Posted: December 8th, 2022

Demonstrate deep understanding of course Learning Objectives LOs

Demonstrate deep understanding of course Learning Objectives LOs

The goal of the final assignment is to demonstrate deep understanding of course LOs. You will demonstrate your deep knowledge of the LOs individually by evaluating your application of the LOs in the Partner Challenge group project (THE WORD DOCUMENT ATTACHED CONTAINS MY PARTNER CHALLENGE. THIS IS THE ONE THAT YOU WILL USE.)

In an individual submission, explain how you applied specific Learning Outcomes (LOs) from ACCT in your presentation slide deck for your Partner Challenge mentor.
(1) Create an LO appendix. In the appendix, identify 5-6 prominent applications of LOs from ACCT. Make sure to include at least 1 LO each from each unit, and no more than two applications of a single LO. The list of LOs are given below:

Problem Solving (#rightproblem, #problemsolving, #heuristics)
Logic (#logicalreasoning, #fallacies)
Biases (#biasmitigation, #heuristics)
Including #scienceoflearning, from the Introduction unit, is optional.
(2) Write a 150-200 word summary of each application. Make sure to clearly indicate where in the presentation slide deck you applied the LO. In your summary, demonstrate your deep knowledge of the LO. Discuss how your work represents a strong application of the LO. Discuss how you might have improved your application of the LO.

​

(3) Optional, bonus prompt: Identify 1-2 LOs that you did NOT apply in your Partner Challenge. Write a 150-200 summary of how you could have applied the LO, and how applying it might have improved your project and presentation slide deck.
You will be graded on your individual reflection in the appendix not on the group application of the LOs in the presentation slide deck. In your appendix, assume that your instructor has no background knowledge of your Partner Challenge. Help your professor understand *what* you did in your project, *how* you applied the LO, and how this helped solve the problem/challenge. Do not simply describe or copy/paste the definition of the LO. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of your application. Note that you may analyze any use of an LO in the whole Partner Challenge process, i.e., your use of LOs in the Partner Challenge may apply directly to your presentation slide deck or other parts of the process that are not explicitly included in the slide deck. You will be graded on your individual reflection in the appendix, not on how well you applied the LOs in the presentation slide deck as a group. Assume in your appendix that your instructor has no prior knowledge of your Partner Challenge. Help your professor in understanding *what* you did in your project, *how* you applied the LO, and how this contributed to the solution of the problem/challenge. Do not simply describe or copy/paste the LO’s definition. Determine your application’s strengths and weaknesses. You may analyze any use of an LO throughout the Partner Challenge process; for example, your use of LOs in the Partner Challenge may apply directly to your presentation slide deck or other parts of the process not explicitly included in the slide deck.

Deliverables
ALL STUDENTS must submit the assignment as a single PDF that includes the following:
Cover page (Title of the project, partner name, mentor name, group members (name and ID))
Project contextual Information (one paragraph as per below sample)
Presentation slide deck
AND the LO appendix.
There are no extensions for the final assignment.

Please see below for illustrative examples of Contextual Information and LO appendix entries:

Project Contextual information:

For our Partner Challenge, my group and I were partnered with Company X. Company X is an investment company that aims to generate sustainable financial returns for its shareholders and the Abu Dhabi government. We had the honor to work with XXXX as our mentor. Our Partner Challenge was to research why undergraduates are less likely to become entrepreneurs once they graduate, and how we might build programs to motivate them. We ran preliminary research by surveying undergraduate students at ZU and also by interviewing successful entrepreneurs. The results of the survey and our analysis showed that there was a lack of entrepreneurship culture and mindset among UAE students. As such, we recommended that institutions organize entrepreneurial mentorship programs to motivate undergraduates towards pursuing entrepreneurship. Read the following to discover how we applied different LOs in our presentation slide deck.

LO Applications:

#RightProblem : In our presentation slide deck, we clearly identify the initial state, goal state and obstacles for the inefficiency problem the organization faces in its grant searching and application process. We explain how the initial approach was too technical and focusing on the wrong problem: we show how this different approach will be more effective. We then identified the right overarching problem and used #problemsolving to decompose it into two aspects: searching process and application process. We described three main obstacles that we need to overcome to ensure that the funding is successful. One area where we could have improved our application of the LO is by conducting more research and gathering data on the scale of the problem. We could provide statistics to describe, for instance, the size of the target population and the geographic region under consideration to better characterize the scale and impact of the problem.

#ScienceOfLearning: This LO was applied in the design of the website. Our website’s purpose is to educate users, however, without careful thought into how we teach the material, it is unlikely to stick. The first principle of #scienceoflearning that we applied throughout the paper is that of desirable difficulty – if we made the website too easy, our audience would get bored, but if we made it too hard, our audience would tune out. In the end, we may have made the website too difficult in at least one place, but we struck a good balance overall. Because our audience is mainly people who are apprehensive or not knowledgeable about AVs, we chose to maintain a somewhat informal tone and to space out information. Next, we decided to use the benefits of the Generation effect and Deliberate practice by including questions on our subpages to force the reader to stop and reflect over the material covered. While the generation effect will apply to most readers because the mere act of reading the question will bring up the material again, we are relying on the readers to listen to us and answer the question to engage deliberate practice.

#LogicalReasoning : We used inductive reasoning to produce the Letter of Intent. We first looked at letters from successful nonprofits and transferred some of their features to the LOI for our partner. This is an implicit argument by analogy – if both letters share characteristics in their content, and if those organizations share some essential attributes with the organization, it is likely that they will share the characteristic of being successful. In addition, this is an argument by generalization. Since we don’t have information about all nonprofits that applied a similar LOI, we can only assume that the success rate of our sample is generalizable for the entire population. Our induction is strong: 1) our analogy considered similarities between organizations relevant to our conclusion (e.g., nonprofit status, location, area of operation, size). 2) Our generalization has a satisfactory sample size. We looked for information from multiple sources and used those that were common. Taken together we can be confident that our conclusion – the LOI we propose will be successful – likely follows from our premises – the letter of intent was successful when used by other organizations. Although the argument is strong, the result can not be guaranteed due to its inductive nature.

#BiasMitigation: On Slide X, suggest that confirmation bias might play a role in the investment decisions of the bank’s typical customer. However, we did not provide specific information to back this argument. To improve our application we should explain how this bias might arise i.e. what preconceived notions might lead the bank’s target customer to favor savings accounts. We could also discuss how confirmation bias interacts with other biases, such as emotional bias and consider the appraisal tendency of risk aversiveness. On Slide Y, we used bias mitigation strategies to propose alternatives. We suggested providing consumers a list of alternatives, along with information and estimates that allow consumers to assess the quantitative difference between alternatives. This is seen clearly in the example of comparison of ETF long-term performance estimates based on the historical data side-to-side with the projected savings account

Assignment Information
Weight:
25%

Order | Check Discount