- 15 Mar, 2021
- 0 Comments
- 19 Mins Read
ASSESSMENT TASK TEMPLATE
| Module Code: | BHO0007 |
| Module Title: | Management, Work and Society |
| Assessment Task(s) | Individual Written Essay |
| Academic Year | 19/20 |
| Learning Outcomes |
|
This assessment task addresses the following learning outcomes from the module specification
|
| Assessment brief [Module Leader should insert formal statement of the assessment task brief] |
|
‘Gender inequality in organisations is a complex phenomenon that can be seen in organisational structures, processes, and practices’ and is often considered to be a ‘self reinforcing system that can perpetuate discrimination’ (Stamarski & Hing, 2015: 1400). Critically evaluate this statement, do you agree?
In your answer you must critically discuss the nature of gender inequality in contemporary organisations and the current and potential future work roles of men and women. Your discussion must identify possible strategies for tackling inequality and evaluate the challenges associated with addressing the issue of gender equality in the workplace.
|
| You are advised to:
|
· Work should be referenced in APA 6th style. The link below is to the library guidance on referencing and it is recommended you use these resources to ensure your references are in the correct format.
· http://www.hud.ac.uk/library/finding-info/informationskills/evaluation/referencing/
|
| Marking criteria |
|
1. Please refer to the assessment task-specific criteria in Appendix 1. These show you the issues that will guide your tutors in marking your work. You are encouraged to use these at all stages of preparing your work. Please remember that the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
2. In addition to the assessment task-specific criteria, generic assessment criteria are attached in Appendix 1 & 2.
3. The Learning Development Group are available to help you to understand and use the assessment criteria. To book an appointment, either visit them on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them on busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk
4. The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including plagiarism. The Learning Development Group can also advise and help you about academic conventions and avoiding ‘poor scholarship’ which can result in potential academic misconduct.
|
| Submission information | |
| Word Limit: | 2000 |
| Submission Date: | 06/12/2019 |
| Feedback Date: | 13/02/2020 |
| Submission Time: | 15.00 |
| Submission Method: | Electronically via Brightspace. Papers submissions are not required. For support please contact |
| Tutor Reassessment | Yes. |
| Notes:
Please refer to the Module Handbook for Assessment Guidance in Section 5.
|
Appendix 1 Assessment task-specific marking criteria
| Unacceptable
|
Unsatisfactory (Refer if required)
|
Pass
|
Fair
|
Good
|
Very Good
|
Excellent
|
Outstanding
|
|
| Tutors to create assessment-task specific criteria eg | 0-9
10-19 20-29 |
30-39 | 40-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 |
| Relevance (60%) | Little understanding of the subject matter with inaccurate discussion of the relationship between men and women in the workplace and the reasons for these differences. Work is descriptive | A refer answer which lacks depth in the discussion of the relationship between men and women in the workplace and the reasons for these differences demonstrating a lack of understanding. Work is descriptive | The basic relationship between the roles of men and women in the workplace and reasons for the differences is demonstrated. Work is descriptive. | The relationship between men and women in the workplace and reasons for the differences is understood but the complex nature is not appreciated. Work is descriptive with an attempt at critical valuation. | A good understanding of the relationship between men and women in the workplace and reasons for the differences, appreciating its complex nature. The work is critically evaluative | An excellent understanding and critical evaluation of the relationship between men and women in the workplace and reasons for these differences demonstrating the complex nature of it. Detailed discussion and examples to support accurate | A high quality piece of work demonstrating an excellent understanding and critical evaluation of the relationship between men and women in the workplace and reasons for these differences demonstrating the complex nature of it. | A comprehensive piece of work demonstrating an excellent understanding and critical evaluation of the relationship between men and women in the workplace and reasons for these differences demonstrating the complex nature of it. |
| Scholarship: Evidence of Reading and Research (30%) | Reliance on lecture notes and lack of academic evidence to support the discussion. | Reliance on lecture notes and lack of academic evidence to support the discussion. Reliant on textbooks/ internet sites. | Research has been undertaken but is limited in breadth. Mainly reliant on textbooks/ internet sites. | Research includes journal articles, textbooks and internet sites recommended on the reading list. | Research is academically based and appropriate examples used. A limited amount of original material included. | Extensive reading and original research to support the discussion. Numerous relevant and academic examples researched to support the discussion.
