Critical Thinking Assignment | Essay Help Services

Journal comparison assignment Please check the attached files thinking critically is the main journal and you have to compare it with the second journal

Promoting Critical-Thinking Skills By Using
Negotiation Exercises
Diana Page & Arup Mukherjee
To cite this article: Diana Page & Arup Mukherjee (2007) Promoting Critical-Thinking Skills By
Using Negotiation Exercises, Journal of Education for Business, 82:5, 251-257, DOI: 10.3200/
JOEB.82.5.251-257
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.5.251-257
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 440
View related articles
Citing articles: 32 View citing articles
ABSTRACT. Many writers argue that
it is necessary to develop critical thinking
skills in business students because these
skills are needed to deal with the increasing
complexities of real-life problems.
Although the goal appears to be laudable, it
is not always clear how to go about achieving
it. In this article, the authors describe
active learning experiences in a course on
business negotiations that serve the dual
purpose of teaching students to negotiate
and sharpen their critical-thinking skills.
In the current atmosphere of resource constraints,
it is unlikely that separate courses
can be set up for improving critical-thinking
skills. A course on business negotiations,
suitably designed to incorporate appropriate
active-learning experiences, is one way to
promote higher order thinking skills.
Keywords: active learning, critical thinking,
negotiation
Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications
tudents whose major is in the field
of management are exposed to a
great amount of information pertaining
to the different topics in the field. In
each subject area, the amount of knowledge
has grown rapidly. It has created an
expectation for instructors to communicate
this knowledge to students. This
greater emphasis on content has resulted
in a lack of emphasis on critical thinking
skills needed to deal with real problems.
In reality, management graduates need
to analyze decision-making scenarios,
understand the needs of the different
stakeholders, manage the interactions
between the stakeholders, identify alternatives,
and identify suitable criteria to
evaluate alternatives. On this basis, students
need to recognize and understand
the tradeoffs and compromises needed
in real decision-making scenarios. All
these activities demand critical thinking
from them. It has been the authors’
observation that although the existing
courses meet needs for content, they
generally lack the environment to optimize
the development of critical-thinking
skills.
Emphasis on Critical Thinking
This discussion about critical thinking
is not new. The debate has continued
for many years. However, the debate has
taken on urgency because of the prominence
given to it recently by the Association
to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business (AACSB; 2003), the global
accreditation agency for business education.
In 2003, AACSB adopted a new set
of standards for accreditation and maintenance
of accreditation. Under Standard
15 (management of curriculum),
AACSB is prescriptive and suggests
that reflective thinking skills should be
an important outcome of undergraduate
business programs. Some authors have
referred to this kind of thinking ability
as higher order thinking.
The business accreditation agency
is quite prescriptive about the need to
develop higher order thinking skills in
business students. Thus the goal is quite
clear. What is not clear (and the researchers
are silent on this important aspect) is
how to achieve this goal. One option
may be to set up a new course to help
students learn this complex skill. However,
for most universities, this is not
a practical option because of resource
constraints. The technological and subject
knowledge required for business
managers has greatly increased in the
past 20 years. Thus, there is little room
in business curricula for such an extra
course. The only practical option appears
to be to incorporate learning experiences
in existing courses that simultaneously
promote higher-order thinking.
Critical Thinking Defined
What is critical thinking or reflective
thinking or higher order thinking?
Many authors have attempted to answer
this question. For extensive coverage of
this topic, see Bloom (1956), Jenkins
Promoting Critical-Thinking Skills By
Using Negotiation Exercises
DIANA PAGE
ARUP MUKHERJEE
UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
S
May/June 2007 251
(1998), Dalal (1994), and Guillemette
(1991). Bloom’s taxonomy has withstood
the test of time for over 50 years
and is quite useful for discussions about
higher order thinking. In this article, we
use the phrases higher order thinking,
critical thinking, and reflective thinking
interchangeably.
Bloom (1956) identified a category
of objectives called cognitive objectives.
This set of objectives deal with
whether a student is able to perform
in certain educationally desirable ways
after instruction. There are six major
