联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981

Assessment 1: Exploring Governance in the Digital Economy (Individual) 30% (AI statement)
Due 19 Aug by 23:59

Points 30

Submitting a file upload

Available 20 Jul at 8:30 – 24 Aug at 23:59

Assessment 1: Exploring Governance in the Digital Economy
Type: Presentation and Slidedeck | Individual
Length: 1500 words (+/- 10%), 1000 words speaker notes, 500 words (approx) on slides, 6 minutes presentation and 10-15 slides
Weighting: 30%
Due Dates: Week 5
Slide Deck: Submit to Canvas by Wednesday 19 August, 11:59pm.
Presentation: In Class on Friday 21 August 8:30-10:30am

Assessment Brief
Overview
The digital economy presents complex and evolving governance challenges that require clear, structured, and audience-appropriate communication. In this assessment, you will develop a professional briefing deck and a set of speaker notes designed for a non-expert but educated audience (e.g., policymakers, senior managers, or industry stakeholders). The purpose is to explain and critically analyse key governance issues emerging from Topics 1–4 of the course.

Learning Outcomes
The targeted Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) for this assessment are:
CLO1: Integrate traditional regulatory and governance thinking into industry sectors impacted by the emerging digital economy, articulating their underlying logics and interdependencies
CLO2: Compare and synthesise government regulation and industry self-regulation, theorising their relative effectiveness and application in the context of emerging digital technologies.

RMIT Capabilities
The targeted RMIT capabilities for this assessment are::
#AoL3a Adaptive – Employ intellectual agility, knowledge and skills to develop solutions in a fast-changing world.
#AoL 4 Digital Adept – Create and utilise a blend of digital and human skills, tools and emerging technologies to learn, solve problems, innovate, communicate and collaborate.
#AoL5 Expert – Establish and continue to grow and apply disciplinary and/or interdisciplinary knowledge and expertise in real life contexts and as life-long learners.
#AoL 6 Critically Engaged – Employ intellectual independence and judgment to engage critically with information, make sound evidence-based decisions, actively challenge assumptions and undertake research.

Marking Criteria
This assessment will measure your ability to:
Conceptual Understanding (30%)
Critical Analysis (30%)
Integration and Synthesis (20%)
Communication and Presentation (10%)
Use of Evidence (10%)

Assessment Details
The following are the details of your assessment:
Your Tasks
You are required to create a PowerPoint presentation with speaker notes and make a presentation in class that addresses at least two of the following topics:
The Governance Problem (Topic 1) – For example, what is the governance problem in the digital economy
Private vs Public Governance (Topic 2) – For example, how do private actors (platforms) govern digital systems
Corporate Governance (Topic 3) – For example, how is technology changing our understanding of corporate governance
Commons Governance (Topic 4) – What are new types of digital commons
Speaker Notes
Provide detailed explanation (1000 words max)
Demonstrate critical thinking and use of sources
Include in-text citations
Research Requirements
Minimum 10 academic and/or credible sources
Use appropriate referencing style (e.g., APA 7th)
Include a reference list slide
Your briefing deck must go beyond describing each topic separately. You are expected to:
Synthesize insights across topics
Highlight key tensions and trade-offs (e.g., public vs private governance, centralisation vs decentralisation)
Present a clear, evidence-based argument about the future of governance in the digital economy
Key Requirement: Go Beyond Description
You must:
Compare governance models (e.g., public vs private, centralised vs decentralised)
Identify key tensions (e.g., innovation vs regulation, openness vs control)
Present a clear argument about the future of governance in the digital economy

What you need to submit
1.A 6 minute presentation in class
2.Submit slidedeck presentation (10-15 slides)
3.Include speaker notes (~1000 words)

Assessment Format and Structure
The assessment is to be submitted online via the Canvas assignment portal.
Format your slide deck using either Arial, Calibri or Times New Roman, size 11 or 12 font on 10-15 slides (excluding title and references). The style must be clear, concise, and visually professional. Ensure that you use diagrams, frameworks, or examples where helpful.
Word count for this assessment is 1500 words (+/- 10%). That comprises of approximately 1000 words speaker notes and 500 words on slides (max). Writing succinctly is an important skill. Anything written beyond this limit will not be read or counted towards your grade.
The assessment is worth 30% of your overall grade. Refer to the attached rubric for detailed information on the grading criteria for this assessment.

