Submission of Assignments

All assignments must be submitted to Turnitin, via iLearn, by midnight on the due date. These are all at the end of a weekend, so you can finish them over a weekend if you wish.

On Turnitin, your assignments will be automatically compared to work of your classmates, previous students from Macquarie and other universities, with material available on the Internet, both freely available and subscription-based electronic journals. The results of the analysis will be sent only to the course convener, who will analyse the results in the light of the University's standard Policy on Plagiarism.

Late Submissions

To request an extension, make the request through ask.mq.edu.au, providing a clear explanation and providing supporting documentation where needed (often a Macquarie Professional Authority form).  

Assignments that are handed in late that do not get an extension approved via ask.mq.edu.au will lose marks.  The underlying issue here is fairness: more time without penalties (and without extenuating circumstances of course) would be unfair.  Assignments handed in late will have marks reduced by 5% per day late.  So, for example, if an assignment that would ordinarily get 21/30 is two days late will be revised down to 19/30, as 10% of 21 is 2.1.  If they are submitted more than 10 days after the due date, they will not be marked.

Please plan your work for your units at the start of the Session, and keep track of how much time you have available for each assignment.  Please get help if you are having trouble completing work on time.  Visit a doctor, a Campus Wellbeing service (https://students.mq.edu.au/support/wellbeing), talk to the Unit Convenor for academic help, or whatever else is appropriate.

Technology used and required

Students will need access to a computer and basic office software (eg. Microsoft Office or OpenOffice), and course web pages to complete assessment tasks. (The computers in the EMC2 building are usually available.)  The unit's webpage is on iLearn: https://ilearn.mq.edu.au

Recommended Texts

The following are recommended background reading:

• Harding R, CM Hendriks & M Faruqi 2009 Environmental Decision-making: Exploring Complexity and Context, The Federation Press, Sydney.
• Walker B & D Salt 2006 Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world, Island Press, Washington.
• Forester J 1989 Planning in the Face of Power, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Finding relevant journal articles

Citing peer reviewed research is essential for all assignments.  Access peer reviewed journal articles through the University Library’s website; use MultiSearch.  Google Scholar is an excellent starting point.  If you are off-campus, accessing Google Scholar from the university library's home page (see link below the Search box) will make it easier to get to journal articles.

The following databases of journal articles accessible through the University Library are also particularly recommended:

• Academic Search Premier 
• JSTOR 
• Scopus 
• Web of Knowledge
• Web of Science

The library has put together a set of guides to assist researchers in multiple disciplines, including Environmental Law, Environmental Science and Human Geography.

See the Unit’s iLearn home page for further sources of information.

Writing Guide and Referencing

All written work must comply with the Graduate School of the Environment Writing Guide for preparing written work available on iLearn.  Refer to it for details of how to reference sources, amongst other things.

Classes

GEOP843 lectures and workshops will be presented and facilitated by the convenor and guest speakers from a variety of organisations involved in environmental planning and management.

Classes run from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm on Thursday nights.  The room and other details (notably calendar weeks and dates) are in the University Timetable.

See the Unit’s iLearn page for details of the program.

Requirements to Complete this Unit Satisfactorily

In order to successfully complete this unit students must:

• attend at least 80% of scheduled lectures;
• participate in class discussions, workshops and activities;
• complete all assessment tasks; and
• reach a satisfactory postgraduate level of achievement in assignments or other assessment as determined by the Head of Department.

Assessment Standards

Many specific aspects of your work are important (as identified in the following standards), but it is the overall quality of the completed work that is important. Assignments will be assessed holistically.  The following bands are ‘ideal types’: lists of the features of typical examples of assignments at each level.

The standard of each assignment is obviously important - good grades demonstrate that your work is competent, proficient or excellent.  But from a learning perspective, it is equally important to look at your own work developmentally: to look for gradual improvement, deepening insight, and broadening competency.  Grades for assignments assess the standard of your work.  Comments on assignments are intended to be helpful developmentally: indicating what you have achieved, and how you could improve your work.

For a grade of High Distinction (>= 85%)

• use and synthesis of a variety of high quality sources not mentioned in class or on reading lists;
• considered use of dictionary and technical terms, diagrams and/or other sources to define and set the topic in context;
• incisive and decisive specification of the key issues;
• prioritisation and exposition of the key issues in a clear and logical sequence;
• relevant contrary arguments are identified and effectively dealt with;
• discussion forms a sound basis for clear, justified and comprehensive recommendations and conclusions;
• independence of thought and obvious originality;
• demonstrated ability to weigh arguments and form clear, considered personal viewpoints;
• proficient use of the English language;
• references presented at ‘publishable’ standard.

Overall, your work demonstrates, in an interesting or challenging way, originality based on proficiency in all the learning objectives.

For a grade of Distinction (75-84%)

• use and synthesis of some high quality sources not mentioned in class or on reading lists, and reference to some others;
• adequate use of dictionary and technical terms, diagrams and/or other sources to define and set the topic in context;
• clear specification of the key issues;
• key issues generally presented in a logical sequence;
• relevant contrary arguments raised but might not be fully resolved;
• discussion leads to clear and justified recommendations and conclusions;
• independence of thought and significant originality;
• general ability to weigh arguments and form personal viewpoints;
• clear use of the English language;
• references largely error free.

Overall, your work demonstrates a comprehensive awareness and understanding of the topic of the assignment.

