7HR534 Description of the Assessment
In the module handbook, you learnt that for this coursework, you have one assessment: a 3500-word written assignment or equivalent that demonstrates application of the module content. As this is a diversity and inclusion module, there are alternative submission options, and they are:
- Role Play
- We Video
- Adobe Express
- Presentation
Full details of these alternatives will be explained during the launch of the assessment.
This is an open assessment, and students will select a topic area or areas that are of particular interest and importance to them, which will be discussed and approved with the Module Leader.
Coursework- the task is outlined below:
Critically evaluate ONE of the particular topics (no more than two) from the module and assess the impact or influence from the perspective of Leadership, Artificial Intelligence or Hybrid working. You should only select ONE topic and one from leadership, AI, or hybrid working.
To address this task, you must:
- Undertake a critical review of the concepts of diversity and inclusion using appropriate theoretical approaches and insights.
- Select a particular topic or topics (maximum two), identify and examine the challenges of data-driven and evidence-based approaches and critically analyse the legal, moral and business case for organisations when creating a culture of inclusion.
- Provide recommendations for practices and policies based on your analysis in relation to your chosen topic area(s).
You need to address how diversity and inclusion will be impacted by ONE of these factors: Leadership, Artificial Intelligence or Hybrid working.
This coursework assesses learning outcomes one – four (LO1, 2, 3 & 4):
(1) Critically assess the concepts of diversity and inclusion.
(2) Critically examine the theoretical insights, segregation and inequality in the UK labour market and internationally.
(3) Critically evaluate the legal, moral and business cases for managing diversity and developing a culture of inclusion.
(4) Critically assess the role of data and evidence-based approaches to managing diversity and developing inclusive workplace cultures.
Assessment Content
Your report should be structured according to the following format:
- Title page – detailing Module number and name, title of coursework, your SID, module leader’s name, date of submission (not included in word count). NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT include your own name to enable anonymous marking.
- Contents page – indicating the main section headings and page numbers (not included in word count).
- Introduction – Explain the aim of the report (refer to assignment brief and task). Explain how you will attempt to address the task.
- Main Body – This is where you meet the requirements of the task. Take each of the three points in turn and ensure you are clear about the key concepts you are discussing. Use your reading, academic references and organisational examples to support your work.
- Conclusions and recommendations – Draw together the key points from the main body of your work. Present your overall conclusion to the task. There should be no new information provided in this section, but you can (and should) refer back to appropriate references. Make your recommendations based upon your already established arguments and literature. (If you wish, you can use tables or bullet points to communicate details.)
- Reference section – Using Harvard Referencing convention (not in word count).
- Appendices – ONLY include if they add specific value and are integral to your work. They should be kept to a minimum. If you are using documents or secondary sources, these should not be attached as appendices and should be listed in your Reference section. Appendices are NOT an opportunity to extend your word count by relocating text into the appendices and referring to it (not in word count).
Assessment Rubric
The assessment rubric on the next page shows the complete criteria of the CW and how you will be assessed. We will explore the content of the rubric together in synchronous sessions in Weeks 1, 8 and 11. When the assessment is returned, you will receive a digital version of the rubric showing how you performed against each criterion.