subcategories of cognitive objectives
that we will summarize later on the
basis of the work of Guillemette (1991).
The subcategories in increasing order
of complexity include (a) knowledge,
(b) comprehension, (c) application, (d)
analysis, (e) synthesis, and (f) evaluation.
Knowledge involves recall of
information. Comprehension involves
the lowest level of understanding where
the reader knows what is being communicated
and can use it in its immediate
context. Application consists of the use
of ideas, principles, and theories in a
particular context.
The activities of analysis, synthesis,
and evaluation are generally treated as
higher order thinking skills. Analysis
involves the separation of parts of a
communication or problem into distinct
elements. Some examples of analysis
include (a) categorizing items, (b)
comparing items, (c) disassembling a
product, (d) examining a specimen, (e)
distinguishing patterns, and (f) recognizing
patterns. Synthesis is a process
that puts parts together to form a new
structure. Some examples of synthesis
include (a) writing a new communication,
(b) developing a plan, (c) designing
a product, (d) proposing a strategy,
and assembling a product. Evaluation
means making a judgment on the basis
of explicit and relatively complex criteria
as opposed to making a judgment
on the basis of inherent likes and dislikes.
Judgments may be quantitative or
qualitative. Some examples of evaluation
include (a) comparing proposals,
(b) ranking projects, (c) recommending
candidates, and (d) appraising market
values of homes.
In this article, we describe negotiation
role plays employed in a business
negotiation course that not only
help students learn negotiation tactics
and strategies, but also provide them
with multiple classroom experiences to
enhance critical thinking.
First, we describe the nature of the
course; then we discuss active learning
negotiating experiences and how specific
experiences helped students practice
their higher order thinking skills.
Finally, we discuss the general applicability
of the approach, limitations of the
approach, and ideas for future research.
Course Details
The college of business at the University
of West Florida at Pensacola,
Florida is AACSB accredited and
enrolls about 1,700 students in its
undergraduate, MBA, and accounting
degree programs. The instructors
at this school have taught a course
on business negotiations since 2004
as an elective course to management
majors. The course developers recognize
that future managers will have
to use many different kinds of negotiation
skills. In addition, managers
will also have to recognize and select
appropriate strategies and tactics to use
during negotiations and as necessary
recognize and deal with competitive
strategies used by other negotiators. To
provide students with adequate learning
experiences of these complex tasks,
the course includes a large number of
active learning experiences.
Instructors ask students to read and
they test students on relevant negotiation
materials. The instructors also
ask students to (a) complete homework
assignments, (b) participate in classroom
negotiation role play exercises,
and (c) successfully demonstrate that
they have completed a one-on-one
negotiation that is significant to them.
For the course, the instructors use a
textbook by Lewicki, Saunders, Barry,
and Minton (2004a). From spring 2004
to fall 2006, the course was taught
nine times. A total of 149 students
were taught in the nine sections. About
46% were male students and 54% were
female students. The course was dual
listed as a senior and graduate course.
About 9% were graduate students (n =
149). The maximum number of students
in a particular offering was 28. In other
words, the approach works with about
25–30 students, but not more. The first
author can provide a copy of the syllabus
of this course upon request.
Negotiation Role Play (NRP)
The instructors of the management
negotiations course require each student
to participate in 13 negotiation
role plays (NRP). They grade three
of the NRPs, which account for 30%
of the total grade (i.e., 10% for each
NRP). For the other 10 role plays, 7
are performed in pairs and 3 are performed
in small groups. The instructor’s
resource CD-ROM from Lewicki,
Saunders, Barry, and Minton (2004b)
provided most of the negotiation role
plays for the participants.
The process for NRPs during class
session follows a structured format
where students (a) plan the negotiation,
(b) execute the negotiation, and
(c) debrief the negotiation. For the first
step of this exercise, students plan the
negotiation. One week before the NRP,
students receive their specific role; they
read and analyze their role using a specific
planning form that is provided by
the instructor (see Appendix A). Negotiation
experts (Fisher & Ury, 1986;
Lewicki et al., 2004a) have suggested
that the specific elements outlined in the
appendix are key to planning and implementation
of a successful negotiation.
The planning process requires students
to distinguish specific negotiation elements