For a grade of Credit (65-74%)

• use and synthesis of some high quality sources, and reference to some additional good quality material;
• use of dictionary and technical terms to define and contextualise the topic;
• overall awareness of the key issues;
• the selected key issues generally presented in a logical sequence;
• some contrary arguments raised with inadequate appreciation of their significance;
• a clear statement of conclusions and recommendations;
• some independent thought but limited originality;
• difficulties in weighing arguments and presenting personal viewpoints;
• sometimes proficient and always passable use of the English language;
• some errors of omission or detail in presentation of references.

Overall, your work demonstrates the ability to use and apply fundamental concepts and skills.

For a grade of Pass (50-64%)

• limited use and synthesis of good quality sources;
• use of dictionary or vernacular definitions in an attempt to identify and set the topic in context;
• some awareness of the key issues;
• some attempt to order the argument, but flaws in logical discipline;
• few contrary arguments raised and little appreciation of their significance or resolution;
• a generally clear statement of conclusions and recommendations;
• little independent thought and minimal originality;
• little weighing of argument and lack of clarity in personal viewpoints;
• passable use of the English language;
• some errors of omission or detail in presentation of references.

Overall, your work satisfies the basic learning requirements of the assignment.

For a grade of Fail (45-49%)

• at the lower end of the acceptable range for most criteria for a grade of 4.

For a lower grade of Fail (26-44%)

• lack of awareness of sources or what the question is about;
• confused definitions;
• general inability to identify the key issues;
• inability to order the argument;
• few, if any, contrary arguments raised and no appreciation of their significance or resolution;
• inadequate statement of conclusions or recommendations;
• no independent thought or originality;
• no ability to weigh arguments or form personal viewpoints.

For a grade of Serious Fail (< 26%)

• no reference to suggested sources, generally inappropriate use of materials
• no attempt at definitions;
• no awareness of key issues, such that the paper fails to address or answer the question;
• arguments unformulated, many errors, unsupported assertions, unjustified generalisations;
• contrary arguments impugned or ignored;
• inconclusive outcome to the paper;
• no independent thought, any originality likely to be illogical;
• inability to weigh arguments, personal viewpoints absent or inadequate.

Source:   Neil DT, Wadley DA, and Phinn SR 1999, 'A generic framework for criterion-referenced assessment of undergraduate essays', Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23(3) pp. 303-325. See also: Neil DT, Wadley DA, and Phinn SR 1998, Assessment Guidelines, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland.  

Used with permission.  This text is a very minor adaptation of an excerpt from Neil, Wadley and Phinn (1998).  See the full text in either version for further very useful background on these standards, and the criteria they reflect.

Academic Honesty

It is a fundamental principle that all staff and students act with integrity in the creation, development, application and use of ideas and information. This means that:

▪    all academic work claimed as original is the work of the author making the claim

▪    all academic collaborations are acknowledged

▪    academic work is not falsified in any way

▪    when the ideas of others are used, these ideas are acknowledged appropriately.

All students should familiarise themselves with Macquarie University's Academic Honesty Policy.

The Department recommends that students familiarise themselves with the explanation of plagiarism on the Georgetown University Honor Council website which discusses plagiarism in an easy to understand and comprehensive manner.

Teaching and Learning Strategy

The teaching process has four main elements:

1. Lectorials (conversational lectures – a hybrid lecture / tutorial format) that introduce basic concepts.
2. Talks from guest lecturers that convey the complexities of environmental and sustainability decision-making, in practice, in diverse settings.
3. Workshop sessions that provide opportunities for experiential learning.
4. Assignments that require students to practice key skills, including taking a systems perspective, stakeholder analysis, management system analysis, and integrative thinking.

Students are expected to:

• participate in workshop activities in small groups (including discussions, role plays, and practicing key skills in small groups);
• read set readings in advance for classes; and
• follow current developments with regard to environmental decision-making, environmental policy and sustainable development in the media.

Lectorials and workshop sessions will introduce students to:

• identifying social, economic and ecological interdependencies,
• identifying political, institutional and managerial issues,
• identifying scientific, legal, engineering, planning, and other technical information relevant to decisions,
• appreciating complexity and uncertainty in environmental and sustainable development decisions,
• appreciating the variety of formal and informal decision making processes that shape sustainability outcomes at local, regional, national and international levels, and
• appreciating the wide range of tools and methods that can support environmental decision-making, through a mixture of theory and case studies.

Key analytical and synthesis skills - stakeholder analysis, socio-ecological systems analysis, management system analysis, and making judgments that integrate political, managerial and technical considerations - will be practiced in workshop sessions and in the main assignment.

Workshops will also provide opportunities for practicing negotiation skills and appreciating differences in decision making practices in different cultural and national contexts.

Skills in reflective practice will be an ongoing subtext, with frequent invitations to reflect, and a final assignment designed to evoke students' reflection on their learnings.

Rationale for Modes of Assessment

• The Case Study Assignments, 1 and 2, introduce students to policy research, and involve applying skills in stakeholder analysis, socio-ecological systems analysis, and management system design, to support identification of more equitable, resilient and adaptive policy options.  These are 'mesopractices': practices typically used at a resolution of hours to days. 
• The Practice Research Assignment, Assignment 3,  develops skills in reflective practice, and specifically in taking an experimental approach to one's own 'micropractices': practices typically used at a resolution of seconds to minutes.  Practice skills at this resolution make a large difference to the quality of one's work. 

Teaching Program

See the Unit’s iLearn page for details of the program.