GLOBAL MANAGING PEOPLEUMPDM4-15-2
- Subject Code :
UMPDM4-15-2
Faculty of Business and Law
Assessment Brief
Submission and feedback dates
Submission deadline:See hand in date on UMPDM4-15-2 Global Managing People Blackboard module page
This assignment iseligible for a grace period
Marks and Feedback due:20 working days after submission deadline
N.B. all times are 24-hour clock, current local time (at time of submission) in the UK
Submission details
Module title and code:GLOBAL MANAGING PEOPLEUMPDM4-15-2
Component and type:B.INDIVIDUAL WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT
Assessment title:AN INDIVIDUAL WRITTEN ESSAY.
Assessment weighting:50% of total module mark
Size or length of assessment:1500 words (+/- 10% to be used)
Module learning outcomes assessed by this task:
- MO1: Understand the nature of contemporary people management in its broader context (including product markets, business strategy, labour markets, organisations, occupational structures, industry sector and national business systems)
- MO2: Critically assess core concepts and contemporary practice in HRM, including reward and performance management, employee involvement and resourcing, and the role of tech in the delivery of HRM.
- MO5: Understand critical HRM concerns, including ethical decision-making and managing diversity
Completing your assessment
This is a 1500 words individual written essay based upon a topic covered on the module. Students are required to choose and answer one essay question from a list of three.
What am I required to do on this assessment?
- Evidence understanding of the topic and key theories
- Demonstrates critical appreciation of relevant theory and empirical research
- Draw from relevant, academic sources to work
- Assignment is written in accordance with traditional academic requirements
- Sources should be cited and referenced using the Harvard system
Where should I start?
Carefully read this assessment brief
Make a note of any questions and speak to your tutor.
- Watch the pre-recorded lectures, complete the self-guided tutorials and engage in your own independent reading.
- Draft an essay plan including some references you intend to use
- Continue engaging in relevant academic reading to help develop your ideas and justify them
- Seek formative feedback from your tutor.
Also, look at the reading list for the relevant study unit, available on Blackboard, to help find academic sources.
What do I need to do to pass?
The following criteria are considered when marking:
- Subject knowledge
- Critical evaluation
- Narrative and structure
- Use of literature and other sources
- Writing quality
How do I achieve high marks in this assessment?
Please refer to the marking criteria and the characteristics of work that achieves a first.
How does the learning and teaching relate to the assessment?
Each week practice essay questions will be discussed in the tutorials. It is strongly advised for students to attend and participate as the three essay questions for your final assessment (Task B) will be drawn from the practice questions
What additional resources may help me complete this assessment?
- Please make use of the module blackboard page.
- Additional information and useful materials, along with a recommended reading list, can all be found on Blackboard.
- Please contact your tutor, they will be able to support you and answer any questions you have.
- The Learning Hub and UWE Library offer additional workshops ideal for developing your academic skills.
What do I do if I am concerned about completing this assessment?
UWE Bristol offer a range of Assessment Support Options that you can explore throughthis link, and bothAcademic SupportandWellbeing Supportare available.
For further information, please see theAcademic Survival Guide.
How do I avoid an Assessment Offence on this module?2
Use the support above if you feel unable to submit your own work for this module.
Using Essay Mills or copying other student work (past or present) are examples of previous assessment offences and will be picked up during the marking process. This is an individual assessment that must be your own work.
Of course, working with your peers and seeking support from others is recommended, however, your work must be your own and any points raised that were found elsewhere must be cited, as per UWE Harvard referencing.
Marks and Feedback
Your assessment will be marked according to the following marking criteria.
You can use these to evaluate your own work before you submit.
|
|
Descriptor |
Criteria |
||||
|
|
Assessment criteria/
Grading |
Subject knowledge |
Critical evaluation (30%) |
Ability to construct an argument and relevance of content (25%)
|
Use of literature and other sources (10%) |
Writing quality: writing style and essay structure (15%)
|
|
90-100 |
PASS Outstanding |
Original / innovative use of an impressive range of sources, many beyond those recommended. Outstanding theoretical / conceptual grounding and outstanding discussion of significance and validity within the discipline.
18-20 marks |
Outstanding attempt present and defend opinions by making judgement about information, validity of ideas or quality of work on a set of theoretically-based criteria. Outstanding links are made between theory and relevant examples /practice. 27-30 marks |
Thorough and rigorous argument. Outstanding level of depth and sophistication. Insightful, with clear evidence of originality of thought. All aspects of the question thoroughly addressed; no irrelevant material. Evidence of independent, insightful, innovative thought. 23-25 marks |
Outstanding use of external sources, referencing that conforms precisely to UWE Harvard requirements.
