[Thinking Critically, Creatively and Ethically

1
TCCE Assignment Brief Academic Year 2023

1. Module code and title:	FDY3006 [Thinking Critically, Creatively and Ethically	4. Module Convener:	Kathleen Hinwood
2. Assignments No. and types:	A1- Individual Portfolio Analysis	5. Assessment weighting:	50%
3. Submission time and dates: *** Mandatory: All students must submit their assignment for formative feedback	Formative Feedback Submission [Mandatory***]: Week 8 23/04/2023 Sunday 23.59 Final Submission Due: Week 9 30/04/2023 Sunday 23.59	6. Target feedback provisional moderated mark: (Note the LPTC’s working day feedback deadline and SMU’s moderation do not include bank holidays, weekends or periods when the college is closed)	22/05/2023

7. Assignment task
Assignment 1 is an individual portfolio of thinking critically, creatively and ethically application, engaging the student with textual and contextual reasoning and their assessment of strengths, weaknesses and ethicality. The assignment task is comprised of three sections, each part, equivalent to 300-words with an overall word count of approx. 1000 words (+/- 10%) to be prepared for this submission.
8. Assignment task, CW1 has been designed to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your achievement of a selection or all of the following module learning outcomes as designated below:
Assignment 1	LO1. Identify the logic (or lack of it) in basic arguments and common opinions in a variety of contexts LO2. Construct basic arguments critically and creatively. LO3. Explain the importance of being curious about one’s own values and that of others

9. Tasks requirements

The student is expected to collate a portfolio of three 300-word pieces of written and developed
work that involves assigned contemporary topics of different situational contexts (health, social
media, television, remote work, business, politics etc.) by the module instructor to demonstrate
meeting the module’s learning outcomes. These tasks are as follows:

a. Using mind mapping, apply the analytical thinking processes to a selected topic
b. Using tabulation, apply the standards of thinking to assess the shape or absence of
appropriate reasoning determining the situation and its participants in the assigned
case scenario
c. Using Kialo-edu.com, construct an argument creatively as a result of applying the elements
of critical thinking

10. Notes for Guidance:

A1 Notes for Guidance:
• Your portfolio should include a brief introduction about what you intend to write about and
a conclusion that involves a critical reflection, using some elements of Cotrell’s (2017)
Critical Reflection Core Model or an equivalence to it in critical reflection thinking (e.g.,
(Borton, 1970), on one or two of the key learnings that you benefited from the tasks
accomplished for A1.
• You should include a cover page with full identifiers (e.g., Module, Academic Year etc.) and
an alphanumeric Table of Contents.
• You are expected to learn using a mind-mapping digital application, create formatted
table to capture analysis and evaluation, and utilise the Kialo-edu application for
evidential claim and counter-claim argument construction.
• All Illustrations and tabulations used in the portfolio to be correctly titled and referenced
• All submissions must be submitted on Moodle by the due date mentioned above in Item [3].
• The written part of the coursework should be in Word Document [e.g., MS Word), 12-pt Times
New Roman or Arial Font [Unless instructed otherwise], with 2.0 line spacing with appropriate
sectioned headings and page numbers
• A reference list related to discipline of business management is expected, with a minimum of
five citations included. These must demonstrate that the student has deployed a range of
literature sources, e.g., books, journals, articles, company documents, credible websites etc.

11. Referencing and research requirements

Please cite your work using the Harvard style, which can be found at
http://www.citethemrightonline.com.stmarys.idm.oclc.org/ . This information is also available in book form:
Pears, R., and Shields, G. (2016). Cite them right: the essential reference guide. 10th eds. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan. Copies are available via the University library.