such as issues, goals, interests,
bargaining mix, frames, and strategies
for their role in a given negotiation. A
description of each of these negotiation
elements is presented in Appendix B.
In the second step of this exercise,
students engage in the actual NRP
face to face. During the third and final
step of the NRP, students complete an
observation form during class time (see
Appendix C). On the observation form,
students answer several questions about
issues dealing with the final outcome,
and it provides a structured approach
to evaluating the negotiation. Thus,
although the instructor cannot hear
everything that is said among each pair,
the instructor reads and evaluates each
student’s plan and self-evaluation along
252 Journal of Education for Business
May/June 2007 253
with the other party’s observation of
that student.
Higher Order Thinking Skills
Used in Negotiation Role Plays
Students experience a total of 13
NRPs during the course. Three of the
NRPs are graded. In this section, we
describe how the preparation, execution,
and debriefing of the negotiation
role plays help students practice the
higher order thinking skills of analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation.
Higher Order Thinking Skills Used in
the Planning Process
Appendix D presents a simple case
that describes a young couple who
negotiate the purchase of a car.
Table 1 shows the various higher
order thinking activities that are used
to complete the planning process. We
have included the simplified illustrations
applicable to the car-buying case in Table
1 to make it easier for the reader to
understand the technical terms involved.
A study of Table 1 indicates that
identification of issues, goals, interests,
opening, target, and resistance point primarily
involves analysis. Synthesis is the
dominant higher order thinking involved
in development of the best alternative
to negotiated agreement (BATNA) and
frames. Strategy identification makes
intense use of evaluation.
Higher Order Thinking Skills Used
During the Negotiation
During the planning process, negotiators
have time to investigate facts and
information and reflect upon ideas and
concepts relative to the negotiation. In
contrast, during the negotiation, negotiators
must respond on the go. Negotiation
partners must actively listen to
each other and must respond in a way
that lets their partner know they have
been heard. Negotiators must respond to
words and concepts they hear from the
other party; they must understand the
issue(s) from the other party’s perspective.
Even though this thought process
was part of the planning process, the
exchange of words and thoughts may
not be exactly as the negotiator planned.
Therefore, the negotiation is like a game
of chess; each party must try to (a) see
several steps ahead, (b) remain flexible,
and (c) think on the go. The negotiation
is not only a test of the negotiator’s skill
in planning, but also a test of the negotiator’s
skill in creating new outcomes
that result in win-win solutions.
The bargaining mix (opening, target,
interests, BATNA) typically evolves
over the course of the negotiation.
This engages each party in discerning
and responding to opening statements,
developing and asking questions to
determine reasons for the other party’s
opening statement, figuring out how the
other side is thinking, and comparing
and contrasting the needs of the two
parties. These activities engage each
side in analysis.
During the negotiation, each party
constructs and proposes alternative
solutions in an attempt to achieve an
outcome to satisfy both parties. Thus,
the role play is a dynamic interaction
of continuous changes in plans and
strategies. The parties have to use predefined
frames or construct new ones
on a dynamic basis thus engaging in
synthesis. While developing frames,
students engage in synthesis. However,
when choosing which frame to use at a
particular point in the negotiation, they
engage in evaluation.
Higher Order Thinking Skills Used in
the Debriefing Process
During the third step of the exercise,
students complete a formal evaluation
of the role play. Student pairs evaluate
TABLE 1. Higher Order Thinking Activities Used in the Planning Process
Example of application of negotiation Category of
Negotiation elements (see elements from car buying case for Actions needed to be higher order
Appendix B for details) newly married couple taken by students thinking
Identify issues Buy the first car as a couple Disassemble statements to determine Analysis
the issue
Identify goals and interests Goal: Kathy wants to buy a van with a Compare and differentiate the Analysis
good safety record. Interest: Kathy different statements of the parties
wants a car that will hold a child seat, to distinguish goals from interests
groceries, and family members
Identify bargaining mix
Identify opening Buy a new safe van by April Students prioritize needs of parties Analysis
in case.
Identify target Purchase a safe van
Identify resistance point Purchase a safe new car
Identify BATNA Return to work 6 months after the baby To formulate BATNA, negotiators Synthesis
