(The following advice is quoted from the University Learning Centre Guide entitled “Referencing your work using the Harvard system”).

When you have included information from published sources in your work, you must acknowledge this information fully and accurately. The inclusion of such information is called citation, and the details about the information are known as a reference, since you are referring to the book, journal article, website or other source.

The reference list should only contain items that have been cited (specifically mentioned) in the main text of your work.

You should acknowledge your source with a reference whenever you include:

Mention of a particular theory, fact, argument or viewpoint (attributable

to a specific person, that is not common knowledge).

Statistics, examples and case studies.
Direct quotations from another source, which should be made obvious by

enclosing them in quotation marks.

Paraphrases of any of the above (paraphrasing is rewriting the original text to suit the style of your piece of work, but still using the ideas of the original writer. Quotation marks are not used, but there should still be a citation to show that the ideas are not original.

You can cite a document in two different ways using the Harvard system:

By specifically mentioning the author’s name(s) within your own text, followed by the year of publication in brackets, for example:

It may be, as Burchard (1999) points out, that they have no assistants.

By just presenting the information or idea without direct reference to the author in your own text, but followed by both the author and year of publication in brackets, for example:

It may be that they are reluctant to delegate (Smith, 1980).

An author’s initial is only used to avoid confusion when two or more authors have the same surname and have published in the same year. If more than one item has been published in the same year by the same author, use lower case letters after the date (e.g. Smith, 1980b)

Where more than one reference is given at the same point in the text, they should be listed chronologically.

Smith, (1981); Brown, (1982); and Jones, (1983).

For documents with no obvious author, use ‘Anon’ instead.

Source material (books, articles, internet sources, etc.) should be fully acknowledged and arranged in an alphabetical order, using the author’s name. Examples:

Edgell, S. (2006) The Sociology of Work. London: Sage

– Institute for Volunteering Research (2008) Regular and occasional volunteers

How and why they help out. London: Institute for Volunteering Research

[online] available at http://www.ivr.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/568EEABF-B25E-4E3C-870D-755FB2FA7955/0/reg_and_occ_volunteers.pdf Accessed 15 January 2009

For additional information on how to reference your work, including advice on how to cite information from the Internet, access the following university website:

http://wwwcls.hud.ac.uk/cls-bin/cls.pl?c=151

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Your work will graded accordingly to the following criteria, which are also set in the Assessment Guidelines set out in your Student Handbook.

The criteria are not intended to be either exhaustive or definitive and are to be taken as guidelines rather than imposing absolute standards.

A	90-100 Outstanding	I	A comprehensive piece of work, well evidenced and supported with accurate referencing throughout. All content is relevant and all aspects of the question are addressed
A	80-89	I	A high quality piece of work though one or two additional considerations could potentially be enhanced to strengthen the answer. Accurate referencing and a substantial body of evidence used to support the answer.
A	70-79	I	An excellent answer, well evidenced and referenced. One or two minor areas may have been omitted though this does not detract from the overall quality of the argument.
B+ B B-	67 – 69 Above Average	II(i)	A good answer that displays a good familiarity with the available literature. Comprehension of all the issues involved and contains evidence of independent criticism and analysis. Free from errors and all relevant points discussed.
C+ C C-	57 – 59 54 – 56 50 – 53 Average	II(ii)	A middle range answer that shows familiarity with the available literature. Comprehension of all the issues involved and contains evidence of independent criticism and analysis. Free from errors and all relevant points discussed.
D+ D D-	47 – 49 44 – 46 40 – 43 Satisfactory	III	A poor answer which, whilst demonstrating an understanding of the basic issues involved (and hence deserves a pass) is deficient in terms of material covered, level of comprehension etc. Insufficiently researched and, perhaps, major errors and omissions.
R	37 – 39 34 – 36 30 – 33 Refer		A refer answer, which demonstrates a lack of depth in terms of comprehension and knowledge of the subject matter.
F	20-29 Fail		Little or no understanding of the subject matter and, probably, a minimum degree of effort.
F	10-19 Fail		Minimal relevant content within the answer and complete lack of evidence to support. The work is poorly presented
F	0-9 Fail		Virtually no relevant content and inadequate presentation. This grade could be given due to non-submission.