12. Module’s List of Key and Suggested Texts

You are strongly advised to use the list of references that is relevant to your module and the field of study in
business management to back up or contextualise your claims in your written development.
You should avoid having references and in-text citation that are generic, unrelated to the field of study and
not accessible to you.
You are reminded that each students have access to London PT College’s Perlego Digital Library, where you
are assigned a list of relevant references that you can use to meeting the learning outcomes of the module
and be able to meet the scholarly practice in your assignment development.
Key and recommended texts:
Cottrell, S. (2017). Critical thinking skills: effective analysis, argument and reflection. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Nussbaum, M. (2016) Not for Profit. [edition unavailable]. Princeton University Press. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/739620/not-for-profit-why-democracy-needs-the-humanities-updated-edition-pdf
Plato (2016) The Apology and Related Dialogues. [edition unavailable]. Broadview Press. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/2029523/the-apology-and-related-dialogues-pdf
Berkley, S. (2021) Guide to Learning the Art of Critical Thinking: Conceptualizing, Analyzing, Evaluating, Reasoning
& Communication. [edition unavailable]. Abbott Properties. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/3728487/guide-to-learning-the-art-of-critical-thinking-conceptualizing-analyzing
evaluating-reasoning-communication-pdf.
Jackson, D. and Newberry, P. (2015) Critical Thinking. [edition unavailable]. Cengage Learning EMEA. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/801765/critical-thinking-a-users-manual-pdf
Black, B. (2011) An A to Z of Critical Thinking. 1st edn. Bloomsbury Publishing. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/805835/an-a-to-z-of-critical-thinking-pdf
Ordonez, K. (2014) Critical Thinking and its Applications. [edition unavailable]. World Technologies. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1296083/critical-thinking-and-its-applications-pdf
Edberg, H. (2018) Creative Writing for Critical Thinking. [edition unavailable]. Springer International Publishing.
Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3493494/creative-writing-for-critical-thinking-creating-a-discoursal-identity
pdf.
Frohman, R. and Lupton, K. (2020) Critical Thinking for Nursing, Health and Social Care. 1st edn. Bloomsbury
Publishing. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2997470/critical-thinking-for-nursing-health-and-social-care-pdf.
Katz, L. (2018) Critical Thinking and Persuasive Writing for Postgraduates. 1st edn. Bloomsbury Publishing. Available
at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2997427/critical-thinking-and-persuasive-writing-for-postgraduates-pdf
Bruce, I. (2020) Expressing Critical Thinking through Disciplinary Texts. 1st edn. Bloomsbury Publishing. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1504176/expressing-critical-thinking-through-disciplinary-texts-insights-from-five-genre
studies-pdf.
Adair, J. (2009) The Art of Creative Thinking. 1st edn. Kogan Page. Available at:
https://www.perlego.com/book/1589776/the-art-of-creative-thinking-how-to-be-innovative-and-develop-great-ideas-pdf

13. Academic Integrity

You are reminded of the SMU policy that stresses academic integrity and how important it is to
avoid unfair practices and academic misconduct when doing your academic assignments.
The University’s academic misconduct regulations can be viewed on the University website:
https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/registry/policies/academic-misconduct.aspx. In submitting your
assignment, you are acknowledging that you have read and understood these regulations.
If you need further assistance to ensure having assessment submissions in line with Academic
Integrity policies, you are encouraged to contact the Academic Support Unit at London PT College.

11. Referencing and research requirements

Please cite your work using the Harvard style, which can be found at
http://www.citethemrightonline.com.stmarys.idm.oclc.org/ . This information is also available in book
form: Pears, R., and Shields, G. (2016). Cite them right: the essential reference guide. 10th eds.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Copies are available via the University library.

12. Submission Detail

• All assignments must be on Moodle VLE and should be uploaded personally. Any other channels
of assignment submission, such as emails, must be avoided.
• All your module instructors will ask you to upload your assignment for formative feedback before
you turn in the full assignment by the deadline. This request will give you the tech skills you need
to confidently upload your assignment by the due date.
• If you have a technical issue for any reason, you need to report the incident in advance and not
after the deadline.
• The contact information for Moodle-related incidents and other enquiries is
[email protected].

13. Academic Integrity

You are reminded of the SMU policy that stresses academic integrity and how important it is to avoid unfair
practices and academic misconduct when doing your academic assignments.
The University’s academic misconduct regulations can be viewed on the University website:
https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/registry/policies/academic-misconduct.aspx. In submitting your assignment, you
are acknowledging that you have read and understood these regulations.
If you need further assistance to ensure having assessment submissions in line with Academic Integrity
policies, you are encouraged to contact the Academic Support Unit at London PT College.

14. Marking Criteria-[How will your work be assessed]

Research [JISC 2015, Deneen, C 2015, Husain, S. et al. 2018] has shown that assessment literacy,
including the marking rubric, will empower students to achieve higher scores and grade results.
Your work will be graded based on how well it shows that you’ve met the stated learning outcomes for the
designated assignment (see above) and against other criteria and performance indicators as presented in
the Assessment Rubric for Level 3.
You are expected to be familiar with the Marking Assessment Criteria related to the module, and the
lecturer will advise you on optimising your effort and achievement accordingly.
This assignment will be marked, adapted and mapped in line with SMU’s grading descriptors for
Foundation Year Level 3.
Please check the assessment criteria or marking grid below and on Moodle.

