Assessment Criteria |
Learning Outcomes: Knowledge and Understanding tested in this assignment: |
|
Learning Outcomes: Skills and Attributes tested in this assignment: |
|
Feedback /Marking criteria for this Assignment |
- Performance will be assessed using HBS Grading Criteria (Rubric)
- Feedback for improvement will be given in writing via your Canvas module site within 4 weeks of
submission
Lateness Penalty: For each day or part day up to five days after the published deadline, coursework relating to modules submitted late will have the numeric grade reduced by 10 grade points until or unless the numeric grade reaches the minimum pass mark (50). Where the numeric grade awarded for the assessment is less than the minimum pass mark no lateness penalty will be applied. If the coursework is submitted more than 5 days after the published deadline, it will not be marked and a grade of zero will be awarded. Please note: Referred coursework submitted after the published deadline will be awarded a grade of zero (0).” |
Extensions: Students do not have an automatic right to an extension. If you require an extension, this must be requested in advance of the submission deadline. Please give your reason(s) for needing an extension. Not all Assessments are eligible for an extension. Please check above. |
Detailed Brief for Individual Assessment
Assessment brief 2023
Assessment Brief
Assignment Title: Description of the assignment, task, content and structure: 2,000 words (10%+or-) A report style with numbered headings Title page 1.0 Introduction 2.0 The topic and current context 3.0 The debates regarding women workers and hybrid working 4.0 sustainable recommendation 1.0 Introduction: (approx. 250 words) Begin with a short introduction explaining what will be in the report 2.0 The context: (approx. 500 words) Describe the topic of hybrid working and set it in its contemporary context. This can be in the UK and/or globally. In this section first address two issues. Firstly, is this question making assumptions about caring responsibilities and gender? Secondly, why would hybrid working be irrelevant to many women in work? Then consider the trends that make this topic relevant – below are some prompts to help you think about what to write in this part of the report, they are NOT questions that you are to answer, they are simply a guide. Why is the topic relevant, have recent changes prompted this? Is Hybrid working increasing in workplaces? Is there more attention and discussion on it? Is it sector specific? What external factors make it more relevant and why? Use sources to show current trends. 3.0 Main discussion: (approx. 1,000 words) Be selective, limit yourself to two aspects to debate surrounding the pros and cons of hybrid working on women in work, develop them into a coherent debate and discussion based on key literature. It could be that the same topic or issue has arguments for and against in terms of pros and cons. 4.0 recommendation: (approx. 250 words) Select one key challenge you have identified in terms of hybrid working and women workers, make a recommendation for a sustainable organisational policy that might help with that challenge, be realistic and base this on any real-world examples you can find. Any specific instructions: Mark scheme: Presentation and Structure 10 10 30 50
|
||||
Academic Integrity, Plagiarism, Essay Mills and other Academic Misconduct Offences |
Assessment brief 2023
Assessment Brief
If you commit academic misconduct, your mark will be reduced, or, depending on the severity of the offence you may get 0% for the assignment in question or 0% for the module, and get a disciplinary warning. Repeat offenders normally face disciplinary action. |
Student Support and Guidance |
|
The relevant HBS Grading Criteria (Rubric) for your assignment should be added as a table immediately below the assignment description. If you are unable to find the Grading Criteria (Rubric), please contact your Module Leader.
Assessment brief 2023
Assessment Brief
HBS Grading Criteria
PG Grading Criteria for HBS Individual Report REPORT
Module Code:
Lecturer:
Student ID number:
Presentation & structure
Intellectual Curiosity (Quality of academic sources)
Use & presentation of Harvard Referencing
Content/ Terms/ Findings/ Definitions/ Calculations
Business Application & Integration of Data/Literature
Discussion /Analysis /Critical evaluation &/or Reflection
Task details
lecturer to amend to suit
Follows report structure & keeps to word limit of …2000 (10%+or-)
Include numbered sections with clear and relevant headings
figures are not essential for this report
Follows Harvard style for in-text citation & Reference List
Use a minimum of … 12 sources. Include a
minimum of 4 academic journal articles in your list and make sure you are using them as part of your report.
see assessment brief
Integration & application of information – this means integrate relevant sources into your report to show evidence that your discussion and line of argument are based on reliable sources
Line of argument, development of discussion – develop discussions with depth using a variety of sources. Do not provide short lists, of lots of different points, develop your discussion, especially in section 3.0 of the report
Marks 10% 10%
30%
50%
90 – 100 Outstanding |
Outstanding presentation & report structure, with numbered paragraphs, list of contents/figures &appendices. Articulate & fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced. No grammatical / spelling errors. |
Outstanding selection of quality sources, well beyond core & recommended resources. Outstanding standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. |
Outstanding exploration of topic showing excellent knowledge & understanding through thorough & appropriate research. |
Outstanding business insight & application. Outstanding integration of literature/data into work. Very impressive breadth and depth. |
Outstanding level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. |
80 – 89 Excellent |
Excellent presentation & report structure, with numbered paragraphs, list of contents/figures, appendices & cross referencing. Articulate & fluent academic writing style. Only minor errors. |
Excellent selection of quality sources. Evidence of independent searching beyond core & recommended resources. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. |
Excellent level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. |
Excellent business insight & application. |
Excellent level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. Clearly developed points all of which are relevant to the topic |
70 – 79 Very Good |
Very good presentation & report structure, paragraphing, use of numbering, list of contents/figures, appendices & cross referencing. Fluent academic writing style. Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes. |
Very good selection of mostly quality sources beyond the recommended resources. Few irrelevant/poor quality sources used. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. |
Very good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. |
Very good business insight & application. |
Very good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. A few less relevant ideas/points or would benefit from further development &/or evaluation/comparison. |
60 – 69 Good |
Good clear presentation & report structure, use of numbering & appendices. |
Good selection of quality sources but some irrelevant/poor quality sources used beyond the recommended reading. Good standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. |
Good grasp of the topic & some of its implications presented. Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations. |
Good business insight & application. |
Good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but more ideas/points could be addressed or developed further. |
50 – 59 Clear Pass |
Satisfactory basic report structure. See CASE with feedback |
Satisfactory: Some quality sources used. Research did not go beyond the recommended sources. See CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback |
Satisfactory content / level of knowledge of the topic. Addresses most of the task. Some errors / omissions in content/ calculations. May benefit from further research. |
Satisfactory business insight & application. Limited integration with literature/ data. Use of literature/data but limited in breadth or depth. |
Satisfactory: basic evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but some points irrelevant or superficially made so need further development. See CASE with feedback |
Assessment brief 2023
Assessment Brief
40 – 49 Marginal Fail |
Weak report format. Limited or poor structure. Must see CASE with feedback |
Weak: Limited evidence of appropriate research. Some use made of recommended reading, but the majority of sources are irrelevant/of poor quality. Weak use of Harvard referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied. Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback |
Weak: limited content / knowledge/ calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question. Does not meet all the learning outcomes. |
Weak: unsatisfactory evidence of business application & insight |
Weak: limited evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. Must see CASE with feedback |
20 – 39 Clear Fail |
Inadequate report format and poor paragraphing / signposting. Inappropriate writing style Must see CASE with feedback |
Inadequate: Little evidence of appropriate research. Few quality sources used from recommended reading. Inadequate use of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or inconsistencies. Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback |
Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge/calculations. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes. |
Inadequate: Lacks evidence of business application & insight. Some literature missing or irrelevant to topic. |
Inadequate: Lacking / inadequate level of discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation & /or reflection. Descriptive. Must see CASE with feedback |
0 – 19 Little or Nothing of merit |
Nothing of merit: Poorly written work, lacking structure, paragraphing / signposting. Must see CASE with feedback |
Nothing of merit: No evidence of research. No use made of recommended reading. Sources are irrelevant & of poor quality. No or little attempt to use the recommended Harvard referencing system. Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback |