Resit Assessment Briefing
2023–2024 (Resit for Term 1)
Contents
Before starting this resit, please: 1
Assessment Element 1: Individual Report 1
Case Report Marking Criteria. 3
Assessment Element 2: Continuing Personal Development (CPD) 4
Guidance for Assessment 2: Reflection and Reflective Practice. 5
Student Marking Criteria – CPD Self-reflection. 6
APPENDIX A: Academic integrity, academic misconduct & plagiarism statement 7
APPENDIX B: Guidance For a Proper Submission. 8
APPENDIX C: UWS Marking & Grading Scheme (Regulation 7.4.2) 9
APPENDIX D: UWS cheating and plagiarism policies. 9
Before starting this resit, please:
- Check your feedback from the first attempt (if you submitted previously).
- Note the group report has been changed to an individual report for the resit opportunity. You MUST examine a new organization, NOT the one your group was assigned.
- Check that you have addressed any issues mentioned in feedback, such as reference styles or citations.
Assessment Element 1: Individual Report
Individual Report (60%)
The individual report is worth 60% of your overall mark for this module and must be submitted via Turnitin before the submission date available in Aula.
The written assessment consists of a 2,500 (+/-10%) word report, demonstrating an understanding of key theories explored in the module and applied to a practical context. This assessment is worth 60% of the overall module assessment and must be submitted through Turnitin. See Appendix on for marking criteria and check Aula for the submission date.
This is an individual assessment.
Step 1: First, select one of the following organisations:
- Aldi
- Deloitte
- McKinsey Company
- Zara
- Oxfam (charity)
- Daily Mail
- Pfizer Company
Step 2: Include all of this:
Your task is to explain the organisational context of your chosen organisation. You should consider how teams/groups are currently used within the organisation; and assess the advantages and disadvantages of the current approach in the given context. Consider key aspects which explain the success of failure of groups/teams in the selected context. This should be supported by relevant literature on groups/teams.
Step 3: While writing Step 2 (the key aspects), you should consider the following:
- Strategy and structures (what is the organisation’s strategy? And what is their structure? Here you should consider reflecting on their team structure/ how is the work divided/ how do they conduct work/ what about levels of hierarchy? How effective is this structure and how well does it go with their strategy? and many other questions so don’t stick to these ones only… Also make sure you refer to concepts we learned in class)
- Communication and conflict (how does the organization deal with conflict? How does communication flow within the organization? What is the role of structure in allowing that or inhibiting it? is that effective or not? And why? And so on… make sure you refer to concepts we learned in class)
- Organisational culture, (how would you describe the organizational and how does it relate to structure and effectiveness and so on… make sure you refer to concepts we learned in class))
- Leadership (what type of leadership do they follow? To what extent do they support teams and individuals? Is that supported by structure and culture? How effective? And so on…. make sure you refer to concepts we learned in class)
Step 4: Make sure to include recommendations:
You should make recommendations on how the use of those groups/teams can be improved in that organisation and justify these. Your recommendations should be inspired by the discussion above in steps 2 and 3. Try to build your recommendations based on the strengths you found about the culture and structure of this organization and also based on the weaknesses and disadvantages you discovered in your analysis. If they don’t link then you could lose marks.
Step 5: Support your report with References and citations
You should incorporate in-text citations and a list of references at the end of the document, in Harvard Style. Please explore citation management software to include in your workflow.
Step 6: Revise, Amend, and then Submit
This should be submitted via Aula Links (Turnitin) and include the Academic Declaration (included in this document). A guidance document at the end of this file is attached to explain to you how you can submit your assessments.
Case Report Marking Criteria
| Report Title | ||||
| Title/Organisation | ||||
| Student Name | Banner ID | |||
| Marking Criteria | % | Mark | Comments | |
| Setting the context of the organisation: Quality of description of organisational context and rational for basis of analysis. | 15 | |||
| Application of OB theory to the organisational context Quality of description and analysis relevant to the organisation and use of groups and teams. | 30 | |||
| Critical evaluation of key aspects of OB: Extent and quality of application of theoretical concepts and recommendation in the organisational context. | 40 | |||
| Academic Professionalism, Citations and Referencing: Quality of written work, style, structure, referencing, quality of sources | 15 | |||
| Meeting Deadline & Word Count: Marks only deducted for late submission and/ or exceeding word count * | -5 marks (excess < 20%) -10 marks (excess > 20%) -10 marks (late submission) | |||
| Overall: | 100 | 0 | ||
| Recommendations for Development: | ||||
Assessment Element 2: Continuing Personal Development (CPD)
Individual Reflective Essay – (40%)
The CPD is worth 40% of your overall mark for this module and must be submitted via Turnitin before the submission date available in Aula.
For the individual reflective essay, students will complete a 750 word (+/- 10%) reflective essay using an experience of working in a group, preferably the group assessment for this module, as the basis for reflection. However, you can still choose how you worked in a group for another module. This component is worth 40% of the overall module assessment and must be submitted through Turnitin.
Students must consult the document ‘Guide to Self-Reflection’ provided below and roughly follow the outline set out in the student feedback form. To complete this assessment, students need to:
- Demonstrate knowledge of the key theories on learning and reflection and apply one model to guide the reflective work
- Reflect on the experience of writing the group assessment for this module, according to the selected module of reflective practice and assessing three
key behaviours identified in the CIPD professional map. [if you did not complete the group assessment from the outset use a different experience of working with a group for your reflection]
- Include a brief commentary as to how at least one specific key aspect of
individual behaviour from the module content informs the narration.
- Outline a plan of action for future development/personal growth based on the learning from the reflection.
This should be submitted through Turnitin (ONLY) and include the Academic Integrity Declaration (included in this document). This assessment is submitted through Turnitin only because it’s an individual work and not a group work.
Guidance for Assessment 2: Reflection and Reflective Practice
| What is reflection?: | Reflection starts with thinking about something and is concerned with exploring your own experiences in order to lead to new understandings and improved practice. |
| What does being reflective involve?: | Open to different ideas and seeing things from different angles;Curious and asking questions;Honest with yourself, your uncertainties, what you are doing well or areas you need to improve;Analytical and acting on the insights you gain. |
| Theoretical Frameworks on Learning & Reflecting: | Kolb’s Reflective Cycle (1984); Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle (1988) |
| Each of the eight behaviours is described at the first band of professional competence within the CIPD CPD Map; contra-indicators illustrate the negative manifestations of each behaviour. | |
| Curious | Is future-focused, inquisitive and open-minded; seeks out evolving and innovative ways to add value to the organisation. |
| Decisive thinker | Demonstrates the ability to analyse and understand data and information quickly; Uses information, insights and knowledge in a structured way to identify options, make recommendations and make robust, defendable decisions. |
| Skilled influencer | Demonstrates the ability to influence to gain the necessary commitment and support from diverse stakeholders in pursuit of organisation value). |
| Personally credible | Builds and delivers professionalism through combining commercial and HR expertise to bring value to the organisation, stakeholders and peers. |
| Collaborative | Works effectively and inclusively with a range of people, both within and outside of the organisation. |
| Driven to deliver | Demonstrates determination, resourcefulness and purpose to deliver the best results for the organisation and its people. |
| Courage to challenge | Shows courage and confidence to speak up skilfully, challenging others even when confronted with resistance or unfamiliar circumstances. |
| Role model | Consistently leads by example; Acts with integrity, impartiality and independence, balancing individual, organisation and legal parameters. |
Student Marking Criteria – CPD Self-reflection
| Student Name: | Banner ID: | ||
| Group Topic: | |||
| Marking Criteria | % | Mark | Comments |
| Theoretical Foundation: Quality of outline of key theories on learning and reflection | 20 | ||
| Key Behaviours and Learning: Discussion of three behaviours. Quality of reflection on own learning and behaviours. Application to the student’s skills and attributes. | 30 | ||
| Action Plan Briefly outlines a concrete plan of action for future behaviour to foster personal growth and continuing professional development. | 30 | ||
| Academic Writing & Referencing: Clarity, coherence, grammatical accuracy, tone and style, etc. Appropriateness of referencing and quality of sources | 20 | ||
| Meeting Deadline & Word Count: Marks only deducted for late submission and/or exceeding word count * | -5 marks (excess < 20%) -10 marks (excess > 20%) -10 marks (late submission) | ||
| Overall: | 100 | ||
| Recommendations for Development: | |||
APPENDIX A: Academic integrity, academic misconduct & plagiarism statement
The University requires all students to act with the highest standard of academic integrity. In relation to assessment submission, a student must demonstrate honesty and integrity in the completion of their work, ensuring that any submission is free from the following:
- Plagiarism – defined as the use of the work of other students, past or present, or a student’s own work submitted to another module (see self-plagiarism below), or substantial and unacknowledged use of published material presented as the student’s own work.
- Self-plagiarism – defined the use of a student’s own work — partially or in full — submitted for the purpose of obtaining credit (as part of an assessment) on a different module, past or present, except where explicitly permitted within the terms of assessment.
- Commissioning others to complete work – including the use of essay mills, paid for assignments and work obtained through others.
- Collusion – defined as working with others to produce and submit work out with the allowed parameters of group work and peer learning, including allowing others to copy or submit work you have completed.
- Cheating – including the use of forbidden materials, attempting to subvert a formal examination
We expect all students to take personal responsibility for meeting the appropriate standards regarding academic integrity— all important information regarding academic misconduct, referencing and plagiarism can be found in the university regulations 3.49–3.55 and appendix A ‘Examples of misconduct’.
Any student alleged to have breached the University’s regulations in relation to academic integrity may be investigated. If found that the university’s expectations for academic integrity in any of the above categories have been breached, that breach will be categorized as “minor”, “serious” or “major” as per the UWS Plagiarism Procedure and the appropriate penalty applied.
It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that they seek information and advice on the avoidance of academic misconduct (plagiarism). If a student experiences difficulty or would want to make sure that their referencing meets the university’s requirements, they should not hesitate to speak to their tutor, the library and/or the Careers & Skills team.
APPENDIX B: Guidance For a Proper Submission
You should abide by the following principles in your practice, except where explicitly permitted within a module or programme.
- You are expected to present in an academic manner and to provide
- evidence from theoretical literature to substantiate your discussion and analysis;
- Your work should be fully referenced using the Cite Them Right Harvard Style (seek advice from your Tutor/Aula if you are unsure);
- Your work should be submitted through Aula Links, submissions of electronic copies via email will not be accepted (unless explicitly stated otherwise);
- Where your work involves primary data collection you abide by the School of Business and Creative Industries Code of Ethics;
- You are required to add the following declaration to each of your written assessments, outlining that you fully comprehend the meaning of academic integrity and confirm your adherence:
| Declaration I hereby declare that: I have read and understood Regulations 3.49—3.55 of Chapter 3 of the Regulatory Framework of the University of the West of Scotland regarding cheating and plagiarism; This assessment is the result of my own work, except for those parts that are explicitly referenced, and contribution of others is clearly indicated; No material presented in this assessment has been written, wholly or in parts, by any other person(s); This assessment has not been submitted — partially or in full — in support of the completion of assessment(s) on any other module, regardless of previously or the current academic year (self-plagiarism). |
APPENDIX C: UWS Marking & Grading Scheme (Regulation 7.4.2)
Grade Numerical
range (%)
Definition Descriptor
A1 90-100 Exceptional Student work is exemplary and exceeds the threshold
standard by a significant margin. It displays exceptional knowledge and understanding; insight, originality and exceptional ability in analysis, evaluation, problem solving or other process skills; very high ability in professional practice skills (where relevant) including evidence of high degree of almost complete autonomy and independent judgement relative to threshold expectations.
A2 80-89 Outstanding Student work significantly exceeds the threshold
standard. It displays a consistently thorough, deep and extensive knowledge and understanding; originality and/ or very high ability in analysis, evaluation, problem solving or other process skills; very high ability in professional practice skills (where relevant) including evidence of high degree of autonomy and independent judgement relative to threshold expectations.
A3 70-79 Excellent Student work very much exceeds the threshold standard.
It displays a consistently thorough, deep and/or extensive knowledge and understanding; originality and/or very high ability in analysis, evaluation, problem solving or other process skills; very high ability in professional practice skills (where relevant) including evidence of high degree of autonomy and independent judgement relative to threshold expectations.
B1 60-69 Very good Commendable
B2 50-59 Good/ Highly
Competent
- 40-49 Satisfactory Competent
Student work is well above the threshold standard. It displays a consistently very good level of knowledge and understanding; high ability in analysis, evaluation, problem solving or other process skills; high ability in professional practice skills (where relevant) including exercise of significant independent judgement relative to threshold expectations.
Student work is clearly above the threshold standard. It displays generally good knowledge and understanding; good ability in analysis, evaluation, problem solving or other process skills; evidences highly competent performance of professional practice skills (where relevant).
Student work is at the threshold standard. It displays generally satisfactory knowledge and understanding in most key respects; competence in analysis and most other process skills; evidences competent performance of professional practice skills (where relevant).
- 30-39 Unsatisfactory Student work is marginally below the threshold standard.
It displays some knowledge and understanding but this is incomplete or partial; limited ability in analysis and other process skills; evidences lack of or partial competence in professional practice skills (where relevant).
- 1-29 Very unsatisfactory
Student work is well below the threshold standard. It displays very limited knowledge and understanding; evidences very limited or no analytical or other process skills; very limited competence over the range of professional practice skills
APPENDIX D: UWS cheating and plagiarism policies
Cheating
3.49 Cheating is defined by the University as the attempt to gain an unfair advantage in an assessment by gaining credit for work of another person or by accessing unauthorised material relating to assessment.
This includes the following:
- communication with or copying from another student during an examination or assessment (except in so far as assessment regulations specifically permit communication, for instance for
group assessments);
- knowingly introducing any unauthorised materials (written, printed or blank) on or near an examination desk unless expressly permitted by the assessment regulations;
- knowingly introducing any electronically stored information into an examination hall unless expressly permitted by the assessment regulations;
- obtaining a copy of an ‘unseen’ written examination paper prior to the date and time of its authorised release;
- gaining access to unauthorised material relating to an assessment during or before the assessment;
- colluding with another person by submitting work done with another person as entirely one’s own work;
- collaborating with another student in the completion of work which is intended to be submitted as that other student’s own work;
- knowingly allowing another student to copy one’s own work to be submitted as that student’s own work;
- falsifying data by presenting data of laboratory reports, projects or other assessments as one’s own when these data are based on experimental work conducted by another party or obtained by unfair means;
- assuming the identity of another person with intent to deceive or to gain unfair advantage;
- allowing another person to assume one’s own identity with the intention of deceiving or gaining unfair advantage to oneself;
- the use of any other form of dishonest practice not identified above.
- Cheating may be regarded as a substantial academic irregularity under the Code of Discipline for Students (Chapter 5) and all instances are liable to be investigated and to be given due consideration under the terms of that Code.
Plagiarism
- As Plagiarism is a type of cheating it is also defined by the University as the attempt to gain an unfair advantage in an assessment by gaining credit for work of another person or by accessing unauthorised material relating to assessment.
- For Plagiarism this includes the use of the work of other students, past or present, or substantial and unacknowledged use of published material presented as the student’s own work. It includes the following:
- the extensive use of another person’s material without reference or acknowledgement;
- the summarising of another person’s material by changing a few words or altering the order of presentation without reference or acknowledgement;
- the substantial and unauthorised use of the ideas of another person without acknowledgement;
- copying the work of another student with or without the student’s knowledge or agreement;
- deliberate use of commissioned material which is presented as one’s own, including the use of essay writing services;
- the unacknowledged quotation of phrases from another’s work.
- All written coursework assignments must be submitted in electronic format via the University’s plagiarism detection software. This should be used in conjunction with other means of detection to analyse assessment submissions in all modules where text based plagiarism may be an issue.
- Any suspected case of plagiarism will be referred in the first instance by the member of academic staff concerned to the Chair of a Plagiarism Panel constituted in the relevant academic School. (See Plagiarism Procedure).
- Marks which have been capped as a result of a decision by a Plagiarism Panel will be carried forward in subsequent attempts and will appear on the student transcript.
Get expert help for LNDN08002 Business Cultures Resit Assessment and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
