To watch the video on “Leading and working in Teams” by Professor Amy Edmondson below.Write a 500 words summary on major points that Professor is making about “Leading and working in Teams” and how you will apply those learnings to your team work, Assessment 2. Submit your written summary by Week 4 (March 29, 11.59 pm) using the link provided in the assessment area. At the end of the summary, provide the reference to the video using Swinburne Harvard Style, No need to provide in-text citations or additional references. Please use the marking rubric as a guidePlease note that you need to watch all the sections of the video. Once the welcome video is finished, press “watch this course button” to go to the main menu, then you can select the next video that you want to watch from the left hand menu (e.g., the difference between teams and teaming, the roles of big L and little leaders, setting compelling goals). Alternatively, This video course is ALSO available for free via lynda.com database (Follow these instructions : go to : Swinburne Library, search, click on A-Z data base link and type lynda.com on the search bar and search for the video). No need to pay to watch the videoIf you have any question, please post them on the discussion board.
Watch the video available in Week 2 Online Task and submit your 500 word summary here. In the summary, you can follow your own structure to cover the assessment task, you can be creative. Please don’t forget to look at the marking rubric at the planning stage of your assessment.If you are unsure, I can suggest following structures. Structure 1 • Paragraph 1o Important point no 1 (from the video)o How you can use that strategy in your assessment teamo What are the potential benefits/How the assessment team can benefit• Paragraph 2o Important point no 2 (from the video)o How you can use that strategy in your assessment teamo What are the potential benefits/How the assessment team can benefit• Paragraph 3….. and next etc.Structure 2 You can discuss all the important points from the video in separate paragraphs and then in a single paragraph collectively summarise how you intend to use those strategies and potential benefits they will bring to your Assessment team.
Video Summary – Based on the Online task from week 2Criteria Ratings PtsThis criterion is linked to a learning outcome examination and understating of materials – The response needs to demonstrate an excellent understanding of the content shared in the video. 2.0 PtsExcellentExcellent understanding of the content shared in the video. At least 4 points are discussed clearly. 1.5 PtsVery GoodVery good understanding of the content shared in the video. Three points are discussed clearly. 1.0 PtsGoodSatisfactory understanding of the content shared in the video. Two points are discussed clearly. 0.5 PtsSatisfactorySome understanding of the content shared in the video. One point is discussed. 0.0 PtsUnsatisfactoryThe response has little to do with the content of the video.2.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a learning outcomeApplication – Effective and realistic recommendations/strategies, clear and logical link to own group work. 2.0 PtsExcellentExcellent recommendations/strategies are drawn from the video to improve own group work. 1.5 PtsVery GoodVery good recommendations/strategies are drawn from the video to improve own group work. 1.0 PtsGoodRecommendations/strategies are of a good standard. 0.5 PtsSatisfactoryRecommendations/strategies are attempted, and generally acceptable. 0.0 PtsUnsatisfactoryRecommendations are missing, weak or incomplete.2.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a learning outcome written expressionQuality of written 0.5 PtsExcellentOutstanding written expression, the response is coherent and smooth. 0.4 PtsGoodWritten expression is generally good, mostly free from a typographical error. 0.3 PtsSatisfactoryThe written expression can be improved. 0.25 PtsUnsatisfactoryWritten expression is weak 0.0 PtsVery GoodVery difficult to read. Substantially under the word count.0.5 ptsThis criterion is linked to a learning outcome academic ReferencingUsed Swinburne Harvard style to reference the video 0.5 PtsExcellentExcellent referencing skills, no errors 0.4 PtsVery Good ReferencingVery good referencing skills, 1-2 errors identified. 0.3 PtsGood ReferencingGood referencing skills, 3 errors identified. 0.25 PtsSatisfactory Attempt in referencingMore than three errors identified but attempted to reference. 0.0 PtsReferencing not provided.Not referenced.0.5 ptsTotal points: 5Video Summary – Based on the Online task from week 2
On December 20, 1977, under the pressure of consistent police observation and examination, Gacy admits to more than 30 killings and advises his legal counselor and companion where the bodies were covered, both in the creep space and the stream. 26 casualties were found in the slither space and 4 in the waterway. Gacy is captured, indicted for 33 homicides, and condemned to death by deadly infusion. He endeavored a craziness supplication however was denied, and was executed on May 10, 1994. There were a few scientific pointers that examiners used to attach Gacy to the homicides. A portion of these include fiber examination, dental and radiology records, utilizing the deterioration procedure of the human body, and facial recreation in recognizing the people in question. Specialists discovered filaments that took after human hair in both Gacy’s vehicle and close to the slither space where the bodies were covered. Notwithstanding these hair tests, examiners additionally discovered filaments that contained hints of Gacy’s blood and semen in a similar region. Blood having a place with the casualties was found on a portion of the filaments, which would later legitimately attach Gacy to the wrongdoings. The filaments in Gacy’s vehicle were broke down by scientific researchers and coordinated Piest’s hair tests. Besides, the pursuit hounds that discovered that Piest had been in Gacy’s vehicle demonstrated this by a “passing response”, which told agents that Piest’s dead body had been within Gacy’s vehicle. Out of Gacy’s 33 known casualties, just 25 were ever indisputably recognized. Huge numbers of Gacy’s casualties had comparative physical depictions and were in this way difficult to distinguish by simply asking the general population. To recognize the people in question, specialists went to Betty Pat Gatliff, a pioneer in criminological science and facial remaking. Facial reproduction is the way toward reproducing the facial highlights of a person by utilizing their remaining parts. Certain facial highlights, for example, facial structures, nasal structure, and generally speaking face shape can be helpful in recognizing a casualty even long in the afterlife. By utilizing these highlights, and with the assistance of program, legal agents can make a picture of an individual’s face, which is instrumental in distinguishing casualties after their bodies have rotted. Facial reproduction should be possible in a few measurements. Two-dimensional facial reproductions is utilized with skull radiographs and depend on pre-passing photos and data. Nonetheless, this isn’t really perfect in light of the fact that cranial highlights are not constantly unmistakable or at the correct scale (Downing). So as to get a practical and increasingly precise delineation of the casualty’s face, a craftsman and a scientific anthropologist are generally vital (Downing). Three-dimensional facial remaking is finished by figures or high goals, three-dimensional pictures. PC programs can make facial reproductions by controlling examined photos of the remaining parts and use approximations to reproduce facial highlights. These will in general produce results that don’t look fake (Reichs and Craig 491). Some of the time, examiners will utilize a strategy called superimposition as a system for facial reproduction. Shockingly, it’s anything but a regularly utilized strategy, as it expects examiners to have some information about the character of the remaining parts they are managing. By superimposing a photo of a person over the skeletal remains, specialists can check whether the facial highlights line up with the anatomical highlights, permitting them to recognize a casualty. On account of John Wayne Gacy’s casualties, specialists had the option to utilize facial reproduction to recognize nine of the bodies found in the creep space. The accompanying realistic shows the facial recreations of these nine casualties: Since facial remaking was insufficient to distinguish the entirety of the people in question, specialists got DNA profiles from every one of the unidentified casualties and effectively searched out DNA tests from guys over the United States who had been accounted for missing somewhere in the range of 1970 and 1979 (Cook County Sheriff’s Office 3).>GET ANSWER Let’s block ads! (Why?)