is born need to rearrange facts and issues
to produce something new.
Develop frames Bill says, “Let’s go look at trucks.” (Bill Students create multiple frames to Synthesis
(e.g., outcome frame) has a predisposition to buy a truck.) draw upon during the negotiation.
Identify strategy Bill and Kathy agree on principles Rate strength of desires and level Evaluation
(e.g., principled collaboration) that will guide the negotiation of concerns to develop strategy.
Note. BATNA = Best alternative to a negotiated agreement.
themselves and their partners using the
negotiation role play observation form
shown in Appendix C. Table 2 shows an
analysis of the activities performed to
complete the distinct tasks. Analysis is
the predominant higher order thinking
skill used in identifying the party that
was more dependent on the deal and in
identifying the target point of the other
party. Identifying the party with better
BATNA involves synthesis and evaluation.
It requires evaluation to identify and
describe strategies that worked well or
did not work well for both the parties.
DISCUSSION
When students engage in negotiation
role plays, they learn contextual and
practical aspects of negotiation along
with three aspects of critical thinking:
(a) analysis, (b) synthesis, and
(c) evaluation. In preparation for each
negotiation, students have to articulate
their goals, strategy, and expectations.
To do this, they need to understand
the scenario and their own interests. In
addition, they must examine the scenario
from the other party’s perspective.
Doing so gives them a good opportunity
to practice analysis.
In addition, students have to develop
a strategy. This process encourages students
to blend their personal negotiation
styles with approaches that have worked
in other scenarios. This gives them a
good opportunity to practice synthesis.
In addition, the students have to evaluate
strategies to determine their appropriateness
for this scenario. This gives
them practice in evaluation.
After the negotiation is complete,
students answer several questions. By
answering these questions, students
describe the negotiation and provide
a discussion of the results. This step
requires students to analyze the negotiation
to understand the reasons for the
outcome. Their explanation includes a
discussion about interdependencies and
an evaluation of strategies that the student
used that worked or did not work,
and strategies used by the other party
that worked or did not work. Therefore,
these exercises give students multiple
opportunities to practice higher order
thinking skills.
General Applicability of
Approach
Can students of other majors also
use this approach in their courses? The
answer appears to be a qualified “yes.”
For example, in a business ethics course
(typically taken by all business majors),
student pairs may debate both sides of
an ethical issue (e.g., firing workers at
will). In a business law course (typically
taken by all business majors), instructors
may ask student pairs to debate the
legal ramifications of university policies
(e.g., affirmative action policies
pertaining to student admissions). In a
course on corporate finance (for finance
majors), instructors may ask student
pairs to debate the best financial course
to follow (e.g., best debt or equity
option to follow in a specific company).
In a corporate tax class for accounting
majors, student pairs may be asked to
debate best ways to treat specific business
expenses (e.g., stock option grants
to employees). In a systems analysis
and design class for management information
systems (MIS) majors, student
pairs may be asked to debate different
options for meeting customer needs
(e.g., best user interface design in a particular
context). This list is not exhaustive.
We can present similar examples
for other disciplines in business.
The biggest weakness of the approach
is that such exercises may take too much
of the classroom time. It may also need
careful planning by the instructor. One
of the options to consider may be to have
groups debate the issues with a requirement
that each member of the group has
to make a meaningful contribution to the
debate. Another weakness is that it may
be difficult to incorporate such exercises
in courses that have a large number of
students. One option may be to use such
approaches in advanced courses of a discipline
that are typically taken by majors
of that discipline. Such courses are likely
to have fewer students.
Critical-thinking ability is an important
outcome for business students.
Therefore, it is necessary to figure out
cost-effective approaches to achieve
this outcome. It appears reasonable to
incorporate active learning experiences
254 Journal of Education for Business
TABLE 2. Higher Order Thinking Used in the Debriefing Process
Category of
higher order
Task (from negotiation role play observation form) Actions needed to be taken by students thinking
Identify party more dependent on deal; state reasons. Compare what they said with what the other party Analysis
said and critique these statements.
