|
|
|
| academic instructor | A.Jyrämä | ||||||||
| course beginning semester: spring spring |
|||||||||
| graded or pass/fail examinations | E | ||||||||
| term | 1 | ||||||||
| ECTS | 2.00 | ||||||||
| terms | 1 |
| ECTS/total | 2.0 |
|
Aim of the subject:
To capture the learnings on challenge solving process in a formalized manner. To engage student to reflect and analyze their learning journey and the challenge solving process and outcome in a holistic manner. Summarizing the knowledge gained during the semesters in a double diamond design framework format. The report builds on set of assignments and input from intensive learning sessions, online courses and individual work as well as discussions and input from mentor meetings.
Content: Several contents on cultural management are examined during intensive learning seminars, individually and through workshops, seminars, and discussions with mentors. The student builds the solution for his/her challenge solution through assignments in the context of intensive learning seminars having monthly assignments. These assignments contribute to, the mid report and final report that build on previous assignments creating a holistic view of these particular challenges, the learning journey, and how the solution was achieved. Outcomes are created through double diamond mode and the insights and materials gained throughout the semester( monthly assignments and half-term report) and the whole year (monthly assignments and final report). Students engage in reflective practice with tutors/mentors and the report includes specific materials or tasks agreed upon with the tutor/mentos The reporting enables the student to reflect and analyze the various potential solutions and the learning path towards chosen solutions, emphasizing criticality and analytical approach manifested within monthly assignments, mid-report, and final report. Learning outcomes: The student can understand the process of solving cultural management challenges and connect cultural management content to the process of solving the challenge. Students can use the double diamond model to work and plan the process for challenge solving. Students understand the use of various study and research contents and methods and can adapt them to his/her challenge-solving. Students can present the learning process, the solution(s), and how it/they were achieved in an analytical, academic, and critical manner. Students can defend and argument his/her choices with support from course materials and research. Assessment: Challenge-solving report; final report (60 % of the grade); monthly assignments on the challenge-solving process (10% each). The challenge-solving will be formally evaluated in half-term (December) for the plan fitted to the double diamond frame (first diamond) and in final format, (June) for the final report including the whole process. Similar evaluation criteria are used in each evaluation but adapted to the stage of the work. Identification of the challenge, clear definition of the area to focus on, and insights into the chosen problem; 25% Methodological design: research into the topic, use of literature, materials, tools, and methods explored during the course and beyond; 25% Original contribution, critical thinking, and argumentation reflected in the methods applied and arguments made; 25% Delivery of the project and evaluation of the process and results. 25% Assessment criteria: Excellent level (5) The student shows excellent understanding of the theories and concepts on MODULE, and its various impacts and can apply them to the context of his/her individual project. He/she provides excellent arguments and examples from practical experiences with applying theories and concepts. The student shows excellent skills in their argumentation and thinking. The student shows excellent holistic understanding of the context of the MODULE, the theories and practicalities . Very good (4) The student shows good understanding of the theories and concepts on MODULE, and its various impacts and can apply them to the context of his/her individual project. He/she provides good arguments and examples from practical experiences with applying theories and concepts. The student shows good skills in their argumentation and thinking. The student shows good holistic understanding of the context of the MODULE, the theories and practicalities. Good level (3) The student shows understanding of the theories and concepts on MODULE, and various impacts and the author can apply them to the context of his/her individual project. He/she provides some arguments and examples from practical experiences with applying theories and concepts. The student provides some skills in argumentation and thinking. The student shows only partial understanding of the context of the MODULE , the theories and practicalities. Satisfactory level (2) The student shows some understanding of the theories and concepts on MODULE, and various impacts and the author can partially apply them to the context of his/her individual project. He/she provides some arguments and examples from practical experiences with only limited linkages to relevant theories and concepts. The student shows some skills in argumentation and thinking. The student shows only very partial understanding of the context of the MODULE, the theories and practicalities. Level (1) The student shows little understanding of the theories and concepts of MODULE, and various impacts and the cannot well apply them to the context of his/her individual project. He/she provides few arguments and examples from practical experiences without proper linkages to theories and concepts. The author shows little skills in their argumentation and thinking. The student shows poor understanding of the context of the course, the theories and practicalities. Fail (0) The student shows no understanding of the theories and concepts of MODULE, and various impacts and the cannot apply them to the context of his/her individual project. He/she provides no arguments and examples from practical experiences with linkages to theories and concepts. The author shows no skills in their argumentation and thinking. The student shows very poor understanding of the context of the course, the theories and practicalities. Course reading material: Will be given in addition to course literature by tutors/mentors individually to work on the specific content of the student’s challenge. Author of course description: Annukka Jyrämä last changed: 2023-08-22 14:46:37 |