Assignment 2: Case study analysis

TEAM PEER REVIEW (OPTIONAL): Week 10 in Lecture

WRITTEN REPORT (3,000 words) DUE: 11:59pm 30 May 2020
PEER ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TO TEAM COMPONENT: 11:59pm 3 June 2020
Team component: 500 words/student (20%)
Individual component: 2500 words (80%)
WORTH: 60%

Task Description
The case study analysis requires students to investigate, analyse and provide recommendations on
a social ecological challenge occurring in the East Gippsland region (Victoria) by applying theoretical
relevant to social ecological landscapes.
There is both a team and individual component. The team component enables students to conduct
background research on the East Gippsland social ecological system. The individual component
then enables students to analyse the system individually.

Each student will submit a written report of 3,000 words (equivalent per student) that includes two
components:
TEAM COMPONENT (500 words/student)
- gather data on the social ecological system;
- write a summary of each of the social ecological system properties and connections;
- summarise the social ecological challenges that are relevant to this system; and
- create a figure that visually depicts a social ecological system of East Gippsland that
integrates the different properties of the system relevant to each team member’s social
ecological challenge.

Students will need to identify the properties of the social ecological system relative to the challenge
that they have identified and integrate these into a single systems map. The team component
forms the basis for the individual analysis.
In creating the systems diagram, students will draw on a system mapping technique covered in the
subject (eg. Factors-Actors-Sectors; Ostrom’s resource users and institutions; causal loop diagrams)
to identify the properties of the system and the connections between them.
Note: the total number of words for the team report will depend on the number of students in the
team. Each student will submit an identical team component as a part of Assignment 2.
INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT (2500 words)
- analyse the social ecological challenge in the context of East Gippsland (from Component 1),
drawing on a theoretical framework relevant to social ecological landscapes; and
- argue for a future vision for the region including key policy recommendations based on your
analysis

The individual component should be written in the general structure:

- Introduction (approx. 300 words)
- Literature review, including theoretical framework (approx. 500 words)
- Discussion/analysis of the social ecological challenge (approx. 1200 words)
- Vision and recommendations (500 words)

Word counts for each component are approximate.

All text and formatting should be consistent with the instructions provided in the ‘Submission
Guidelines’ and the ‘Academic Honesty’ items accessible from the ‘Submission & Assessment
Guidelines’ menu item on the LMS.

Purpose
By completing this task, you will demonstrate an ability to:
- work independently and collaboratively, as a part of a team;
- research, select, and synthesise appropriate information on a social ecological challenge;
- visually depict a social ecological system as a systems diagram;
- integrate multiple knowledges and understandings of a social ecological system;
- identify, explain, and apply a theoretical lens to analyse the challenge; and
- articulate a vision and recommendations for a social ecological challenge.

Note: Teams will be allocated by the subject coordinator.

PEER ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTION TO TEAM COMPONENT

On completion of the report, team members will assess the team involvement of each team member to the
report. These ratings will produce an individual involvement multiplier between zero and 1.2. The multiplier
will be applied to the grade awarded to the team for their report. The multiplier may raise or lower an
individual’s overall grade for the report. The process for calculating the multiplier and how it may affect an
individual’s overall grade is explained in more detail in the advice document on Team Involvement Multiplier
(available on the LMS).

WARNING:

