微信客服：xiaoxionga100
微信客服：ITCS521
CWB103-无代写
时间：2023-10-05
Assessment 2 – Case Study
Task overview
Assessment name Case Study
Task description You will present a case study (e.g., festival event, show, book, novel, movie, theatre
play, documentary, musical) to identify an issue/problem/question (e.g., listening,
representation, othering) in interpersonal or intercultural communication. Your case
study will be accompanied by a reflective analysis that highlights how the issue,
problem, or question you have addressed in your case study can be resolved.
Due Date Please see the Canvas site.
Length 1200 words (word length includes in-text referencing and quotes/transcripts, but
excludes the reference list and appendices)
Weighting 60 %
Individual or Group Individual
Learning outcomes
measured
3. Assess the interpersonal and intercultural factors that influence specific
communication situations and practices.
4. Evaluate the effects of cultural and social assumptions as barriers to effective
communication.
Task Instructions
What you need to do Rationale. This assessment item requires you to apply theories to practice. It
covers content of the semester, including key concepts and principles of
effective interpersonal and intercultural negotiation. The expectation here is
that you will produce a well-analysed and reflective case study about an issue
(e.g., listening, assertiveness, race, othering, representation, exotification)
that typically shapes interpersonal or intercultural communication. This
submission should include two parts:
Part 1: Case study — explain what is your case study and how the issue in the
case study will be analysed/evaluated in light of theories and supported by
evidence (examples, details);
Part 2: Reflection — what is your reflective and practical solution(s) to the
issue as you identified in the case study? Make recommendations and justify
your suggestions about the solution(s).
Steps. Follow these steps to prepare your Assessment 2:
1. Identify an appropriate (or, even better, interesting) case study that
reflects a typical issue in the area of interpersonal or intercultural
communication. Choose ONE issue from what we have covered from
Week 1 to Week 12, ranging from listening, assertiveness, race,
difference, stereotypes, representation, orientalism, othering,
exotification, multiculturalism, ethics, and diversity at workplace. The
case study could be chosen from a book, novel, movie, song,
documentary, festival event or theatre play.
2. In light of theories about the issue; for example, theories about
listening or stereotypical representation, conduct a thoughtful and
evidence-supported case analysis. Your analysis of the case study
should reveal how the issue is presented, portrayed, or illustrated in
the case study, and what is the nature and impact of the issue on
interpersonal or intercultural communication. All your analytical
statements/arguments should be informed by theories and
substantiated by evidence (e.g., quotes from a book, episodes from a
movie, lyrics of a song, plots from a theatre play).
3. Write a reflective section based on your analysis of the case study.
Your reflection should revolve around how to address the issue raised
in the case study; namely, putting forward practical solutions and
justify their feasibility.
4. The suggested word allocation between Part 1 Case Study and Part 2
Reflection is 800: 400.
5. Consult at least five academic references outside the unit content
materials.
Structure. Suggested structure of A2 Case Study:
• Case study introduction (e.g. what is the case study about, what is
the focal issue, why this case study has been chosen, how this case
study relates to our unit content)
• Theoretical analysis of case study (e.g. how the issue is portrayed or
demonstrated in the case study, what is the nature of the issue, how
the issue impacts interpersonal or intercultural communication)
Note: you need to blend theories and evidence/examples in your
case analysis.
• Reflection (e.g. what would be the solution(s) to the issue analysed in
the case study, what is your recommendation, why your
recommendation is valid and viable).
Further information:
1. The focus of your case study should be placed on theory-informed
and evidence-supported analysis, rather than excessive description
of what happens in the case study.
2. You can draw on the literature reviewed in A1 as your theoretical
framework. However, it is highly recommended to refer to and
incorporate theories that we learned from Week 7 to Week 12 to
expand your knowledge scope, and to examine whether yourself has
learned new knowledge from the second half of the unit.
3. What sources should be included in your case study?
• Website links to your case study (or attach an illustrative
screenshot/image as an appendix)
• References including lecture notes, tutorial materials, and
recommended readings posted on Canvas
• External references are required for this assessment item.
There is no strict requirement of the number of external
references, but at least five academic sources should be
incorporated on top of your use of lecture/tutorial materials.
The external sources should be quality academic literature,
such as journal articles, book chapters, books, or research
reports.
4. Referencing style: APA
• Citing lecture notes: e.g., Hou, J.Z. (2019). Interpersonal and
intercultural negotiation. Week 1: Introduction to
interpersonal communication. Retrieved from: XXXX
• Citing websites: e.g., Surname, initials (date month, year).
Title. Retrieved from (website name): XXXX (link provided).
Submission Information
What you need to
submit
Please submit your assessment in a Microsoft Word document in the
following format:
• Use a cover page (title, name, student ID)
• Font: 12 Times New Roman
• 1.5 line space
• Add page numbers
Submission to Canvas (look under the Assignments link):
• Go to Canvas “Assignments” (Left-hand menu)
• Find and click the folder “Assessment 2 Case Study (submission link)”.
Please note: On submission, you are declaring that, unless otherwise
acknowledged, this submission is wholly yours and it has not been used and
already submitted. I/We understand that this work may be submitted for
plagiarism check and consent to this taking place.
Moderation All staff who are assessing your work meet to discuss and compare their judgements
before marks or grades are finalised. Refer to MOPP C/5.1.7.