Identify other party’s target point. Use other party’s statements to infer target point. Analysis
Identify party who had the better BATNA; identify Extrapolate from information not stated by other party; Synthesis and
what it was. compare two BATNAs. evaluation
Describe new frame if you changed it during Explain why own frame was effective; requires Evaluation
negotiation; if you did not change it, explain judgment about effectiveness of frames.
reasons for its effectiveness.
Identify strategies used by you that worked well or Select and decide which negotiation elements student Evaluation
did not work well. performed well.
Identify strategies used by other party that worked Select and decide which negotiation element the other Evaluation
well or did not work well. party performed well.
Note. BATNA = Best alternative to a negotiated agreement.
May/June 2007 255
in multiple courses with the goal of
helping students develop and improve
this skill.
Limitations and Future Research
This article has some limitations.
First, we made no attempt to measure
the level or extent to which higher
order thinking skills were used during
the negotiation role plays. Second, we
made no attempt to provide evidence
of improvements in these skills on the
basis of pre- and posttests.
At the same time, the authors believe
that higher order thinking skills are not
easy to measure. These skills appear to
be among those skills that improve with
experience and appear to be hard to
teach. Therefore, the focus of this work
was to provide students with multiple
opportunities to practice these skills
using real-life negotiation exercises. In
the future, researchers should measure
improvements in critical thinking that
may be attributed to participating in
these negotiation exercises.
Conclusion
Students majoring in business are
likely to face complex problems in their
careers. To develop appropriate solutions
for these problems, it will be necessary
to use critical-thinking skills. As
the total amount of content has increased
in required courses, instructors have to
focus more on content than on development
of critical-thinking skills. This
is unsatisfactory because students are
less likely to be able to rise to the challenges
of the complexities that they will
encounter in the real world. In addition,
AACSB authorities have instituted
new standards that require the business
graduates to think critically.
Institutions are required to rise to this
challenge while they are under great
financial pressures. In other words,
developing and teaching new courses
that enhance critical thinking skills is
unlikely to be a viable alternative for
many institutions.
We believe a better alternative is
available and has been used successfully.
This approach requires instructors
to employ integrative active learning
experiences in suitable courses. For
management majors, a course on business
negotiations is a prime area for this
purpose. This course requires students
to engage in several negotiation exercises.
Such exercises have the advantage of
teaching negotiation skills and engaging
students in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
(the three pillars of higher-order
thinking). Therefore, students can practice
critical-thinking skills while engaging
in negotiation exercises. We believe
that this approach is the most viable for
many institutions.
NOTE
Dr. Diana Page teaches courses in the areas of
organization behavior, management of diversity,
and business negotiations. Dr. Arup Mukherjee
teaches courses in the areas of project management,
operations management, and management science.
The authors’ research interests are effectiveness of
teaching strategies and critical thinking.
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dr. Diana Page, University of
West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola,
FL 32515.
E-mail: dpage@uwf.edu
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB) International. (2003). Eligibility
procedures and standards for business
accreditation. St. Louis, MO: Author.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: The classification of education
goals—Handbook 1. Cognitive domain.
New York: McKay.
Dalal, N. P. (1994). Higher order thinking in
MIS. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
34(4), 26–30.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1986). Getting to yes:
Negotiating agreement without giving in. Middlesex,
England: Penguin Books.
Guillemette, R. A. (1991). Domains of educational
objectives: An information systems perspective.
Journal of Computer Information Systems,
31(4), 18–25.
Jenkins, E. K. (1998). The significant role of
critical thinking in predicting auditing students’
performance. Journal of Education for Business,
73, 274–279.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., Barry, B., &
Minton, J. W. (2004a). Essentials of negotiation
(3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., Barry, B., &
Minton, J. W. (2004b). Instructor’s resource
CD-ROM: Essentials of negotiation (3rd ed.).
Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Savage, G. T., Blair, J. D., & Sorenson, R. L.