If you do not complete the Peer Involvement Multiplier Questionnaire by 16 June then it will be assumed
that you have not met the requirements for team involvement, and a ZERO will be applied to your grade for
this task. This is not something that can be fixed up at the end of the semester.
Submitting your work
Written report: Each student will submit a report that includes both their individual and team
components. This report should be submitted in PDF format via TurnItIn through the ‘Submit Work
& View Feedback’ link on the Sustainable Landscapes LMS site prior to the deadline (i.e., 12:00am is
considered late).
Team Involvement Multiplier: Complete the team involvement multiplier questionnaire located on
the LMS in the ‘Submit Work & View Feedback’ link prior to the deadline (i.e., 12:00am is
late and a zero multiplier will be applied).
Penalties of 5% per day will be applied for late submissions up to ten (10) days after the submission
deadline. If this piece of work is submitted more than ten (10) days after the submission deadline it
will not be assessed and a mark of 0 will be given for this assessment task.
Extension of up to 10 days can be granted by the subject coordinators where it can be
demonstrated that the student has been ill or unable to complete the task in a timely fashion due
to unforeseen circumstances. Documentation, such as medical certificate, will be required when
making the case for an extension. Extension may or may not be granted and/or student may be
asked to apply for special consideration in some cases.
Plagiarism will be assessed via Turnitin and, if detected, will be acted on as per University and
Faculty of Science policy. For details on Academic Integrity and guidance on what constitutes
plagiarism please familiarise yourself with the information at the following link:
https://academicintegrity.unimelb.edu.au/#academic-integrity

Team Peer Review (not assessed)

Present a sampler of your team’s component of the report in the final lecture of the subject (Week
10). Presentations are optional and will be no longer than 5 minutes and can take the format of a
print out or Powerpoint presentation. Teams can decide who they wish to have present the team
component. Peers and/or the course coordinator will provide verbal feedback on the report in
terms of:

• strengths of the team component of the report regarding clarity of presentation of the
system;
• areas for improvement
Assessment guidelines for an H1
Some examples of how these assessment criteria and their descriptors may be demonstrated in
work that achieves an H1 are included under each criterion below.

A mark for the individual and team assessment tasks will each incorporate a combined total of the
performance achieved for each descriptor and its weighting relative to the overall mark for the
specific assessment task (performance x weighting). A final mark will be a combined total of the
Team and Individual components.

TEAM COMPONENT

Content (20%)
Demonstrate comprehension of the material taught in the subject in order to research and
structure an appropriate integrated summary for the social ecological system in the East Gippsland
landscape relevant to the challenges considered by the team.
Visual depiction of the social ecological system (30%)

One figure to depict:

• the social ecological system relevant to the challenges addressed by team members;
• the relationships or connections between different factors, actors, sectors, related events,
scales, and/or other aspects justified as relevant to the context; and
• an accurate and comprehensive explanation of how the visualisation contributes to the
understanding of the social ecological landscape challenges;
• the integration of different components of the social ecological system relevant to each
team members’ social ecological challenges

Research & evidence (30%)

Thorough research and effective use of evidence to summarise the social ecological system in
written form.

• Draws on evidence and examples that are diverse and can include, among others:
o are high quality (e.g., peer reviewed) and relevant to the report;
o grey literature (eg. policy documents, news, etc);
o conversations with local stakeholders and/or residents;
o Australian Bureau of Statistics data.
• Research from different social ecological components and challenges is integrated
Organisation (10%)
The report is structured effectively such that:

• the social ecological system is clearly described;

• the system components relative to each team member’s social ecological challenge are
integrated;
• there is a clearly defined structure that assists the reader to develop a picture of the case
study;
• the content is clear, organised and visually effective, including clear headings; and
• the formatting is consistent throughout.

INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT (80% of total mark for assignment)

Argument (20%)
Makes a clear and convincing argument about the opportunities and challenges for sustainability of
a particular chosen landscape context.

• argument is based on the analysis completed in Assignment 1 on a theoretical lens or

framework.
• argument is clearly identified, justified effectively with reasons, which are in turn supported
with evidence.
• reasoning is clear and logical.

Content (40%)
You demonstrate comprehension of the conceptual material taught in the subject, and may include
related material from beyond the immediate teachings in the subject, if discussed with subject
coordinator.