|
Extensive and high quality reading and original research to support the discussion. Numerous relevant and academic examples researched to support the discussion. | Extensive reading and original research to support the discussion. Numerous relevant and academic examples researched to support the discussion and provide a current perspective on the topic. |
| Structure and Presentation (10%) | Weak structure and not in essay format. Poor presentation and referencing not using the APA 6th system. |
Essay format used but it may not be accurate and the structure is weak. Poor presentation and referencing using the APA 6th system but there are significant inaccuracies. |
Essay format should be used but may not be accurate. Presentation should be satisfactory. Attempt made to reference using the APA 6th system but may not be accurate. |
Essay format used and satisfactory presentation. Bibliography/ referencing used but may contain errors. | Essay format used and a good standard of presentation. Bibliography/ referencing should be accurate using the APA 6th system but may contain minor errors. | Essay format used with discussion being logically developed. A good standard of presentation and accurate bibliography/ referencing using the APA 6th system. With possibly one or two minor errors. | Essay format used with discussion being logically developed. A high standard of presentation and accurate bibliography/ referencing using the APA 6th system containing no errors. | A comprehensive piece of work using an essay format with the discussion being logically developed. The work is presented to a professional standard with accurate bibliography/ referencing using the APA 6th system containing no errors. |
Appendix 2 Generic marking criteria
UG Generic Assessment Criteria (covering a range of types of assessment)
| Unacceptable
Work at this level -does not address the task set or represents a wholly inadequate attempt -requires a complete re-write |
Unsatisfactory (Refer if required)
Work at this level will demonstrate -an incomplete answer -insufficient depth of understanding -some serious errors and/or major omissions -a potentially recoverable piece of work |
Pass
Work at this level will demonstrate -limited use of module material -a basic level of understanding -a simply descriptive approach -some errors and omissions |
Fair
Work at this level will demonstrate -generally good use of some of the module material -reasonable and coherent description of theory -limited analysis and evaluation -no major errors |
Good
Work at this level will demonstrate -good use of module material -ability to compare and contrast material from a variety of relevant sources -analytical ability underpinning logical argument -well-structured, clear and consistent presentation, although there may be a few errors |
Very Good
Work at this level will demonstrate -accomplished discussion and application of theory -clear ability to compare and contrast material from a wide variety of relevant sources -some synthesis based on critical analysis -well-structured, clear and coherent presentation, although there may be a few minor errors |
Excellent
Work at this level will demonstrate -a mastery of complex knowledge and ideas – originality and insight derived from a mature depth of understanding of material that goes well beyond that provided in the module – creative synthesis arising from critical analysis and evaluation of relevant information – presentation that is clear, coherent and error free |
Outstanding
Work at this level will demonstrate -a mastery of complex knowledge and ideas – originality and insight derived from a mature depth of understanding of material that goes well beyond that provided in the module – creative synthesis arising from critical analysis and evaluation of relevant information – presentation that is clear, coherent and error free |
|||
| 0-9 | 10-19 | 20-29 | 30-39 | 40-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |
| Knowledge of Theory, Concepts and Methods | Does not address any relevant theories, concepts or methods | Mentions some terminology relating to relevant theories, concepts or methods | Mentions some terminology relating to relevant theories, concepts or methods wholly inadequate attempt at use or explanation | Mentions some terminology relating to relevant theories, concepts or methods inadequate attempt at use or explanation | Relevant theory, concepts and models used or explained but some aspects may have been missed or misconstrued | Most relevant theories, concepts and models used or explained in an appropriate and straight forward manner with some assumptions and implications recognised | Appropriate selection of relevant theories, concepts and models used or explained insightfully with assumptions, implications and contextualisation recognised | Appropriate selection of relevant theories, concepts and models used or explained insightfully with wide range of assumptions and implications recognised with highly appropriate contextualisation demonstrating excellent understanding | Appropriate selection of relevant theories, concepts and models used or explained innovatively with full range of assumptions and implications recognised with highly appropriate contextualisation demonstrating excellent understanding of complex material | Appropriate selection of relevant theories, concepts and models used or explained innovatively with full range of assumptions and implications recognised with highly appropriate contextualisation demonstrating exceptional understanding of complex material |