9-10 marks |
Highest standards of literacy (i.e. academic vocabulary, spelling) and presentation. Outstanding clarity, structure and organisation (including paragraph structure, introduction and conclusion). Excellent logical flow throughout. Direction of argument is clearly signposted throughout. 13-15 marks |
|
80-89 |
PASS Exceptional |
Original / innovative use of an impressive range of sources, many beyond those recommended. Exceptional theoretical / conceptual grounding and exceptional discussion of significance and validity within the discipline.
16-18 marks |
Exceptional attempt to combine information together together in a different way by combining elements into a new pattern or proposing alternative solutions. Exceptional links are made between theory and relevant examples /practice.
24-27 marks |
Thorough and rigorous argument. Exceptional level of depth and sophistication. Insightful, with evidence of originality of thought. All aspects of the question thoroughly addressed; no irrelevant material. Evidence of independent, insightful, innovative thought. 20-23 marks |
Exceptional use of external sources, referencing that conforms precisely to UWE Harvard requirements.
8-9 marks |
Highest standards of literacy (i.e. academic vocabulary, spelling) and presentation. Exceptional clarity, structure, and organisation (including paragraph structure, introduction, and conclusion). Excellent logical flow throughout. Direction of argument is clearly signposted throughout.
12-13 marks |
|
70-79 |
PASS Excellent |
Original / innovative use of an impressive range of sources, many beyond those recommended. Excellent theoretical / conceptual grounding and excellent discussion of significance and validity within the discipline.
14-16 marks |
Excellent attempt to examine and break information into parts by identifying motives or causes; making inferences and finding evidence to support generalisations. Excellent links are made between theory and relevant examples /practice.
21-24 marks |
Thorough and rigorous argument. Excellent level of depth and conceptual sophistication with evidence of originality of thought. All aspects of the question addressed; very little irrelevant material. Evidence of independent, insightful, innovative thought. 17-20 marks |
Excellent use of external sources, referencing that conforms precisely to UWE Harvard requirements.
7-8 marks |
Excellent standards of literacy (i.e. academic vocabulary, spelling) and presentation. Excellent clarity of structure and organisation (including paragraph structure, introduction and conclusion). Excellent, logical flow throughout. Direction of argument is clearly signposted throughout.
10-12 marks |
|
60-69 |
PASS
65-69%: Very good
60-64%: Good |
A good / very good range of sources, some beyond those recommended. Good / very good theoretical / conceptual grounding and good / very good discussion of significance and validity within the discipline
12-14 marks |
Good attempt to apply acquired knowledge, facts, techniques and rules in a different way. Good attempt to draw on some relevant examples /practices and how these are explained by reference to relevant theories.
18-21 marks |
Good / very good argument. Good / very good awareness of the contestability of ideas. Good / very good level of depth and sophistication. Most important aspects of the question addressed. Good / very good awareness of context. Some minor omissions of detail or inclusion of irrelevant material. 15-17 marks |
Very good/good use of external sources, referencing that conforms well to UWE Harvard requirements. 6-7 marks |
Good / very good standards of literacy (i.e. academic vocabulary, spelling) and presentation. Clear / very clear and appropriate structure (including paragraph structure, introduction and conclusion), followed effectively. Direction of argument is largely clearly signposted throughout. 9-10 marks |
|
50-59 |
PASS
55-59% Competent
50-54?equate
|
Adequate / competent range of sources. Limited theoretical / conceptual grounding and limited discussion of significance and validity within the discipline. 10-12 marks |
Adequate / competent understanding of facts and ideas. Some theoretical explanations have been described but may not have been fully applied or evaluated. Some attempt has been made to incorporate examples/evidence and to use theories to explain them. 15-18 marks |
Adequate / competent argument. Adequate / competent awareness of the contestability of ideas but limited in depth and sophistication. Some errors / misunderstandings Most aspects of the question addressed adequately / competently; adequate / competent awareness of context; some omissions of detail. Errors or misunderstanding of the brief are evident.
12-15 marks |
Adequate/ competent use of external sources, referencing that conforms largely to UWE Harvard requirements. 5-6 marks |
Adequate / competent standards of literacy (i.e. academic vocabulary, spelling) and presentation. Adequate / competent structure (including paragraph structure, introduction and conclusion). Adequate / competent signposting of argument. 7-9 marks |
|
40-49 |
PASS Weak |
Limited range of recommended sources, with weak integration. Weak in theoretical / conceptual grounding and weak discussion of significance and validity within the discipline. 8-10 marks |
Limited understanding of theory (i.e. recalling facts, terms, basic concepts and answers) and theoretical insights need to be developed. The essay includes relevant examples but these are insufficiently linked to theoretical insights. Conversely, the essay includes references to relevant theories; no attempt has been made to apply to practice. 12-15 marks |
Some knowledge and understanding of the issues and linkage of ideas, but very little depth and limited application of concepts. Some errors / misunderstandings. More than half of the requirements of the question addressed. Some important aspects referred to, but several omissions of key detail. Errors or misunderstanding of the brief are evident. 10-12 marks |
Weak use of external sources, referencing that conforms largely to UWE Harvard requirements. 4-5 marks |
Weak standards of literacy (i.e. academic vocabulary, spelling) and presentation. Some attempt to structure the essay, but the structure is not followed effectively and parts are disorganised. Partial / absent introduction and / or conclusion. Weak signposting of argument. 6-7 marks |
|
35-39 |
FAIL Poor |
Superficial theoretical / conceptual grounding; little supporting source material. Content reliant on material from taught sessions, not effectively used.