• Multiple theoretical lenses are outlined and applied to a specific social ecological challenge
in the context of East Gippsland to generate new analysis.
• Insightful and nuanced understanding of how the synthesised theoretical approach informs
and illuminates the social ecological challenge is demonstrated
• The recommendations logically follow from theoretical approach
Research & evidence (30%)
Thorough research and effective use of evidence for analysis of the East Gippsland case study and
the selected social ecological system

• Draws on evidence and examples that:

o are high quality (e.g., peer reviewed) and relevant to the report;
o provide support for the argument;
o are numerous enough (minimum of 30) to show a strong grounding in the literature;
o come from beyond the subject, demonstrating an ability to complete independent
academic research;
o come from a variety of publication types and disciplines; and
o have been critically analysed, integrated and synthesised.
• Provides clear evidence for the analysis on the selected case study.

Organisation (10%)
The report is structured effectively such that:

• the central argument is introduced in the first paragraph, developed in the body and
summarised in the conclusion;
• there is a clearly defined structure that assists the reader to see the development of the
argument and presentation of analysis;
• the content is clear, organised and visually effective, including clear headings; and
• the formatting is consistent throughout.

Language and Referencing

It is assumed that in this, and subsequent assessment tasks in this subject that your work will meet
the standard expected of all academic work:
• your English expression is of an excellent academic standard with no inappropriate use of
colloquial language, or rhetorical devices common to editorial writing;
• your writing is concise and contains no irrelevancies, repetition or unnecessary elaboration;
• facts, opinions and quotes are differentiated;
• any spelling, grammatical or typographical errors do not distract;
• tables, charts, and figures are well labelled, and the sources detailed;
• all sources are correctly and consistently cited in-text, using APA 6th citation style; and
• they have complete and correct reference details listed in APA 6th citation style.

Where plagiarism is detected, the University’s policy on academic misconduct will be applied.
Case study analysis – Advice
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Students often find a conceptual framework to be a foreign idea. The literature review that you
completed on a conceptual framework in Assignment 1 will inform your individual analysis for this
task. For example, if your literature review was on social memory in social ecological system
change, you will analyse social memory for the case study.

TEAMWORK

Many students find working in and being assessed as part of a team challenging because the work
can take longer, there may be less individual control over the end product or performance, and
there may be group dynamics that lead to challenges or disagreement.

Benefits may be gained from working in a well-functioning team including the collaborative and
social learning that can improve the quality of learning overall. Sharing ideas and multiple ways of
examining a social ecological landscape challenge promotes a deeper understanding of the multiple
ways that issues and contexts can be examined. Furthermore, when the team works well together,
more can be achieved in a shorter timeframe and at a higher quality.

Time will be made available during lectures to discuss the progress of the report as well as how the
team is working together. Additionally, teams are encouraged to book time with the course
coordinator to discuss the report outside of lecture times for a one-on-one meeting. It is expected
that your team will meet outside of formal class time to work on and complete the project.

Characteristics of effective teams include:

• ability to identify and articulate each team member’s strengths for contribution;
• agreement on how the team will work together;
• timely management of progress on the project content;
• active management of your team’s processes (e.g., minutes of meetings that include the
decisions taken, allocation of tasks);
• what response to take when things are not going so well; and
• how you might approach resolving any issues.

If students develop these characteristics it can assist teams to function well. These characteristics
also serve as the basis for assessing your team’s involvement.
MONITORING AND ASSESSING TEAM INVOLVEMENT

Each student may use the Team Involvement Multiplier Questionnaire to influence the multipliers
that your team members receive. Teams that experience difficulties can still score well on team
involvement provided that they actively attempt to improve how their team processes the task. The
course coordinator will be involved in reviewing all grades allocated.

Note

If you are having difficulties working within your team, please let the subject coordinator know as
soon as possible. As an absolute last resort, it is possible to eject a team member from your project
team, and it is also possible for an individual to leave a team. However, this can only be done in
consultation with the subject coordinator, who will advise you of the process. No time extensions
will be provided on the basis of changes to team membership or team size.