| Scholarship: Evidence of Reading and Research | No evidence presented or what is presented is wholly irrelevant | No evidence presented or what is presented is generally irrelevant | Minimal evidence presented is generally irrelevant or lacking currency | Minimal evidence presented uncritically and lacks evidence of independent research beyond core texts | Evidence of limited but relevant reading which is presented uncritically and tends to use summary description | Evidence of relevant reading which shows clear attempt at independent reading and some attempt at synthesis | Evidence of range of relevant reading generally used critically which shows clear attempt at independent reading and ability to synthesise | Evidence of wide range of relevant reading used critically which shows high degree of independent reading and a strong ability to synthesise | Evidence of the fullest range of relevant reading used critically which shows a very high level of independent reading and an excellent ability to synthesise | Evidence of the fullest range of relevant reading used critically which shows the highest level of independent reading and an outstanding ability to synthesise |
| Critical Reasoning | No demonstration of critical thought | No demonstration of critical thought | No demonstration of critical thought | No demonstration of critical thought but has potential to be developed | Minimal demonstration of critical thought | Demonstrates critical thought | Often demonstrates critical thought | Consistent application of well integrated critical thought | Consistent application of excellently integrated critical thought | Consistent application of outstandingly integrated critical thought |
| Use of Evidence: Analysis & Evaluation | Does not analyse or any analysis is irrelevant | Does not analyse or any analysis is irrelevant | Does not analyse but basic concepts are understood | Does not analyse but the potential for analysis is evident. Shows potential to develop arguments. | Demonstrates limited analysis with some development of argument and related evaluation (if applicable) | Demonstrates good ability to analyse and evaluate (if applicable) with arguments developed coherently | Demonstrates very good ability to analyse a range of topics/issues critically. Evaluation is well supported (if applicable). Arguments are well structured and logical. | Demonstrates excellent ability to analyse a range of topics/issues critically and demonstrates ability to question ‘received opinion’. Evaluation is well supported and provides convincing conclusions (if applicable). Arguments are well structured, complex and logical. | Demonstrates excellent ability to analyse a range of topics/issues critically and demonstrates ability to question ‘received opinion’. Evaluation is well supported and provides convincing conclusions (if applicable). Arguments are complex, lucid and persuasive. | Demonstrates outstanding ability to analyse a range of topics/issues critically and demonstrates ability to question ‘received opinion’. Evaluation is well supported and provides convincing conclusions (if applicable). Exceptionally complex, lucid and persuasive arguments. |
| Clarity of Written Expression | Incoherent and incomprehensible throughout | Largely incomprehensible | Generally comprehensible but language errors generally impede understanding and flow of reading | Language errors often impede understanding and flow of reading | The meaning is clear but contains language errors | Generally fluent and accurate use of grammar and spelling | Consistently fluent and accurate use of grammar and spelling | Consistently fluent and accurate use of grammar and spelling employing appropriate genre | Consistently fluent and accurate use of grammar and spelling employing appropriate genre and excellent expression | Consistently fluent and accurate use of grammar and spelling employing appropriate genre and exceptional expression |
| Skill or Competence: INSERT NAME | Not attempted | Attempted but not demonstrated | Inadequately demonstrated | Insufficiently demonstrated to be considered competent | Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have acceptable competence level | Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have fair competence level | Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have good competence level | Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have very good competence | Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have excellent competence | Sufficiently demonstrated to be considered to have outstanding competence |