Use of AI in this Assessment
Use AI to test, challenge, and verify your independently produced work
You may use AI tools such as VAL or other permitted AI tools to actively challenge, stress-test, and critique your work. This means you will build your own ideas and conduct your own analytical work alongside using AI.
We will discuss in detail in class about effective uses of AI, and you are expected to share with your classmates your experiences and lessons from AI use in practice.
How you will use it:
You may use AI to support the development of your slide deck and speaking notes, as well as for research. For example, AI may be used to:
challenge your strategic position and assumptions
identify gaps, limitations or alternative perspectives in your reasoning
test whether your approach or communication style is suited to the audience
check the clarity and coherence of your slide deck
Any ideas generated through AI should be independently evaluated, verified and developed through your own research, interpretation and strategic judgement.
Your human expertise:
You must independently compare governance models, identify tensions and trade-offs, synthesise ideas across topics, select and interpret credible sources, build the core argument, and deliver the in-class presentation using your own professional judgment.
This approach reflects professional practice because graduates need to be able to assess AI-generated material critically rather than accept it at face value.
You must retain your original, unedited draft and include a brief AI Disclosure Statement at the very end of your document listing the tool used, date, and prompts. See Part B: AI Usage in this Assessment for full instructions.

You should read the advice provided in the RMIT Library Generative AI for students at RMIT Course, specifically section 2. Guidelines for using generative AI for support, to ensure you understand the implications and rights relating to data you provide AI tools.
Enrol in the moduleLinks to an external site.

Remember, if you use generative AI tools you must acknowledge and reference them according to the Library guidelines and in accordance with academic integrity requirements and policies.
Learn more: Referencing GuidesLinks to an external site.
Learn more: Academic IntegrityLinks to an external site.
AI Usage in this Assessment
In this assessment task, you may use AI to assist you to generate material for your briefing deck and speaker notes according to the task instructions. You are responsible for the accuracy, quality, and integrity of everything you submit and present.
Your task is not simply to reproduce information. You are expected to use your own advanced analytical, research, and communication skills to compare governance models, identify tensions and trade-offs, synthesise insights across topics, and present a clear evidence-based argument about the future of governance in the digital economy.

Permitted vs. Prohibited AI Workflows
Permitted Uses (Declaration & Log Required) Prohibited Uses: You must not use Generative AI for:
If you choose to use Generative AI, you may use it to:
Brainstorm possible angles, structures, or presentation flow
Generate draft phrasing that you then critically review and substantially revise
Simplify complex concepts for a non-expert but educated audience
Support early-stage idea development for slide sequencing, headings, or note organisation
Suggest areas for further research, provided you independently verify all claims and sources Using AI to replace your own critical analysis, synthesis, or argument
Relying on AI-generated references, case studies, market data, or examples without verification
Including non-existent or hallucinated references in slides, speaker notes, or the reference list
Using AI outputs that produce generic or shallow discussion instead of discipline-based analysis
Uploading private, confidential, or restricted material into public AI tools

Reason for Restriction
This approach is appropriate because the assessment requires students to exercise independent judgment, critique information, and communicate complex governance issues clearly. It supports the professional capability of working with AI critically and responsibly while ensuring that the core intellectual work remains the student’s own. It also reflects authentic professional practice, where AI-generated material must be audited, checked, and improved before use.
Authentication Requirements

AI Acknowledgement & Referencing Style
Include a brief AI Disclosure Statement at the end of your document listing the tools you used and a short explaination of how you used them. Use the required referencing style for all academic and credible sources included in the assessment. AI tools are not a substitute for academic sources.
Critical Warnings & Hallucination Alerts
AI tools may produce:
inaccurate or oversimplified explanations of governance concepts
fabricated academic or policy references
false examples of regulatory responses, governance crises, or institutional developments
generic synthesis that does not genuinely integrate the selected topics
unsupported claims about digital identity, generative AI governance, regulatory pacing, or governance failures
You are responsible for verifying all claims, sources, references, and examples. Any fabricated or unverified material included in your submission may compromise the academic integrity of your work.

If you have questions about what is permitted or require design clarifications, please speak directly with Course Coordinator.

Supporting Learning Materials
Slides should
Be visually clear, professional, and concise
Use headings, bullet points, diagrams, or frameworks where appropriate
Avoid excessive text (no more than ~6–8 lines per slide)
Speaker Notes should
Provide detailed explanations equivalent to a 1000-word essay
Demonstrate depth of analysis and engagement with course concepts
Include references where appropriate
A strong presentation and submission will:
Clearly explain complex ideas for a non-expert audience
Demonstrate critical insight, not just description
Integrate concepts across several topics
Present a coherent and persuasive argument
Use relevant real-world examples and credible, academic references

Questions
If you have any questions, check the discussion board or course materials to see if they have already been answered. If not post your question or alternatively ask your teacher in your workshops.

Portfolio Artefact
Your submitted assessment is a potential artefact that you can add to your digital Portfolio.
Visit Portfolio: Learn how to use for help.
Portfolio: Learn how to use

Assessment Policies
Referencing Guidelines
Use RMIT Harvard referencing style for this assessment.
Learn more: RMIT HarvardLinks to an external site.