Requirement: RWBI BIO0226 Assignment One – Identifying Themes and Concerns for the Benefit of the Individual Business Manager: Lectures One and Two The first two guest lectures contain distinct and contradictory ideas (equivalent to the Unstructured Information typically shared during a board/business meeting without prior knowledge of the members). Using your notes, research and ‘board-room’ presentations use thematic analysis to identify connections, either obvious or less clear, between the two lectures that have a common theme. The themes should have potential relevance to individual business managers in the changing nature of work now and in the future. Having identified three or four (maximum) common themes use text books, journals and secondary research to support your unique argument(s) for why managers and leaders should take note of these concerns in their future practice. The work should offer arguments that are directly drawn from these connections and should demonstrate your unique thinking supported by evidence from academic research, and drawing directly on previous learning from within the course. These links must be explicitly grounded in academic concepts and theory, supported by good referencing. A short critical and personal reflection on your approach to dialogue and argumentation should contain no more the 200 words. (Using the word “I” in this section is permissible.) Your answer should be in an assignment format. Tutor referral will apply to this assessment component. Tutor – referred work must be resubmitted one week after notification. The assignment will be assessed in relation to thematic connections, evidenced argumentation and structured insights and reflection.
Criteria	0-39	40-49	50-59	60-69	70 or above
Thematic connections – The work will clearly demonstrate the building of a coherent argument built from the unstructured content from guest speaker contributions. Description should be avoided, instead critically evaluating the content that relates to a strategic perspective.	Limited or no meaningful connections offered between the lectures demonstrating a lack of understanding. Work is descriptive.	Basic thematic connections and commentary are offered demonstrating some unique understanding. Work is descriptive.	The thematic connections between the lectures are offered with some meaningful interpretations but the more critical nature of these is not appreciated. Work is descriptive with an attempt at critical evaluation.	A good development of thematic connections between the lectures and appreciation of their complex nature. The work is critically evaluative	Excellent development of the thematic connections and critical evaluation of the relationship between these. Detailed discussion and examples to support accurate conclusions.
Evidenced argumentation – Assignments will give strong argued reasoning for the points raised. They will demonstrate wider reading and cite examples from the lectures in support. A wide variety of academic materials is recommended including textbooks, journal articles and reliable websites all of which should be accurately referenced.	Reliance on lecture notes and lack of academic evidence to support the thematic connections and arguments.	Research has been undertaken and arguments offered but are limited in breadth. Mainly reliant on textbooks/ internet sites.	Research and arguments supported by journal articles, textbooks, previous learning and internet sites recommended on the reading list.	Research and arguments are academically based and appropriate examples used. A limited amount of original material included.	Extensive reading and original research to support the arguments. Numerous relevant and academic examples researched to support the discussion,
Structured insights and reflection – There will be an appropriate level of coherency in the argument where the unstructured ideas have been brought together to offer key points along with personal reflection. Appropriate assignment format.	Weak structure and not in assignment format. Poor coherency. Poor presentation, reflection and referencing not using the Harvard system.	Assignment format is used but not effectively as possible. Presentation, reflection and coherency should be satisfactory. Attempt made to reference using the Harvard system but may not be accurate.	Assignment format used and appropriate. Reflections and coherency are good. Reasonably presented. Bibliography/ referencing used but may contain errors.	Assignment format used with good standard of presentation, coherency and reflection. Meaningful reflection. Bibliography/ referencing should be accurate using the Harvard system but may contain minor errors.	Very good assignment structure with discussion being logically developed, very coherent. Significant reflection made, including links to the ideas themselves. High standard of presentation and accurate bibliography/ referencing using the Harvard system.

