The landmark work of Geert Hofstede is widely taught in business schools, but many authors find it controversial. What is the nature of these criticisms?

profileJeish_58
Assignmentbriefandmarkingscheme.docx
Home>Business & Finance homework help>Management homework help>The landmark work of Geert Hofstede is widely taught in business schools, but many authors find it controversial. What is the nature of these criticisms?

1. Assignment brief and marking scheme

Your learning on this module is assessed largely via coursework that will enable you to demonstrate your engagement with a variety of topics and material. The assignment requires you to write three short essays. A maximum of 750 words for each essay excluding references. All three essays will be submitted as one document via Blackboard, with a final submission date of 15th April 2021 2pm.

We will read all three essays and the mark awarded will be an average of the 3 marks.

If you fail to complete an entry it will be given a mark of Zero and this will of course reduce your final averaged mark for the assignment.

Essay 1

The landmark work of Geert Hofstede is widely taught in business schools, but many authors find it controversial. What is the nature of these criticisms? (750 words)

Essay 2

Drawing on any of the theoretical frameworks we have covered in the module, or other reading that you have done, please choose and critically discuss an intercultural encounter that you have experienced during the last 12 months. (750 words)

 

Essay 3

Based on the Film “L’Auberge Espagnole” (To be shown in Seminar 3)

How do the concepts and ideas presented on the module explain the situations portrayed in the film? (750 words)

Essays are to be submitted as Word documents either .doc or .docx.

Please use Arial 12pt or Times New Roman 12pt font and 1.5 line spacing.

A reference list should be included at the end of the 3rd Essay showing the sources used in all 3 essays. Referencing should follow the UWE Bristol Harvard format.

2. Marking

· Markers will assess your entries in relation to three criteria: engagement, argumentation, and presentation. Mark descriptors are detailed in the marking grid at the end of this handbook.

· Please note that by detailing the marking criteria, we are not trying to create a mechanistic scheme of marking where marks are awarded for each element and simply added up to give an aggregate score. Instead, we are providing you a guide against which you can self-assess the strengths and weaknesses of your work.

9

ENGAGEMENT

ARGUMENTATION

PRESENTATION

70-100

· At the upper end of this mark category, a wide range of sources is used and referenced, including the suggested further reading and some sources gathered through independent research. There is a high level of synthesis and possibly some originality of thought. At the lower end of this mark category, the entry demonstrates a throrough engagement with core reading, and with some suggested further reading.

· Everything written is relevant and closely related to the topic of the entry.

· Arguments are clearly and fully developed, displaying intellectual depth and a high level of critical analysis.

· The entry has a clear and logical structure with a balanced treatment of the subject.

· A conclusion is clearly stated.

· The presentation (typing, page numbering, referencing) is careful and accurate.

60-69

· The entry demonstrates a very good understanding of the issues involved, and a meaningful engagement with the core reading, and possibly with some suggested further reading.

· Most of what is written is relevant to topic of the entry.

· Arguments are mostly clearly and fully developed. There is a good level of critical analysis displayed but there may be a tendency towards description.

· The entry has a clear structure.

· A conclusion is stated.

· Some aspects of the presentation may be incomplete or incorrect.

50-59

· The entry demonstrates an adequate understanding of the issues involved, and an adequate level of engagement with the core reading.

· It is possible that some material is not clearly relevant to the topic of the entry.

· Arguments are partially developed but some key features may be missing. The tendency towards description predominates over the presence of analysis.

· The entry has a structure that is broadly clear, but may give uneven treatment to the elements of the structure.

· A conclusion is usually present but it may not adequately draw together and link the arguments, or go beyond simple repetition.

· Presentation is on the whole acceptable, but an element may be missing or badly done.

40-49

· The entry shows a rudimentary understanding of the issues involved, similar to the understanding of someone who would not necessarily have attended the module. There is possibly an over-reliance on classroom material.

· Not all the material used is clearly relevant to the topic of the entry.

· Critical analysis is less obvious than a descriptive presentation, which may be inaccurate.

· The entry is not always clear in its structure and consequently lacks logical development in a number of respects.

· A clear conclusion may not be apparent.

· Presentation is flawed in various respects. There is no correlation between sources and references.

30-39

· The entry displays little understanding of the issues involved.

· A large proportion of the material used is not clearly relevant to the topic of the entry.

· There is very little critical analysis and there are numerous errors.

· There is a major problem of structural progression in the entry.

· The entry arrives at no real conclusion.

· Referencing is limited and poorly executed, and overall presentation is weak.

0-30

· There is no understanding of the issues.

· There is a great deal of irrelevant material unrelated to the topic of the entry

· There is no critical analysis, and errors abound.

· The entry has no coherent structure.

· There is no conclusion whatsoever.

· Presentation is weak in all respects.