15. Marking Criteria-[How will your work be assessed]

Attributes, Grades and Marking Bands
SMU Level 3 FHEQ Assessment Criteria	Module Assessment Criteria & weighting relative to TCCE’s Four Learning Outcomes	Accomplished & Exemplary	Competent & Proficient	Developing and Growing	Emerging & Satisfactory	Beginning & Up to Par	Unsatisfactory	Substandard
80-100	70-79	60-69	50-59	40-49	30-39	0-29
Knowledge and Understandi ng	Description of Purpose (15%)	Excellent demonstration of the aim and requirements of the Individual Portfolio in its overall introduction and in each of its sub-parts, showing an articulate and confident discipline-related vocabulary and ability to set out the context of the portfolio’s critical activities and their utilised resources.	Very good demonstration of the aim and requirements of the Individual Portfolio in its overall introduction and in each of its sub-parts, showing an articulate discipline-related vocabulary and ability to set out the context of the portfolio’s critical activities and their utilised resources.	Good demonstration of the aim and requirements of the Individual Portfolio in either its overall introduction or in each of its sub-parts, showing a reasonable attempt of a discipline-related vocabulary and an attempt to set out the context of the portfolio’s critical activities and their utilised resources.	Sound demonstration of the aim and requirements of the Individual Portfolio in its overall introduction and in each of its sub-parts, showing an articulate discipline-related vocabulary and ability to set out the context of the portfolio’s critical activities and their utilised resources.	Satisfactory demonstration of the aim or requirements of the Individual Portfolio in its overall introduction or in some of its sub parts, showing some use of discipline-related vocabulary and little contextualisation or referral to the portfolio’s critical activities and their utilised resources.	Limited demonstration of having a focused idea of the aim and requirements of the Individual Portfolio as instructed in Assignment Brief and the supplementary resources regarding its overall Introduction and in each of its sub-parts, showing a limited articulation of a discipline-related vocabulary and their relevance in setting out the context of the portfolio’s critical activities and the utilised resources.	Too limited to no demonstration of any focused idea that assists in informing about the aim and requirements of the Individual Portfolio in its overall introduction, and likely to have missing one or all the sub-parts, showing little evidence of any exposure to discipline-related vocabulary and its role in setting out the relevant context for the portfolio’s critical activities and their utilised resources.
Intellectual Skills & Scholarly Practice	Framework Articulation and Application (35%)	Excellent articulation of each of the three conceptual frameworks related to critical thinking on the assigned two case studies and a topic of contention, conveying through each application [e.g. mind-mapping, Reasoning Elements to Standards Matrix tabulation, Kialo argument construction] and observance of the theory laden resources and scholarly practice to back-up appropriate and skilful analysis [e.g. Thinking through Method], assessment [e.g. Assessment Standards of the Wheel of EoT] and/or creative construction [e.g. argumentation logic] of reasoning	Very good articulation of each of the three conceptual frameworks related to critical thinking on the assigned two case studies and topic of contention, conveying through each application [e.g. mind-mapping, Reasoning Elements to Standards Matrix tabulation, Kialo argument construction] and observance of the theory laden resources and scholarly practice to back-up appropriate and skilful analysis and observance of the theory-laden resources and scholarly practice to back-up appropriate and skilful analysis [e.g. Thinking through Method], assessment [e.g. Assessment Standards of the Wheel of EoT] and/or creative construction [e.g. argumentation logic] of reasoning	Good articulation of the each of the three conceptual frameworks related to critical thinking on the assigned two case studies and topic of contention, conveying through each application [e.g. mind-mapping, Reasoning Elements to Standards Matrix tabulation, Kialo argument construction] and observance of the theory laden resources and scholarly practice to back up appropriate and skilful analysis and observance of the theory-laden resources and scholarly practice to back-up appropriate and skilful analysis [e.g. Thinking through Method], assessment [e.g. Assessment Standards of the Wheel of EoT] and/or creative construction [e.g. argumentation logic] of reasoning	Reasonable articulation of two of three conceptual frameworks related to critical thinking, conveying through each application [e.g. mind-mapping, Reasoning Elements to Standards Matrix tabulation, Kialo argument construction] of two of three theory-laden resources and some scholarly practice to back-up appropriate use of analysis [e.g. Thinking through Method], assessment [e.g. Assessment Standards of the Wheel of EoT] and/or creative construction [e.g. argumentation logic] of reasoning	Satisfactory use of each or one of the three conceptual frameworks related to critical thinking on assigned or non-assigned case studies and topics of contention, conveying through some of the theory-laden applications [e.g. mind-mapping, Reasoning Elements to Standards Matrix tabulation, Kialo argument construction] and some scholarly practice leading to satisfactory and general analysis [e.g. Thinking through Method], assessment [e.g. Assessment Standards of the Wheel of EoT] and/or limited creative construction [e.g. argumentation logic] of reasoning	Limited use of each of the three conceptual frameworks related to critical thinking on assigned or non assigned case studies and a topic of contention, conveying through each application limited use of relevant and appropriate resources [e.g. mind-mapping, Reasoning Elements to Standards Matrix tabulation, Kialo argument construction], indicating unsatisfactory use of the skills of analysis [e.g. Thinking through Method], assessment [e.g. Assessment Standards of the Wheel of EoT] and/or creative construction [e.g. argumentation logic] of reasoning	Too limited to no articulation of any of the three conceptual frameworks related to critical thinking on assigned or non assigned case studies and a topic of contention, conveying no attempts to use the suggested theory-laden resources [e.g. mind-mapping, Reasoning Elements to Standards Matrix tabulation, Kialo argument construction] to do appropriate analysis [e.g. Thinking through Method], assessment [e.g. Assessment Standards of the Wheel of EoT] and/or creative construction [e.g. argumentation logic] of reasoning