(2003). Consider both relationships and substance
when negotiating strategically. In R.
J. Lewicki, D. M. Saunders, J. W. Minton, &
B. Barry (Eds.), Negotiation readings, exercises,
and cases (4th ed., pp. 23–40). Boston:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
APPENDIX A
Planning Form for Negotiation Role Playing
Negotiation title __________________________ Your name _________________
Your role _______________________________ Date ______________________
Instructions: Place your response next to or immediately below the question. Single
space responses and double space between questions. For credit, do type.
1. Briefly state the issue.
2. What is your goal? The other party’s goal?
3. What are your needs or interests (in priority order)? The other party’s interests?
4. What is your bargaining range or mix? The other party’s?
a. Opening or target?
b. Interests? (List in priority order)
c. Resistance point?
d. Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)?
5. What type of frame will you use?
a. Briefly describe the frame.
6. What strategy will you use?
a. Briefly describe your strategy.
b. Why did you choose this strategy?
256 Journal of Education for Business
APPENDIX B
A Description of the Negotiation Elements
A. Issues describe the major problem, or reason for the negotiation.
B. Goals are statements that state specific, measurable outcomes, with time requirements
as appropriate. Interests describe the underlying needs, or why the negotiator
wants certain outcomes.
C. Bargaining mix is an explanation of negotiator priorities. It includes the opening,
target, resistance point, and the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA).
a. The opening includes the maximum outcome the negotiator wants.
b. The target is what the negotiator would like to get or what they would be satisfied
with.
c. The resistance point is minimum acceptable outcome the negotiator will accept.
d. BATNA. A description of what the negotiators will do if they do not achieve their
resistance point.
D. Frames are specific ways of focusing, shaping, and describing the issue. Frames guide
the dialogue by helping negotiator focus on what is most important to her or him. Some
frames include: substantive (what the negotiation is about), outcome (predisposition to
achieving a specific result), aspiration (predisposition toward satisfying a broader set of
interests), conflict management process (how the parties will resolve the issue), identity
(how the parties define who they are), characterization (how the parties define the other
party), loss-gain (how the parties view the risk associated with particular outcomes).
E. Strategy is an overall approach that considers the importance of the substance of the
negotiation to the negotiator, the importance of the other party’s relationship to the negotiator,
the importance of substance to the other party and the importance of the relationship
to the other party. Some strategies include principled collaboration, focused subordination,
soft competition, and passive avoidance (see Savage, Blair, & Sorenson, 2003).
APPENDIX C
Negotiation Role Play Observation Form
Negotiation title __________________________ Your name _________________
Your role _______________________________ Date ______________________
Part I: With your partner
Develop a statement of the outcome of the negotiation.
Part II: Individually
1. Who was more dependent on the deal? Who was in a more reactive or defensive
position? Why?
2. What was the other party’s target point?
a. Specifically, what did you do that influenced the other party’s target point?
3. Who had the better BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) and what
was it?
4. Did you change your frame? r Yes r No (check one)
a. If YES, what was the new frame?
b. If YES, what type of frame was it?
c. If NO, why was your frame effective?
5. What strategies did you use that worked well?
6. What strategies did you use that did not work well?
7. What strategies did your partner use that worked well?
8. What strategies did your partner use that did not work well?
May/June 2007 257
APPENDIX D
A Case of a Newly Married Couple Negotiating the Purchase of a Car
A young married couple is buying their first car together. They can only afford to
buy one new or reasonably new car at this time. Kathy is pregnant and she and her husband
agreed that she will stay at home until the baby is 4 or 5 years of age. Kathy drives
a 1997 Ford Taurus that has some major engine problems. She wants to buy a van with a
good safety record by the time the baby is born in April so she can easily accommodate
a child’s carseat, groceries, and other family-type things.
Kathy’s husband, Bill, drives a 2003 Ford Thunderbird he purchased when he graduated
from college. He plans to do some light carpentry work on their home and wants to
buy a pickup truck so he can easily transport building materials. He suggests that there
is even a possibility he can earn extra money by doing light construction for a couple
of his friends.