You must acknowledge all the courses of information you have used in your assessments.
Refer to the RMIT Easy Cite referencing tool to see examples and tips on how to reference in the appropriated style. You can also refer to the library referencing page for more tools such as EndNote, referencing tutorials and referencing guides for printing.
Learn more: RMIT Easy CiteLinks to an external site.

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism
Academic integrity is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledging the work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge and ideas.
You should take extreme care that you have:
Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you have quoted (i.e. directly copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed or mentioned in your assessment through the appropriate referencing methods
Provided a reference list of the publication details so your reader can locate the source if necessary. This includes material taken from Internet sites
If you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarism because you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriate referencing, as if they were your own.
RMIT University treats plagiarism as a very serious offence constituting misconduct.
Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including:
Failure to properly document a source
Copyright material from the internet or databases
Collusion between students
Learn more: Academic IntegrityLinks to an external site.

Assessment Declaration
When you submit work electronically, you agree to the Assessment declaration.
Learn more: Assessment declarationLinks to an external site.
Rubric
ECON1562 A1 Presentation (1)
ECON1562 A1 Presentation (1)
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeC1 (30%) Conceptual Understanding
#AoL5 Expert 30 PtsHigh Distinction: 100-80% – Highly developed / ExcellentDemonstrates a theorised and nuanced understanding of governance in the digital economy; reconceptualises and extends core ideas beyond course material.
23.98 PtsDistinction: 79%-70% – Developed / Very goodExplains and connects governance concepts accurately across all topics; demonstrates clear understanding of relationships.
20.98 PtsCredit: 69%-60%: Emerging / CompetentDescribes and outlines multiple governance concepts (Topics 1–4) with reasonable accuracy but limited depth.
17.98 PtsPass / Satisfactory: 59%-50%Conceptual Understanding: Identifies and defines basic aspects of governance but focuses on limited or isolated concepts.
14.98 PtsNot satisfactory: Less than 50% Fails to meet standardsMisidentifies or omits key concepts; demonstrates confusion or misunderstanding.
0 PtsDid not submitDid not submit. 30 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeC2 (30%) Critical Analysis
#AoL6 Critically Engaged 30 to >23.97 PtsHDCritiques and synthesises governance models; identifies underlying assumptions and develops original insights or frameworks.
23.97 to >20.97 PtsDIAnalyses and evaluates governance models; identifies key trade-offs (e.g., efficiency vs accountability) with well-supported reasoning.
20.97 to >17.97 PtsCRExamines and differentiates governance issues but tends toward description rather than critique.
17.97 to >14.97 PtsPAComments on or notes issues with minimal evaluation or depth.
14.97 to >0.0 PtsNNAsserts or repeats information without analysis or evaluation.
0 PtsDNSDid not submit. 30 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeC3 (20%) Integration and Synthesis
#AoL3a Adaptive 20 to >15.96 PtsHDGenerates a coherent and sophisticated argument that integrates at least 2 topics; generalises and applies insights to new or emerging contexts.
15.96 to >13.96 PtsDIIntegrates and organises ideas into a coherent argument; clearly links topics and concepts.
13.96 to >11.96 PtsCRSequences and categorises ideas across topics but connections are underdeveloped.
11.96 to >9.96 PtsPAFocuses on one or a few elements with little attempt to connect ideas.
9.96 to >0.0 PtsNNFragments or disconnects ideas; no meaningful structure or argument.
0 PtsDNSDid not submit. 20 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeC4 (10%) Communication and Presentation
#AoL4 Digitally Adept 10 to >7.99 PtsHDDesigns and delivers a highly professional, engaging, and persuasive briefing tailored to a non-expert audience.
7.99 to >6.99 PtsDICommunicates and structures content clearly and professionally; appropriate for target audience.
6.99 to >5.99 PtsCROrganises and presents content clearly, though inconsistently engaging or refined.
5.99 to >4.99 PtsPAPresents and states information in a basic manner; limited audience awareness.
4.99 to >0.0 PtsNNObscures or confuses meaning; poorly structured or inappropriate for audience.
0 PtsDNSDid not submit. 10 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeC5 (10%) Use of Evidence 10 to >8.0 PtsHDEvaluates and synthesises high-quality sources; uses evidence strategically to build and extend arguments.
8 to >7.0 PtsDIIntegrates and applies credible sources and relevant examples effectively.
7 to >6.0 PtsCRUses and reports multiple sources, though integration into argument is limited.
6 to >5.0 PtsPACites or references minimal sources with limited relevance.
5 to >0.0 PtsNNOmits or misuses sources; lacks credible evidence.
0 PtsDNSDid not submit. 10 pts
Total points: 100