Reflective Essay


This essay requires you to:

  • choose a story or an issue you have observed yourself or found in the media
  • tell the story or describe the issue
  • ask a question (or questions) or make an argument
  • answer the question (questions) and present evidence to support your answer/argument
  • explain why the question (questions) or argument is important/interesting, e.g., in what way it may help us (make better decisions, make better policies, etc.)

For example, you may

  • listen to a podcast: bags and describe what you understand the issue is
  • You may ask: if supermarkets ban plastic bags, what would likely happen according to economic theory?
  • You may then answer the questions based on theory and do some research to see what has actually happened (in Australia for example).
  • You may come to your own conclusion about whether it is a good idea to ban plastic bags. If so, why? If not, what would be a better alternative.

Please refer to the Faculty of Business and Economics Q-Manual for all presentational matters. You can use figures, tables and sections. Please use the APA style when referencing (Q-Manual, p.36).

Word Limit: 1500 words (not including the list of references)

Due time: 5pm Friday, 18 September (week 7)

A penalty of 1 mark will be deducted for each day that the assessment is late.



Please submit your essay together with the essay marking sheet through Turnitin on Moodle.

Turnitin is an intelligent assessment aid which utilises a multi-pass method to check your essay for plagiarism. It will indicate to the chief examiner a percentage score for plagiarism, and highlight any regions of the text which are identified as being plagiarised.

You must complete the online Plagiarism training self-test prior to submission. You are required to retain a copy of the assignment until results are finalised.

Penalties for Plagiarism

If your essay is found to contain significant plagiarism (either from other students, or the internet) you will be contacted by the Chief Examiner of the unit and given an opportunity to explain. If you cannot adequately assure the Chief Examiner that you have not engaged in plagiarism, you will receive at least a grade penalty for the work, and may, within the judgement of the Chief Examiner, see your case move through to other branches of the Monash plagiarism framework.


The grading rubric is on the marking sheet posted on Moodle. It is reproduced below:

Poor (F/P) Reasonable (F/C) Good (C/D Outstanding (HD)
Choice and description of stories/issues

(2 marks)

Ambiguous, confusing, or irrelevant Relevant choice, reasonably described, with some attempts to make it interesting Interesting choice, clearly described Very interesting choice, well described and engaging
The question (questions)/


(2 marks)

Unclear or irrelevant Relevant, reasonably clear, logically coherent Interesting, clear, and logical Innovative, clear, and logical
Answer/supporting evidence

(4 marks)

Confusing, or irrelevant relevant economic concepts or theory, reasonable supporting evidence relevant economic concepts/theory correctly applied, reasonably strong supporting evidence relevant economic concepts/theory correctly applied, strong supporting evidence
Evidence of research and independent thinking

(4 marks)

No or weak evidence of research Evidence of reasonable research effort and some independent thinking Evidence of good research effort and independent thinking Evidence of diligent research, and independent thinking leading to insights

(3 marks)

No clear structure, poor writing, incorrect referencing Reasonably clear structure, reasonably clear writing, correct referencing Clear structure, clear writing, correct referencing Clear structure, clear and engaging writing, correct referencing,