MD4058 STUDY SKILLS MODULE

Academic Paper Assignment 2019/20

Research and evaluation exercise

Purpose – why am I doing this exercise?

1. To allow you to become familiar with material and skills appropriate to researching at postgraduate, level 7, including:

• Key vocabulary
• Understanding the nature of academic journals
• Conventions relating to layout and information contained in academic journals
• Practice the skills of citing and referring to academic work
• The nature of argument (including a distinction between evidence and conclusions)

2. To engage in a level of critical analysis which will support you in class discussions within this module (linked to your assignment). It will also improve your performance in other MBA modules.

3. To consider your learning from this exercise

Task – what do you need to do?

1. Access the 4 journal articles listed on page 4 (under Initial Sources)
2. Read the 4 journal articles
3. Select only 1 journal article (JA1) of your choice
4. Using the list of references given in your chosen JA1, select another journal article of your choice (JA2) to read. This will allow you to do the following tasks:
5. Compare these two journal articles (JA1 & JA2)
6. Produce a commentary using the HEADINGS shown below:

Submission dates – when do I need to finish my work?

Deadline 1 – Workshop week commencing 9^th March 2020 in your timetabled MD4058 session)

1.Complete the ‘preparatory worksheet’ (page 6), following the specific instructions at the end of this brief.

2. Bring your completed preparatory worksheet to your timetabled Study Skills class.
3. Participate in the workshop by giving peer feedback to a classmate.
4. Receive peer feedback from a classmate.
5. Receive further guidance on the assignment from your Study Skills Tutor.

This workshop will be dedicated to receiving and giving peer review and getting further guidance (mainly on pitfalls to avoid) from your tutor.

If you fail to complete the preparatory worksheet you will be unable to receive peer feedback during the session. This workshop cannot be repeated due to time constraints.

Deadline 2 – 11pm on Friday 1^st May 2020

Submit your coursework to Turnitin via Blackboard. Further details about how to submit via Turnitin are shown in Blackboard using the link below:

https://help.blackboard.com/Learn/Student/Assignments/Submit_Assignments

STRUCTURE

This assignment commentary must be structured under the following headings:

HEADINGS:

1. The evidence (!  300 words)

In this section you need to identify the evidence in each journal article.  It may be useful to draw on ideas of primary research, secondary research and/or a literature review.  See assessment criteria (1), below, for further guidance on this section.

2. Comparison (! 1000 words)

This should be a mini essay (containing an introduction, analysis and conclusion) presenting an argument to say how the two articles are similar and or different; how they connect and or contrast. N.B.  The essay should not have sub-headings.

3. REFLECTION (! 700 words)

Within this section you should identify what you have learnt from this exercise. On top of these observations you should consider the implications for you as a student. In this section you can write in the first person using I or me.

Conventions – the way you must do your work

1. Your work should have 3 sections (outlined above under the HEADINGS – see note 3 below)
2. You should include a list of your sources, headed ‘References’. This should show the 2 journal articles you have selected (in alphabetical order) and refer to other sources that has informed your analysis and or reflection.

