Assignment 1 | Critical Inquiry Part 4 – Critical Academic Reflective Paper (Individual)

In this assignment you will build from your individual learning plan to complete the writing of a critical academic reflective paper that provides evidence of your analysis and synthesis of the critical inquiry you conducted. This inquiry is in relation to a specific issue, or aspect of, the chosen technology and learning event you experience as a team.

Before completing the final paper, as assigned in Unit 1 you are asked to provide a detailed outline of this paper for review and formative feedback from the instructor. The outline will be based on your individual learning plan. The outline should give an indication of the structure of your paper and what will go in each part, as well as extend the thinking from your individual learning plan. Word count is not important, but it should be relatively brief – i.e. 300-500 words. Submit it to the Assignment 1 Part 4 dropbox. It does not form part of your Assignment 1 Part 4 grade but is used to give feedback on the overall structure and content of your paper.

The critical academic paper itself includes your critical academic reflection on the process of conducting a critical inquiry and the experience of the technology itself. Here are some examples of areas you may include (but aren’t limited to) in your research:

the critical issues related to the technology chosen based on the following perspectives: learning theories; use of and assumptions about technology; learning design approach; and historical linkages and future implications;
the interrelationship between innovation, change, and digital learning environments;
your chosen technology’s impact on organizations and/or society;
your critical academic reflection on the inquiry process.

It should be between 2,000 – 2,500 words excluding bibliography but including all other content. You are expected to adhere to APA 7 standards for citations and references and to back up your statements with appropriate academic literature.

CLO B – Conduct and share a critical analysis of area inquiry.
CLO C – Critically reflect on your learning experience as outlined in your learning plan.

Value: 40%

Submit: to the Assignment 1 Part 4 dropbox in Moodle.

Course Learning Outcome/Assessment Criteria	Excellent (A+ to A)	Proficient (A- to B+)	Satisfactory (B to B-)	Unsatisfactory (F)
Citation and APA format	All citations and APA format are complete and correct.	Most citations and APA formatting are correct.	Some citations and APA formatting are correct; inconsistent use.	Few or no citations and APA formatting are correct.
Style, Grammar, Spelling	All aspects of grammar and spelling are correct and the writing style is of a publishable quality.	All aspects of grammar and spelling are correct and the style flows coherently.	Some aspects of grammar and spelling are correct; writing is somewhat unclear.	Significant spelling and grammar errors; style is disorganized and lacks flow and coherence.
Identifies terms and concepts important to included critical issues and perspectives.	All relevant terms and concepts are clearly identified and defined.	Relevant terms and concepts are mostly identified and defined.	Relevant terms and concepts are somewhat identified and defined.	Relevant terms and concepts are not identified or defined.
Critical issues	Critical issues are deeply explored and described. Examples to be considered in your study: the critical issues related to the technology chosen based on the following perspectives: learning theories; use of and assumptions about technology; learning design approach; and historical linkages and future implications; the interrelationship between innovation, change, and digital learning environments; your chosen technology’s impact on organizations and/or society; your critical academic reflection on the inquiry process.	Critical issues not always well developed or described: some aspects missing; and/or some not clearly explained or represented	Some critical issues present but lack depth of critical analyses	Important gaps; and/or poorly developed critical issues
Reflection on own experience	Reflection is thoughtful, personal and original. It demonstrates excellent development of each idea and focuses on relevant details and a synthesis of pertinent research. It critically evaluates information and evidence and presents various perspectives. Documented criticisms are discussed.	Reflection is either not thoughtful, personal or original. Reflection contains adequate development of ideas, but will benefit from more research/support or from more specific development of relevant points. The areas of discussion do not represent intentional, synthesized thought. Discussing documented criticism and providing additional perspectives strengthen this work	The reflection has some development but lacks sufficient discussion or contains irrelevant details that do not yet develop a clear sense of purpose. Little if any documented criticisms are discussed and minimal alterative perspectives are shared. Additional support for relevant ideas and synthesis of pertinent research is required.	The reflection needs more details on every level, and lacks relevance and originality. There is no critical evaluation of information provided and documented criticisms are not discussed.
Analysis	Statements are backed by evidence from the literature and information is discussed, not just stated. Social learning organizational structures are compared and contrasted.* Identifies the key concerns/impacts and connects them to the options and recommendations in a way that evidences synthesis of the theories, models and issues of digital learning environments discussed in class. *This line may be disregarded.	Supporting information is summarized but not synthesized/connected with other perspectives. Synthesis is minimal or lacking. Some key concerns/impacts are identified. Little connection between concerns/impacts and the options and recommendations provided and the theories, models and issues of digital learning environments discussed in class.	Supportive information is stated and not summarized or backed by supporting evidence from the literature. Few concerns/impacts are identified and minimal connection between concerns/impacts and the options and recommendations is provided. Little connection to the theories, models and issues of digital learning environments discussed in class.	Information is stated but lacks relevance and connection to the position statement. Statements are not backed by evidence from the literature. No identification of the key con and minimal connection between concerns/impacts and the options and recommendations is provided. Little connection to the theories, models and issues of digital learning environments discussed in class.