, the maps wereevaluated on a regular basis by team members. This peer review was seen as a mechanismto assist the development of a common understanding of the knowledge beingdeveloped within the unit – simply, as a view into the minds of the students (Freemanand Urbaczewski, 2001). The Portfolio was now both a group and individual effort –including a reading log compiled by the group (but initialed by whoever had written thesummary), minutes of group meetings throughout the semester (with rotating minutetaker)to indicate task allocation and individual activity logs for ‘in- and out-of-class’time spent on the unit• a final exam (now worth the minimum mark acceptable in the Murdoch context – 30%of the final mark) also acknowledging its (lack of) value in encouraging deeper learning.This also modelled that of the previous year, both for the same reasons (ie to maintainsome level of independence from the learning model being applied) and pragmaticallydue to the assessment policies of the School and the University.The Design Studio environment set up by the School also mandated a participation requirement.Although this was not allocated a mark, students were required to attend the Studiofor a minimum time. For ENG301 this was negotiated with the student cohort, and definedto be the first two hours of each 5-hour Studio session, for a minimum of 75% of the semester.No student missed more than two of the twenty six sessions, although they may have onlystayed for the mandatory two hours.In order to assist students in addressing the content, the study schedule which mappedcontent to problems (requested by students in 2003) was retained. The group-work spacewas also retained. An additional feature was the development of a Studio Library. This was,349