Please see Lancashire School of Business & Enterprise Referencing Guidance [1] N.B. Here is the link to detailed instructions on how to cite journals.

3. When referring to the material (within headings or when making citations) you should show the author/s (rather than using the abbreviations JA1 and JA2) and year of publication. Citations should be made for both quotes, summaries and paraphrasing.  Page numbers should be given for quotes and for paraphrasing where the paraphrase is specific enough that page/s can be identified.
4. Sections 1 and 2 should be written in the 3^rd
5. Section 3 should be written in the 1^st

Required Style – the style you must follow

1. Your assignment should be a Word document
2. Standard Margins: 2.54 cm top and bottom and 2.54 left and right
3. Line Spacing: Double line spacing with 6pts after.
4. Font: Arial, 12
5. Page Numbers: shown in footer
6. References: Single line spacing with 6pts after. Straight list, not bulleted or numbered.
7. Please include a word count: the number of words you have written (excluding the list of references) at the end of your work, but before the ‘references’ section.
8. You MUST submit your final assignment to Turnitin using the Mozilla Firefox browser in order to avoid potential problems when uploading your work.

Further Support & Guidance

For further guidance and support, please refer to the Assignments section of Blackboard. This will include material from the workshop/s dedicated to exploring this assignment brief; including how you can demonstrate the following assessment criteria.  It will also show a further guidance document from your Study Skills Tutor. It will be helpful to review information from your weekly workshops in the Module Materials section.

Assessment Criteria – how you get marks

1. Section 1: presentation of evidence; as opposed to argument, conclusion or cause.
2. Clarity of argument presented in section 2; comparison of journal articles
3. Level of sophistication of observations and self-reflection in section 3
4. Fluency of inclusion of supporting evidence through citations (all sections)
5. Adherence to Lancashire School of Business & Enterprise Referencing Guidance[2]

Threshold Criteria – the basics

1. 3 sections completed
2. List of references
3. Language appropriate for university academic work at level 7

Initial Sources – where to start

Lee,H. (2016) ‘Cooperation begins: Encouraging critical thinking skills through cooperative reciprocity using a mobile learning game’, Computers and Education, 97(2016), pp.97-115.

Canziani, B. (2017) ‘Developing Critical Thinking through student consulting projects’, Journal of Education for Business, 92(6), pp.271-279

Bandyopadhyay, S. and Szostek, J. (2019) ‘Thinking critically about critical thinking: Assessing critical thinking of business students using multiple measures’, Journal of Education for Business, 94(4), pp.259-270

Penkauskiene, D., Railiene, A. and Cruz, G. (2019) ‘How is critical thinking valued by the labour market? Employer perspectives from different European countries’, Studies in Higher Education, 44(5), pp.804-815

Feedback – how you get comments on and grade for your work

1. You should attend your timetabled MD4058 workshop during week commencing

9^th March 2020(, and bring your preparatory work.  This is when you will receive your peer feedback and further guidance from your Study Skills Tutor.

2. Formative feedback, giving comments on your submission and how you can improve your work, will be published on Turnitin on 25^th May 2020; this can be found at the same place as you submitted your assignment.

Preparatory work for Academic Paper Assignment

Please fill out the following – word processed (so you may wish to work from the word document on Blackboard) – and bring along to your MD4058 workshop in the week commencing 4 November 2019

Instructions:

1. Fill out the heading titles for sections 1 – 3
2. Identify the evidence in each/both of the journals (maximum 50 words).
3. Outline the argument you are going to present, including the conclusion/s you reach; this can be done through bullet points if you prefer (maximum 60 words)
4. Identify what you have learnt from this process (so far); consider the personal implications for this learning (maximum 50 words).
5. Identify how many words you have written in each section (under HEADINGS 1 – 3) – identify this in the final column
6. Complete the References section as it will appear in your assignment

[1] Link last checked 25/07/18

[2] Link last checked 25/7/18