Critical Enquiry and Scholarly practice and Involvement	Explanatory Critical Reflection, scholarly practice and Engagement (30%)	Excellent awareness of how critical thinking about others’ values and their thinking elements can be enriching and rewarding to the improvements of one’s own values and learning outcomes through one of the reflection model guidance [e.g. Driscoll’s “What, So what, & Now what?”], with evidence of challenging one’s enquiry strategies through the engagement in the “Interactive Assignment Guidelines Challenge” activity on assigned platforms (e.g. Moodle or Rise Platforms)	Very good awareness of how critical thinking about others’ values and their thinking elements can be enriching and rewarding to the improvements of one’s own values and learning outcomes through one of the reflection model guidance [e.g. Driscoll’s “What, So what, & Now what?”, with evidence of challenging one’s enquiry strategies through the engagement in the “Interactive Assignment Guidelines Challange” activity on assigned platforms (e.g. Moodle or Rise Platforms)	Good awareness of how critical thinking about others’ values and their thinking elements is partially contributing to enriching and rewarding the improvements of one’s own values and learning outcomes through one of the reflection model guidance [e.g. Driscoll’s “What, So what, & Now what?”], with partial evidence of challenging one’s enquiry strategies through the engagement in the “Interactive Assignment Guidelines Challenge” activity on assigned platforms (e.g. Moodle or Rise Platforms)	Functional awareness of how critical thinking about others’ values and thinking elements has a contribution, in one or more of the three areas of applications, to the improvements of one’s own values and learning outcomes, enabled by a roundedly suitable application of the reflection model [e.g. Driscoll’s “What, So what, & Now what?”]; partial evidence of challenging one’s enquiry strategies through an engagement in the “Interactive Assignment Guidelines Challenge” on assigned platforms (e.g. Moodle or Rise Platforms).	Satisfactory awareness of how critical thinking about others’ values and thinking elements have a contribution to improving one’s own values and learning outcomes enabled by some indicators of partial application of the reflection model [e.g. Driscoll’s “What, So what, & Now what?”]; partial to no evidence of challenging one’s enquiry strategies through an engagement in the “Interactive Assignment Guidelines Challenge” activity on assigned platforms (e.g. Moodle or Rise Platforms).	Limited awareness of how critical thinking about others’ values and thinking elements can be enriching and rewarding to the improvements of one’s own values and learning outcomes with no evidence of using any of the reflection model guidance [e.g. Driscoll’s “What, So what, & Now what?”], and with no evidence of challenging one’s enquiry strategies through the engagement in the “Interactive Assignment Guidelines Challenge” activity on the assigned platforms (e.g. Moodle or Rise Platforms).	Too Limited to no awareness of how critical thinking about others’ values and thinking elements can be contributing to the improvements of one’s own values and learning outcomes with no evidence of using any of the reflection model guidance [e.g. Driscoll’s “What, So what, & Now what?”], and with no evidence of challenging one’s enquiry strategies through the engagement in the “Interactive Assignment Guidelines Challenge” activity on the assigned platforms (e.g. Moodle or Rise Platforms).
Professional and Life Skills	Professional Layout Elements and Presentation (20%)	Excellent adherence to guidelines in presenting a portfolio that emulates the professional requirements of reporting and presenting in a business environment, proving excellent skillset gains in communicating effectively (80/80) as the result of the following: 1) appropriate grammar and spelling, 2) headings and subheadings, 3) progressive and structural textual and non-textual development [supported by relevant Screenshot or illustrations], 4) captioning with right Figure or Table labels and titles, 5) referencing in Harvard style [Five Minimum], 6) creative and proper cover page layout and identifiers, 7) adequate alphanumeric table of content, and 8) word count within + or – 10%, all are contributing to conveying cohesiveness, coherence and impact.	