Level 7 Assessment Rubric (50% Pass)
|
|
Exceptional 90-100% (Work is virtually flawless) |
Excellent 70-89% (High/Very high-quality work) |
Very Good 60-69% (Clear and coherent work) |
Good /Satisfactory 50-59% (Work is generally sound) |
Unsatisfactory 40-49% (Narrowly fails to achieve the learning outcomes) |
Very Poor 5-39% (Fails to achieve the learning outcomes in several critical respects) |
|
|
Knowledge (20%) |
· Outstanding Subject knowledge · Effectively introduces and integrates knowledge from independent study beyond scope of module materials · Draws links to other modules · No further development of answer required · Potential to influence new thinking in the subject area |
· Uses a wide range of ideas and concepts from the module. · Draws different concepts together effectively. · Strong use of relevant theoretical models and/or research · Fully referenced with wide range of sources · Strong evidence of independent research to enhance the answer |
· Draws together key ideas and concepts from the module effectively. · Demonstrates current subject knowledge backed with examples. · Sound use of theoretical models and/or research to support answer · Well referenced including some sources from independent research |
· Uses some relevant ideas and concepts from the module. · Limited gaps in knowledge or misunderstanding of concepts in terms of leadership, AI or Hybrid working · Some relevant references but largely guided by references provided in the module
|
· Limited use of ideas and concepts from the module · Some significant gaps in knowledge or misunderstanding (errors) · Limited or poor reference sources · May be overreliance on core textbooks/overuse of direct quotes etc. · Learning outcomes are not fully demonstrated |
· Insufficient knowledge to demonstrate the learning outcomes · Insufficient knowledge on the chosen topics · Insufficient knowledge on the perspective of Leadership, AI or Hybrid working. · Serious misunderstanding · No/inadequate independent research · Overreliance on lecture slides and notes |
|
|
Critical Thinking (30%) |
· Extensive critical evaluation of arguments and referenced research and literature · Provides new insight |
· Researched and answered from different angles. · Considers the limitations of some of the research sources used · Presents appropriate questions/critique of supporting research/literature · Identity contemporary challenges |
· Strong development of advantages/disadvantages, pros and cons etc. evident in answer · May be some evidence different approaches to answering the question are understood · May be some reference to research quality |
· Acknowledges some alternative interpretations to the answer e.g. advantages and disadvantages, pros and cons · Little/no reference to limitations of references research/literature |
· Very limited identification of alternative viewpoints · Accepts reference sources as face value |
· No evidence of critical thinking · Poor critical analysis · No evidence on theories and topics chosen. |
|
|
Application (20%) |
· Thoughtful and thorough application of knowledge, theory and research to case study organisation throughout analysis and recommendations · Provides new insight |
· Tailors information to answer the question fully · Illustrates answer with range of organisational examples. · Links relevant examples/experiences to appropriate theoretical concepts and literature · Applies concepts thoroughly to case study organisation. · Clear and concise from the UK perspective, statistics provided |
· Illustrates answer with some appropriate organisational examples · Integrates examples where relevant to the question/task. · Links to case study organisation but integration with theory/research may still be disjointed in places. · Contemporary organisational examples provided align with the topic(s) · Clear and concise from the UK perspective |
· Examples are very limited or lack relevance. · Examples are not always linked back to theoretical concepts and literature · Organisational examples/case study evidence may be mentioned but poorly integrated into the answer.
|
· Lacks examples · Very limited reference to case study organisation needed to fully address the task. · Minimal discussion on the theories and chosen topic(s). · No contemporary organisational examples · Minimal focus from the UK perspective. |
· Ideas are confused or incoherent. · No organisational examples provided. · No focus from the UK perspective |
|
|
Evaluation (20%) |
· All concepts and material fully relevant to the analysis and recommendations including materials sourced from independent research
|
· Answers the question fully covering all key concepts. · No evidence of ‘padding’ with irrelevant information · Recommendations are well explained relating it back to the topic(s)
|
· Chooses appropriate concepts and makes a clear attempt to answer the question. · Information is mostly relevant to the question. · Only minor missing elements · Minimal ‘padding’ with irrelevant information · Minimal recommendations are provided with not actually supporting the topic(s) |
· Some effort to answer the question · Some missing or weak elements in response to the question/task but has demonstrated satisfactory knowledge to satisfy the learning outcomes · Covers some relevant concepts but links to answer are unclear in places · May ‘pad’ with irrelevant information |
· Key elements of the question remain unanswered/underdeveloped · Confused choice of concepts to answer the question · Important concepts may be difficult to extract from other irrelevant information. · Recommendations are generic |
· Minimal/no awareness of relevant issues, concepts and/or theory · Chosen materials fail to answer the question/address the task or demonstrate the module learning outcomes · No recommendations provided
|
|
|
Spelling & grammar (5%) |
Referencing (5%) |
· Outstanding, sophisticated written communication · No significant areas for further development · Publishable/ Exhibitable quality |
· Logical organisation and flow of ideas · Error free written communication · Precise Harvard Referencing · An enjoyable read
|
· Well-structured answer · Only minor spelling/grammatical errors · Good grasp of Harvard Referencing · Mainly easy to read and follow
|
· Some spelling/grammatical errors but do not significantly interfere with understanding · Some attempt to Harvard Reference · Difficult to read and f |
||