Requirement: RWBI BIO0226 Assignment Two – Identifying Themes and Concerns to support Strategic Direction: a paper for the attention of the Board of Directors: Lectures Three, Four and Five As in assignment one, use your notes, research and presentations and then thematic analysis to identify three to four common connections, but this time based on lectures three, four and five. However, in this second assignment your arguments should be concerned with Issues of Strategic Importance, drawn from the themes, and of general value to any typical business and therefore should be addressed as a paper to the Company Board. (Strategic Direction is concerned with the long-term, beyond the financial year, and not immediate operational performance.) Having identified three or four (maximum) common themes and concerns now use text books, journals and secondary research to support your unique arguments for why The Board should take note that these concerns are significant to them. Therefore, the arguments offered will NOT be concerned with the practice of individual managers but more concerned with the long-term survival and performance of a company as a whole. E.g. If you identify a theme concerned with supply chain management, you should argue, using the lecture and your additional research for how supply chain management in the future is changing and why this might be a concern for businesses in general. The work should offer arguments that are directly drawn from the connections and should demonstrate your unique thinking supported by evidence from academic research and previous learning from within the course. These links must be explicitly grounded in academic concepts and theory, supported by good referencing. A short critical and personal reflection on your approach to questioning should contain no more the 200 words. (Using the word “I” in this section is permissible.) Your answer should be in an assignment format. Tutor referral will apply to this assessment component. Tutor – referred work must be resubmitted one week after notification. The assignment will be assessed in relation to thematic connections, evidenced argumentation and structured insights and reflection.
Criteria	0-39	40-49	50-59	60-69	70 or above
Thematic connections – The work will clearly demonstrate the building of a coherent argument built from the unstructured content from guest speaker contributions. Description should be avoided, instead critically evaluating the content that relates to a strategic perspective.	Limited or no meaningful connections offered between the lectures demonstrating a lack of understanding. Work is descriptive.	Basic thematic connections and commentary are offered demonstrating some unique understanding. Work is descriptive.	The thematic connections between the lectures are offered with some meaningful interpretations but the more critical nature of these is not appreciated. Work is descriptive with an attempt at critical evaluation.	A good development of the thematic connections between the lectures and appreciation of its complex nature. The work is critically evaluative	Excellent development of the thematic connections and critical evaluation of the relationship between these. Detailed discussion and examples to support accurate conclusions.
Evidenced argumentation – Assignments will give strong argued reasoning for the points raised. They will demonstrate wider reading and cite examples from the lectures in support. A wide variety of academic materials is recommended including textbooks, journal articles and reliable websites all of which should be accurately referenced.	Reliance on lecture notes and lack of academic evidence to support the thematic connections and arguments.	Research has been undertaken and arguments offered but are limited in breadth. Mainly reliant on textbooks/ internet sites.	Research and arguments supported by journal articles, textbooks, previous learning and internet sites recommended on the reading list.	Research and arguments are academically based and appropriate examples used. A limited amount of original material included.	Extensive reading and original research to support the arguments. Numerous relevant and academic examples researched to support the discussion.
Structured insights and reflection – There will be an appropriate level of coherency in the argument where the unstructured ideas have been brought together to offer key points along with personal reflection. Appropriate assignment format.	Weak structure and not in assignment format. Poor coherency. Poor presentation, reflection and referencing not using the Harvard system.	Assignment format is used but not effectively as possible.. Presentation, reflection and coherency is satisfactory. Attempt made to reference using the Harvard system but may not fully accurate.	Assignment format used and appropriate. Reflections and coherency are good. Reasonably presented. Bibliography/ referencing used but may contain errors.	Assignment format used with good standard of presentation, coherency and reflection. Meaningful reflection. Bibliography/ referencing should be accurate using the Harvard system but may contain minor errors.	Very good assignment structure with discussion being logically developed, very coherent. Significant reflection made, including links to the ideas themselves. High standard of presentation and accurate bibliography/ referencing using the Harvard system.

real world business issue

(The following advice is quoted from the University Learning Centre Guide entitled “Referencing your work using the Harvard system”).

You can cite a document in two different ways using the Harvard system:

Latest Assignments