Academic Integrity
As a student of the QUT academic community, you are asked to uphold the principles of academic integrity during
your course of study. QUT sets expectations and responsibilities of students specifically stating that students “adopt
an ethical approach to academic work and assessment in accordance with this policy and the Student Code of
Conduct (E/2.1)". Students need to be aware that academic integrity refers to text and non-text sources, i.e.
"copying or adapting non-text based material created by others, such as diagrams, designs, musical score, audio-
visual materials, art work, plans, code or photographs without appropriate acknowledgement" (MOPP C/5.3.6
Academic Integrity). It also includes self-plagiarism, this “involves the re-use by a student of their own work without
appropriate acknowledgement of the source. Students should seek express consent from the unit coordinator prior
to re-using their own work in an assessment submission" (MOPP C/5.3.6 Academic Integrity).
Students are expected to demonstrate their own understanding and thinking using ideas provided by ‘others’ to
support and inform their work, always acknowledging the source. While we encourage peer learning, it is not
appropriate to share assignments with other students unless your assessment piece has been stated as being a
group assignment. If you do share your assignment with another student, and they copy all or part of your
assignment for their submission, this is considered collusion and you may be reported for academic misconduct. If
you are unsure and need more information http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/C/C_05_03.jsp#C_05_03.03.mdoc.
CWB103 Interpersonal and Intercultural Negotiation | Assessment 2 Case Study |Marking Rubric
Criteria + High Distinction - + Distinction - + Credit - + Pass - + Fail - No Evidence
Identification of case study
Weighting: 20%
Identify an
appropriate and
interesting case study
related to an
interpersonal or
intercultural
communication issue.
Strong summary of the
case study profile and
justification of the
case choice is
provided.
Identify an
appropriate and
interesting case
study related to an
interpersonal or
intercultural
communication
issue. Clear
summary of the
case study profile
is provided.
Identify an
appropriate case
study related to an
interpersonal or
intercultural
communication
issue. Clear and
brief summary of
the case study
profile is provided
but further detail is
needed.
Identify an
appropriate case
study related to an
interpersonal or
intercultural
communication
issue. Brief
summary of the
case study profile
is provided, with
poor articulation of
the issue.
The case study
chosen has little to
do with
interpersonal or
intercultural
negotiation. Or the
case study chosen
did not cover any
issues taught in
this unit.
No evidence
of meeting
this criterion.
Theoretical analysis
in the case study
analysis. Each claim is
well grounded and
justified. Deep or
novel insights into the
issue are provided.
Good combination of
lecture materials and
extensive external
references in analysis.
Great integration
of theories and
evidence in the
case study analysis.
Most claims are
well grounded and
justified. Novel
insights into the
issue are provided.
Uses both lecture
materials and
external references
in analysis.
Proper integration
of theories and
evidence in the
case study analysis.
Major claims are
grounded and
justified. Mostly
applies theories in
practice but lacks
creative or unique
insights from the
author. Uses both
lecture materials
and external
references in
analysis.
Attempt to use
theories to inform
case analysis but
lacks integration
between theories
and evidence, or
focuses excessively
on describing the
case study and
lacks theoretical
depth. Arguments
are poorly
grounded or
justified. Limited
external references
are consulted.
The analysis of
case study is
poorly or not
based on
theories/literature,
and largely relies
on personal
interpretation and
opinions. There is
dominant
description of the
case study, rather
than an evaluation
of the issue in the
case study.
No evidence
of meeting
this criterion.
Individual reflection
Weighting: 30%
Deep reflection on the
complexity and
dynamics of the issue
in the case study is
provided. Suggestions
about creative and
practical solutions
(e.g., step-by-step
guide) are made and
justified.
Strong summary
and reflection on
the whole issue in
the case study is
provided.
Suggestions about
practical solutions
are made in
general and
justified.
Clear summary and
appropriate
reflection on the
whole issue in the
case study is
provided.
Suggestions about
practical solutions
are briefly made
but not justified.
Provides a brief
summary and
reflection on the
issue in the case
study. Needs more
elaboration.
Suggestions about
solutions are made
but not justified
No individual
reflection is
included in the
submission is
provided. Or no
suggestions are
put forward about
how to resolve the
issue analysed in
the case study is
provided.
No evidence
of meeting
this criterion.
Mechanics (structure, writing
and references)
Weighting: 20%
Well-organised
structure in writing
with clear
headings/subheadings,
topic sentences, key
arguments etc. Few
grammatic errors and
sophisticated
academic language
used. APA referencing
style is precisely
followed. Within word
limit.
Clear structure in
writing to present
different sections.
Signposts or topic
sentences are
used. A few
grammatic errors.
Uses standard
academic
language. APA
referencing style is
properly followed.
Within word limit.
The structure of
writing is easy to
follow but needs a
smooth transition
Random use of
topic sentences. A
number of
grammatical
errors. Uses basic
academic
language. APA
style is reasonably
followed. Within
word limit.
Poor structure of
writing and lack of
smooth transition
between different
parts. Poor use of
topic sentences.
Quite a number of
grammatical
errors. Uses basic
academic
language. APA
style is poorly
followed. Slightly
over word limit.
No structure in
writing and
difficult to follow.
A lot of
grammatical
errors. Not written
in academic
language. APA
style is poorly
followed, nor not
APA referencing.
Exceed the word
limit.
No evidence
of meeting
this criterion.
*NE - No evidence provided.
Where + is high in the range and – is low in the range.
