Grade

Criteria

Quality of Critical discussion of 2/3 leadership theories

(15 MARKS)

Quality of critical discussion of the alignment between the values, ethical principles and practices of your chosen leadership theories with thoseofaSWorHS practitioner

(15 MARKS)

Demonstration of understanding leadership literature by drawing on relevant leadership concepts to enhance, exemplify and explain your framework

(15 MARKS)

15-13

7 (85%+)

Nuanced, sophisticated discussion; high level of critical analysis of the leadership theories; deep & clear insight into why these appeal; extremely good capacity to compare concepts. Demonstrated how each could complement the other in practice.

Thoughtful, analytical, convincing line of argument linking SW values and principles with each theory. Provided critical analysis and thoughtful insight, with examples from practice. Good use of, and link to AASW values, etc

Excellent use of relevant literature to support theoretical discussion & analysis to explain your framework; identified additional concepts, such as self-reflection, EI, effective leadership etc to illustrate arguments. Utilizedself- reflection tools to provide sophisticated insight into values, skills and areas for development.

12.5-11.5

6 (75%+)

Demonstrated a very good of understanding of key concepts; some insightful analysis of comparisons between theories and their concepts; general clarity around why these appealed. Some discussion of how the theories would complement each in practice.

Competent identification and analytical discussion of alignment between theories values and those of SW/HS; sometimes more descriptive than reflective/thoughtful discussion. Good links made between theory & practice to illustrate your thinking.

Good use of relevant literature to support theoretical discussion & analysis to explain your framework; identified some additional concepts to illustrate your arguments. Used some good self- reflection to provide insight into values, skills and areas for development

11-10

5 (65%+)

Demonstrated a good understanding of the theories, but discussion was more descriptive that critical. Needed specific examples to illustrate why they appealed. Some critical analysis of tensions or contractions between the theories was needed.

Identified some key values, ethical principles, etc, of the theories and made the link to SW/AASW values/principles, but more practice examples were needed to illustrate the connection between theory & practice. Lack critical analysis and discussion.

A solid understanding of leadership theory concepts but lacking in-depth analysis and understanding. Didn't always clearly link to the developing framework. Needed to provide better examples to illustrate how these fit in the framework or student thinking

9.5-7.5

4 (50%+)

Basic understanding of leadership theory; lacked a clear sense of why student chose these theories, and how they fitted into a coherent development leadership framework.

Descriptive rather than analytical.

Identified some SW/HS values and ethics but didn't make clear links between them and the leadership theories. Limited practice examples or critical discussion provided

Need to read more widely to provide depth of critical engagement with the theories and what they mean in practice; failed to give good examples to exemplify the developing framework. No (or limited) discussion of additional concepts.

Poor knowledge and / or understanding of leadership theories; little insight into why these were chosen; purely descriptive.

Lack of engagement with SW/HS values, ethics, principles which didn't allow any linkage to the leadership theories. Limited or no practice examples.

Poor or limited capacity to use relevant leadership concepts to expand upon or exemplify your developing leadership framework.