A critical evaluation of three journal articles that address a contemporary issue/debate in the field of employee relations.

 

Module leader

Academic Year: 2014 / 2015   –   Semester 2

Module assessment detail (approved at validation as amended by module modification)

Module code & title		6HR001	CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
	Module Learning outcomes:				Indicate if tested here
	ASSESSMENT ONE – INDIVIDUAL ESSAY A critical evaluation of three journal articles that address a contemporary issue/debate in the field of employee relations. Choose one or two articles from the list given by the Tutor, and then provide either one or two articles or research reports that you have discovered yourself on the same issue /debate. This assessment is an individual assessment.
LO2	LO2. An ability to draw on a range of perspectives in order to identify and evaluate relevant literature, contemporary issues and current research in the field of employee relations.				Yes
Assessment type				Weighting (%)
Essay				50%

Assessment type, weighting and LOs tested by this assessment indicated in the shaded area above by a

Important requirements (Delete where appropriate, if other please provide detail)

Mode of Working:                                Individual

Presentation Format:                             Essay

 

 

Hand in date & time
Date & method by which you will receive feedback	Hand in date plus 10 working days
Resit/retrieval date	Undergraduate resit
Assessment limits (in accordance with UWBS assessment tariff)	No more than 2300 words (excluding any appendices)

Assessment Brief / Task           The detailed requirements for this task are as follows:

ASSESSMENT ONE – INDIVIDUAL ESSAY A critical evaluation of three journal articles that address a contemporary issue/debate in the field of employee relations. Choose one or two articles from the list given by the Tutor, and then provide either one or two articles or research reports that you have discovered yourself on the same issue /debate. This assessment is an individual assessment. Hint: Essentially you need to improve upon your first attempt !

The following information is important when:

• Preparing for your assessment
• Checking your work before you submit it
• Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.

 

Assessment Criteria

The module Learning Outcomes tested by this assessment task are indicated on page 1. The precise criteria against which your work will be marked is as follows:

• Using information: Identify and use relevant academic literature to support analysis and to inform discussion of theories and concepts
• Analysis:Use of argument, models, evidence and techniques in the development of theory and practice
• Critical thinking: Objectively assess the relative contribution of different analytical approaches and theoretical perspectives.
• Presentation:Clarity of portfolio presentation, using appropriate English, with correct grammar, spelling and punctuation, with appropriately referenced sources using the Harvard Referencing Methodology

 

Performance descriptors

Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the above criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.

 

Level 6	%	Work will often demonstrate some of the following features
1	70-100	The work varies from very good (70-79%), excellent (80-89%) to outstanding (in excess of 90%). Very good, possibly outstanding or exceptional level of analysis, showing deep critical engagement with a comprehensive range of contextual material. Demonstration of independent thought resulting in creative responses to the assignment brief and some telling insights. Clear evidence of understanding of current scholarship and research based on an extensive range of relevant sources. Clarity of structure demonstrating complete focus of argument. Little or no obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax. Mature links made between relevant ideas, theories and practice.
2:1	60-69	Clear links between theory and practice. Good coverage of assignment issues. Full understanding of core issues. Evidenced level of understanding of appropriate theory and concepts. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
2:2	50-59	Identifies main issues and relevant theory. Coverage of most of assignment issues. Competent application of relevant theory and states obvious links to practice. Some repeated errors in grammar or syntax possibly failure to apply Harvard referencing standard correctly in places.
3	40-49	Makes few links between theory and practice. Answers question in a very basic way. Describes relevant theory accurately, and some relevant ideas offered. Possibly failure to apply Harvard referencing standard correctly. Limited coherence of structure.
Fail	30-39	Some learning outcomes and / or assessment criteria not met. Inadequate content with issues not addressed; insufficient evidence of understanding of relevant theory and concepts and only partial understanding shown. Very limited application of theory. Use of extensive quoted passages is evident. Evidence of sufficient grasp of learning outcomes to suggest that the student will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
Fail	0-29	No learning outcomes fully met. No demonstration of adequate knowledge or understanding of key concepts or theories. There is no recognition of the complexity of the subject. Little attempt to engage with assignment brief and has not met learning outcomes. Inadequate demonstration of knowledge or understanding of key concepts, theories or practice.