7-8 marks |
Superficial understanding (i.e. recalling not always relevant facts, terms, basic concepts and answers showing partial understanding) and little evidence of engagement with theoretical explanations. The essay is overly descriptive. Insufficient use made of theoretical explanations or evidence to support points raised. 10-12 marks |
Superficial argument; weak grasp of issues and concepts with substantial errors or misunderstandings. Some requirements of the question met; substantial omissions, errors or misunderstandings. Much of the content is of limited Relevance.
8-10 marks |
Poor use of external sources, referencing thatdoes not conform to UWE Harvard requirements.
3-4 marks |
Poor levels of literacy (i.e. academic vocabulary, spelling) and /or presentation. Structure only vaguely apparent and not made explicit. Partial / absent introduction and / or conclusion. Poor sign-posting throughout.
5-6 marks |
|
25-34 |
FAIL Very poor |
Almost no relevant sources and supporting material. Many unsubstantiated assertions. May be regarded as a partial submission.
5-7 marks |
Hardly any/ no evidence of engagement with theoretical explanations. The essay is overly descriptive. The points raised are not supported by any theoretical explanations. 7-10 marks |
Argument is almost incoherent or absent. Little sign of understanding issues and key concepts. May be regarded as a partial submission. Does not meet the substantive aspects of the question. May be regarded as a partial submission. 6-8 marks |
Poor use of external sources, referencing failing to conform to UWE Harvard requirements. 2-3 marks |
Poor levels of literacy and / or presentation. Very disorganised; very poor focus and logical connections; very weak sign- posting. Partial / absent introduction and / or conclusion. May be regarded as a partial submission. 3-5 marks |
|
15-24 |
FAIL Extremely poor |
Almost no relevant sources and supporting material. May be regarded as a partial submission.
3-5 marks |
No evidence of engagement with theoretical explanations. The essay is overly descriptive. No evidence of theoretical explanations. 4-7 marks |
Largely incoherent. Little sign of understanding the issues. May be regarded as a partial submission. Virtually nothing of relevance to the question. May be regarded as a partial submission.
3-6 marks |
References and source attribution largely absent. 1-2 marks |
Extremely poor levels of literacy and / or presentation. Extremely disorganised. Complete absence of focus, logical connections and sign-posting. Partial / absent introduction and / or conclusion. May be regarded as a partial submission. 2-3 marks |
|
0-14 |
FAIL Inadequate |
Absence of relevant sources and supporting material. Clearly a partial submission.
0-3 marks |
Completely inadequate attempt to refer to any literature or theory.
0-4 marks |
Largely incoherent or little substantive content / argument. Clearly a partial submission. Nothing of relevance to the question. Clearly a partial submission. 0-3 marks |
References and source attribution absent 0-1 marks |
Extremely poor levels of literacy and / or presentation. Extremely disorganised and / or incomplete structure. Complete absence of focus, logical connections and sign-posting. Partial / absent introduction and / or conclusion. Clearly a partial submission. 0-2 marks |
- In line with UWE BristolsAssessment Content Limit Policy(formerly the Word Count Policy), word count includes all text, including (but not limited to): the main body of text (including headings), all citations (both in and out of brackets), text boxes, tables and graphs, figures and diagrams, quotes, lists.
- UWE BristolsUWEs Assessment Offences Policyrequires that you submit work that is entirely your own and reflects your own learning, so it is important to:
- Ensure you reference all sources used, using theUWE Harvardsystem and the guidance available onUWEs Study Skills referencing pages.
- Avoid copying and pasting any work into this assessment, including your own previous assessments, work from other students or internet sources
- Develop your own style, arguments and wording, so avoid copying sources and changing individual words but keeping, essentially, the same sentences and/or structures from other sources
- Never give your work to others who may copy it
- If an individual assessment, develop your own work and preparation, and do not allow anyone to make amends on your work (including proof-readers, who may highlight issues but not edit the work) and
When submitting your work, you will be required to confirm that the work is your own,and text-matching software and other methods are routinely used to check submissions against other submissions to the university and internet sources. Details of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it can be found on UWEs Study Skillspages about avoiding plagiarism.
Resit Assessment:
The resit assignment for this assessment is an individual written essay. More details will be released after the award board has taken place.