| Structure | No structure | Structure wholly inappropriate to the task | Structure generally inappropriate to the task | Structure does not meet expectations of the task | Shows sufficient awareness of required general structure | Demonstrates good organisation and awareness of required general structure | Demonstrates consistently logical organisation and awareness of required general structure | Polished and excellently organised; fully meets structural expectations | Polished and excellently organised; fully meets structural expectations and demonstrates a highly imaginative approach | Polished and outstandingly organised; fully meets structural expectations and demonstrates a highly imaginative approach |
| Oral Communication (monologue)
Inc organisation, supporting material and delivery |
Barely comprehensible,
no connection to context. No audience awareness. Does not demonstrate any understanding |
Completely inadequate,
Significant lack of clarity, inconsistent, indifferent to context. Little audience awareness. Demonstrates minimal understanding |
Significant lack of clarity,
inconsistent, minimal connection to context. Inadequate audience awareness. Demonstrates an inadequate level of understanding |
Insufficient clarity, little tailoring to context. Some significant
inadequacies, weak expression with some systematic errors . Insufficient audience awareness. Does not demonstrate sufficient level of understanding |
Generally clear, some tailoring to context. Some flaws in expression, some systematic errors of expression. Generally engages audience. Demonstrates a sufficient level of understanding through extemporaneous delivery | Appropriately
tailored to context. Fluent expression with articulate delivery. Generally engages audience. Demonstrates a general level of understanding through extemporaneous delivery |
Persuasive delivery and
effectively tailored to context. Engages audience throughout. Demonstrates a high level of understanding through extemporaneous delivery |
Lively, eloquent persuasive delivery and very effectively tailored
to context. Engages audience throughout. Demonstrates excellent understanding through extemporaneous delivery |
Lively, eloquent, highly
persuasive, sophisticated delivery, superbly tailored to context. Provides audience with high levels of engagement throughout. Demonstrates excellent understanding through extemporaneous delivery |
Lively, eloquent, highly
persuasive, sophisticated delivery, superbly tailored to context. Provides audience with the highest levels of engagement throughout. Demonstrates outstanding understanding through extemporaneous delivery |
| Presentation of work | Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language and presentation errors impact on intelligibility | Length requirements may not be observed; does not follow academic conventions; language and presentation errors impact on intelligibility | Length requirements may not be observed; generally does not follow academic conventions; language and/or presentation errors may impact on intelligibility | Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Minor errors in language or presentation | Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Possibly very minor errors in language or presentation | Fair standard of presentation; length requirement met and academic conventions followed | Good standards of presentation | Very good standards of presentation | Professional standards of presentation | Highest professional standards of presentation |
| Reflection | No attempt at reflection
|
Some evidence of an attempt at reflection but does not constitute reflection. | A wholly inadequate level of reflection. There is no link between self and relevant theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies. Viewpoints and interpretations are missing, inappropriate, and/or unsupported. Irrelevant exemplification. | A level of reflection which does not meet minimum expectations. Insufficient linking between self and relevant theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies. Viewpoints and interpretations are insufficiently supported or supported with flawed arguments. Irrelevant exemplification. | An adequate level of reflection. There is evidence of relevant linking between self and theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies. Viewpoints and interpretations are generally supported. Some relevant examples, when applicable, are provided. | A fair level of reflection. There are some of instances where relevant links have been made between self and relevant theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies. Viewpoints and interpretations are supported. Appropriate examples are provided, as applicable | A good level of reflection. There are a number of instances where relevant links have been made between self and relevant theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies.
Evidence of analysis through questioning and challenging of assumptions leading to transformation of personal insight. Well supported by clear, detailed examples as applicable. |
A very good level of reflection. There are many instances where relevant links have been made between self and theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies.
Extensive evidence of analysis through questioning and challenging of assumptions leading to transformation of personal insight. Well supported by clear, detailed examples as applicable. |
An excellent reflection. Contains a wide range of instances where relevant links have been made between self and theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies.