Very good adherence to guidelines in presenting a portfolio that emulates the professional requirements of reporting and presenting in a business environment, proving very good skillset gains in communicating effectively as the result of having the majority (70/80) of the following: 1) appropriate grammar and spelling, 2) headings and subheadings, 3) progressive and structural textual and non-textual development [supported by relevant Screenshot or illustrations], 4) captioning with right Figure or Table labels and titles, 5) referencing in Harvard style [Five Minimum], 6) creative and proper cover page layout and identifiers, 7) adequate alphanumeric table of content, and 8) word count within + or – 10%, all are contributing to conveying cohesiveness, coherence and impact.	Good adherence to guidelines in presenting a portfolio that emulates to a large extent the professional requirements of reporting and presenting in a business environment, proving good skillset gains in communicating as the result of having some (50/80) of the following: 1) appropriate grammar and spelling, 2) headings and subheadings, 3) progressive and structural textual and non-textual development [supported by relevant Screenshot or illustrations], 4) captioning with right Figure or Table labels and titles, 5) referencing in Harvard style [Five Minimum], 6) creative and proper cover page layout and identifiers, 7) adequate alphanumeric table of content, and 8) word count within + or – 10%, some are contributing to conveying cohesiveness, coherence and impact.	Functional adherence to guidelines in presenting a portfolio that emulates partially the professional requirements of reporting and presenting in a business environment, proving reasonable skillset gains in communicating reasonably as the result of some to less (40/80) of the following: 1) appropriate grammar and spelling, 2) headings and subheadings, 3) progressive and structural textual and non-textual development [supported by relevant Screenshot or illustrations], 4) captioning with right Figure or Table labels and titles, 5) referencing in Harvard style [Five Minimum], 6) creative and proper cover page layout and identifiers, 7) adequate alphanumeric table of content, and 8) word count within + or – 10%, some are contributing to conveying cohesiveness, coherence and impact.	Satisfactory adherence to some of the guidelines in presenting a portfolio that emulates partially the professional requirements of reporting and presenting in a business environment, proving to have few of the skillset gains that avoid having miscommunication as the result of having a few (30/80) of the following: 1) appropriate grammar and spelling, 2) headings and subheadings, 3) progressive and structural textual and non-textual development [supported by relevant Screenshot or illustrations], 4) captioning with right Figure or Table labels and titles, 5) referencing in Harvard style [Five Minimum], 6) creative and proper cover page layout and identifiers, 7) adequate alphanumeric table of content, and 8) word count within + or – 10%, some are contributing to conveying cohesiveness, coherence and impact.	Limited adherence to guidelines in presenting a portfolio, ending up in having noticeable gaps in emulating the professional requirements of reporting and presenting it in a business environment, proving little skillset gains in communicating as the result of having few of the following requirements met (20/80):1) appropriate grammar and spelling, 2) headings and subheadings, 3) progressive and structural textual and non-textual development [supported by relevant Screenshot or illustrations], 4) captioning with right Figure or Table labels and titles, 5) referencing in Harvard style [Five Minimum], 6) creative and proper cover page layout and identifiers, 7) adequate alphanumeric table of content, and 8) word count within + or – 10%, many of them are not contributing to conveying cohesiveness, coherence and impact.	Little to no adherence to guidelines in presenting a portfolio that emulates the professional requirements of reporting and presenting in a business environment, proving little to no skillset gains in communicating appropriately as the result of having one or none (10-0/80) of the following: 1) appropriate grammar and spelling, 2) headings and subheadings, 3) progressive and structural textual and non-textual development [supported by relevant Screenshot or illustrations], 4) captioning with right Figure or Table labels and titles, 5) referencing in Harvard style [Five Minimum], 6) creative and proper cover page layout and identifiers, 7) adequate alphanumeric table of content, and 8) word count within + or – 10%, many of them are not contributing to conveying cohesiveness, coherence and impact, none of them are contributing to conveying cohesiveness, coherence and impact.