Academic year / semester

2023/2024 Semester 1

Module code and title

7HR034: Contemporary Issues in Human Resources- an International Perspective

Module Leader

Kate Moseley

Assignment name

Portfolio of 2 academic papers and a personal reflection

Assignment type

Individual Portfolio

Assignment weighting and size

100% and 4,000 words + 10%

Assessment unpacking video location

See the Assessment Information & Support Topic, on the Assessment Information and Support Page in Canvas

‘What’s my assignment?’ unpacking dates

1. Week 1- in module introduction.
2. Week 4 – for late starters.
3. week 8 -prior to formative submission.
4. week 12- prior to final submission.

Formative submission date

Semester week 9- specific date to be confirmed

Formative submission method

Online via Canvas Assignments menu item

Formative feedback date (if applicable)

• Individual Feedback points for improvement via canvas
• Group feedback week 12

Summative (i.e., final) submission date

By 1400 hrs, approximately 2 weeks after the end of module- specific date to be confirmed

Summative submission method

Online via Canvas Assignments menu item

Assignment requirements

The following 3 questions make up the individual portfolio. These papers should be written by utilizing the relevant topics covered in the module, along with concepts and opinions taken from academic journals and reputable web sites. They should be written in an academic essay style and fully referenced throughout using Harvard system only.

1. Critically evaluate the implications of the 4 IR for human resource management in developing countries (1,500 words)
2. Synthesise and debate the principles and concepts underpinning the work of the International Labour Organisation (1,500 words)
3. Identify 3 topics covered in the module and using Gibbs model of reflection discuss how they will assist you in your future management role? (1,000 words)

Learning outcomes

LO1: Synthesise the emerging employment related issues in the external global environment.

LO2: Evaluate the range of people practices prevalent within organisations including developing countries, international and multinationals.

LO3: Analyse and understand ethical and cross-cultural management and change factors within organisations.

LO4: Critically evaluate the theories, concepts and approaches to people management / human resource management and development from an international perspective.

Assessment criteria
(see rubric below for performance criteria)

• Content 15%
• Theory and frameworks 15%
• Sources 15%
• Analysis & critique 15%
• Academic writing 15%
• Reflection 15%
• Presentation & referencing 10%

Characteristics of a good submission

1. Include the correct content from topics covered in the module material showing understanding of the question and the content.
2. A minimum of 30 articles from the list of recommended online peer reviewed journals.
3. Referenced writer criticisms of the theory, frameworks and concepts within the essay debate is included in most paragraphs.
4. Minimum explanation, description with emphasis on analysis and critique using concise language.
5. Evidence of competence in academic writing style and Harvard referencing.

Additional instructions

RECOMMENDED PRESENTATION & FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS

• Portfolio should be within one Microsoft Word document and be in written in academic essay style.
• Each essay should be followed by the reference list applicable to the specific question.
• No contents list required and should not be included.
• Each essay question response should be on a new page.
• Do not use bullet points in this type of academic paper.
• Utilise academic essay style only

Font:

•Word-processed typeface size 12.

•Times New Roman or Arial

Images and Diagrams:

Do not use images and diagrams apart from on your front cover

Justification:

The report should be justified right and left.

Page Numbering:

•Pages numbers must be numbered consecutively throughout.

•Pages numbers should be located centrally at the bottom of each page.

Spacing and Indentation:

•Line spacing of 1.5 must be used for typescript of the main text, except for indented quotations or tables when single spacing may be used.

•New paragraphs should begin flush with the left-hand margin.

•Any abbreviations used should be those in normal use

NB. The above format is normally required by the editors of academic journals and therefore it is good practice to extend this to your master’s assessments.

Professional Body requirements

Mapped against the CIPD Associate membership standards as follows:

B01.03C Challenge decisions and actions which are not ethical, explaining the organisation risks.

B04.01C Role-model and advocate the value of including others and embracing difference.

B04.03C Build collaborative relationships across organisation boundaries, cultures and other disciplines.

B06.05C Assimilate evidence and ideas to identify themes and connections and gain insight on the whole issue and its wider implication.

K02.02C How to apply models of systemic thinking to a range of people practices.

K02.05C Different ethical perspectives, and how different mind sets and values influence internal and external decision-making.

University regulations

University’s Academic Regulations

Academic Integrity Policy

Level and Mark Descriptors

Support

Student Support and Wellbeing

Study Guides

Skills for Learning – Introduction to Academic Study Skills

Academic English Language Skills

You should also refer to your Course and Module Guides

Date by which feedback will be provided

4 weeks after submission date

Feedback format

Rubric in canvas with relevant comments also request accepted for an individual tutorial for oral feedback if required

Resit details

Dates TBC:

Amend and resubmit the above assignment taking into account feedback performance criteria contained in the rubric and comments

RUBRIC FOR 7HR034: Contemporary Issues in Human Resources- an International Perspective

CRITERIA

DISTINCTION 100%-70%

15-11 pts

MERIT 69%-60%

10-9 pts

PASS 59%-50%

8-7.5 pts

FAIL 49%-0%

7-0 pts

%

CONTENT

Appropriate concepts from the module content in canvas and addresses the questions

Portfolio demonstrates originality and depth in the INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES content at a very high standard with the potential for publication.

Overall, the work is good, the portfolio is insightful and has an appropriate selection of INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES content from the module material, content offered is insightful and all content is appropriate

Some INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES topics/content from the module material included but not always appropriately. Content is sometimes weak in relation to the question posed

In most papers content is off-topic, vague, or generic. Limited appropriate selection of INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES content. Some key aspects missed/misconstrued.

15%

THEORY AND FRAMEWORKS

Theory and frameworks used in the key areas identified in the brief as well as other relevant frameworks

Some insightful use of international HUMAN RESOURCES concepts and theory which is of a very high standard demonstrating masters level perspectives

Appropriate INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES theory or frameworks in the key areas are identified in the response, the work is of a good standard and consistent across all the tasks and includes a minimum of 3 key INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES concepts in each paper

A minimum 3 key theories and ideas from INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES are included each paper in an appropriate manner although not consistently across all tasks.

Limited or lack of INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES theory in most tasks. Including inconsistent or evidence of misunderstanding of INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES theory or frameworks or concepts

15%

SOURCES

Extensive use of peer reviewed journal articles and other reputable sources

Sources are synthesised from high ranked journals which have been analysed and applied to the topic through academic debate to a very good standard. Citations from appropriate INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES and other related journals synthesised

Overall good use of literature with at least 60% from a variety of high ranked peer reviewed academic journals and other well-regarded sources used to developing debate. Appropriate HR & INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES related journals used and consistently across the portfolio.

Clear evidence of secondary research of relevant literature. Use of authors views, using at least 30 relevant academic sources including peer reviewed articles although not consistent across the portfolio

Limited number and range of secondary research in evidence. Little or no evidence of reading research around INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES

15%

ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE

Considers the issues within concepts and debates the limitations of these concepts including the methodology and philosophy underpinning the concepts

Portfolio consistently demonstrates application of theory/critical analysis and contests the INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES published literature through high level of debate to a very high standard

Some engagement with INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES critical perspectives and some comparison of author’s views. Good application and questioning of theory or views etc. although inconsistent across all questions.

There is some critical analysis of INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES concepts and frameworks but mainly explores the issues in genera.l overall the portfolio is descriptive but meets learning outcomes utilising only a limited level of critical analysis

A descriptive portfolio which has very little critical analysis in regard to INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES concepts. Lack of evidence provided to achieve masters level work and module learning outcomes

15%

ACADEMIC WRITING

Evidence of good standards of academic writing in comparison to published academic work

Mostly a very good standard Clarity of expression is very good with consistent/ accurate use of grammar /spelling using academic writing style.

Sound academic writing showing some potential. Thoughts and ideas clearly expressed. Grammar and spelling accurate and fluent to a good standard

Academic language and writing style mainly fluent but limited Grammar and spelling mainly accurate providing evidence of a sound academic style

Meaning not always apparent, language not fluent, grammar/spelling is often inaccurate. Clumsy in flow/ grammar

15%

REFLECTION

Personal reflection on the module content as directed in the assignment brief including use of reflective model, discussion of reflection using citations.

Strong evidence of deep reflection to a very high standard including self-questioning and clear recognition of learning. Use of reflective model including critique of the model used. Application to current and future personal development

Use of reflective model in the response. Evidence of in-depth reflection and indications of the effect of the module on personal development. Some reflection may be inappropriate or in insufficient depth

Evidence of personal learning and development identified with examples drawn from the module. Mostly aspects are descriptive or superficial with no use of a m

The reflection is mainly descriptive and superficial. There is limited linking of ideas or insights into how the module content might contribute to personal/ career development.

15%

PRESENTATION AND HARVARD REFERENCING

Shows skill in use of Harvard referencing and citations both within text and in reference list. Uses recommended presentation format and style as identified in the assignment brief.

10-9 pts

Presentation standard of the portfolio is to a very high standard, using academic protocols and recommended format. Referencing clear, relevant and accurate using the Harvard system

8-7 pts

Presentation overall of a good standard with few errors in requested presentation format. Referencing relevant and mostly accurate using the Harvard system. Mainly follows the recommended format in the assessment brief

6-5 pts

Presentation has limitations including some errors in format in comparison to recommended layout and format. Minor inconsistencies/ inaccuracies in referencing. Adequate use of the Harvard system

4-0 pts

Structure and presentation is not of an acceptable standard for masters level. does not follow recommended format in briefing. Referencing mainly inaccurate or absent. Limited use of the Harvard system

10%