Extensive evidence of analysis through questioning and challenging of assumptions leading to transformation of personal insight. Well supported by clear, detailed examples as applicable. |
An outstanding reflection. Contains a wide range of instances where relevant links have been made between self and theories, models, concepts, and/or strategies.
Extensive evidence of analysis through questioning and challenging of assumptions leading to transformation of personal insight. Well supported by clear, detailed examples as applicable |
| Ethics, sustainability & Responsibility
(subject area) |
Not considered or no relevance | Consideration at a superficial level with minimal relevance to subject. | Considered with relevant solutions identified but no detail relevant to the subject. | Considered with relevant solutions identified but little detail relevant to the subject. | Considered with relevant solutions identified and adequate detail relevant to the subject. | Wide consideration with relevant solutions identified and appropriate detail relevant to the subject. | Full consideration of implications for subject with range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for subject with wide range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for subject with extensive range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for subject with full range of solutions discussed in detail. |
| Ethics, sustainability & Responsibility
(professional practice) |
Not considered or no relevance | Consideration at a superficial level with minimal relevance shown to professional practice. | Considered with relevant solutions identified but no detail relevant to professional practice. | Considered with relevant solutions identified but little detail relevant to professional practice. | Considered with relevant solutions identified and adequate detail relevant to professional practice. | Wide consideration with relevant solutions identified and appropriate detail relevant to professional practice. | Full consideration of implications for professional practice with range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for professional practice with wide range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for professional practice with extensive range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for professional practice with full range of solutions discussed in detail. |
| Teamwork and Oral communication
(dialogue) |
No evidence of
teamwork or engagement with views or learning of others. |
Minimal teamwork, unaddressed
conflicts evident, negative engagement with difference |
Marginal teamwork, conflicts
unaddressed, little engagement with difference |
Little teamwork or
effort to collaborate effectively, symptoms of lack of mutual respect. |
Worked together much of the time,
With adequate level of engagement. Some unresolved conflict but mostly respectful with evidence of listening. |
Generally cohesive team, all members active most of the time, exercising mutual respect and evidence of effective dialogue most of the time. Any conflict resolved. | Highly cohesive team, all members active, high levels of mutual respect and evidence of effective dialogue most of the time. Any conflict identified and resolved quickly. | Very good team
cohesion, all members active, high levels of mutual respect and evidence of effective dialogue throughout. Any conflict identified and resolved early. |
Excellent team
cohesion, all members consistently active mutually respectful and evidence of effective dialogue throughout. Any conflict identified and resolved early. |
Exceptional team
cohesion, all members consistently active mutually respectful and evidence of effective dialogue throughout. Any conflict identified and resolved early. |
| Critical peer review | No comment made on the work of peers | Lack of any reasoning in comments made on the work of peers | Unsupported reasoning in comments made on the work of peers | Insufficiently supported reasoning in comments made on the work of peers | Evidence of reasoned comments made on the work of peers | Evidence of ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in the work of peers | Evidence of ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in the work of peers and judge areas for improvement | Evidence of ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in the work of peers and judge areas for improvement. Provides commentary on assessment outcome and can offer insights into how it could be developed. | Evidence of excellent ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in the work of peers and judge areas for improvement. Provides commentary on assessment outcome and can offer detailed insights into how it could be developed. | Evidence of outstanding ability to assess strengths and weaknesses in the work of peers and judge areas for improvement. Provides outstanding commentary on assessment outcome and can offer detailed insights into how it could be developed. |
| Originality | No evidence of any attempt at independent thinking | Any attempt at independent thinking is irrelevant | Any attempt at independent thinking is generally irrelevant | Insufficient evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas | Limited evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas | Some evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas | General evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas | High level of evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas | Strong evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas | Outstanding evidence of independent thinking and development of own ideas |
| 0-9 | 10-19 | 20-29 | 30-39 | 40-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |