eassay

HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Individual Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines

Trimester: T2, 2020

Unit Code: HC1052

Assessment Type: Individual Assessment

Assessment Title: Individual Essay (2000 words excluding references)

Learning Objectives: Applying concepts such as employee engagement, organisational

citizenship, dysfunctional behaviours, and managing for effectiveness.

Weight: 20 marks

Word Limit: 2000 words

Due date: Week 5 (Friday 21 August, 2020, 11:59 pm)

Submission Guidelines

 All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed

Assignment Cover Page.

 The assignment must be typed in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2

cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate headings/sub-headings and

page numbers.

 A minimum of six references must be cited in the text of the essay and listed

appropriately at the end of the paper in a reference list in Harvard referencing style.

2

Essay Topic/Scenario

Imagine that you are a manager in a local restaurant. There are many restaurants in town,

making it a competitive business. You recognise that providing high quality, friendly service

and having actively engaged employees is going to make the difference between your

restaurant’s success and failure. Your management team decides to first address

organisational citizenship and employee engagement as drivers of high-quality customer

service.

Task Requirements

First, think about what your restaurant can do to enhance the engagement and citizenship

behaviours of your employees. Your management team next decides that it will be important

to minimise dysfunctional employee behaviours if the restaurant is to succeed. Second,

identify some dysfunctional behaviours that should be minimised. Third, think about what

your restaurant can do to minimise the occurrence of these destructive behaviours. Fourth,

identify your top three suggestions/recommendations for the restaurant to succeed.

Provide Evidence to Support your Responses

So far, you have written your responses about what you have read and learnt. The next step is

to find a minimum of six peer-reviewed academic articles from Google Scholar and

ProQuest research database which provide evidence/support the main ideas you have

determined from your reading.

Note: Please note that a ‘0’ mark will be awarded to this assessment if the references

provided are not peer-reviewed academic articles. If you’re in doubt about what is a peer-

3

reviewed academic article please ask your tutor in the interactive tutorial sessions or the unit

coordinator in the drop-in sessions.

Write your Response/Comprehension

 Write an introduction (describe the purpose of the essay and the main points you will

be covering).

 Compose 3-4 body paragraphs (minimum 300 words each).

 Write a conclusion.

 The document must be typed in MS Word using an appropriate font (e.g. Times New

Roman, Helvetica, Cambria or Arial (size 12 pt, 1.5 line spacing and left aligned).

What goes in an introduction?

This paragraph introduces the purpose of your analytical essay. Within the introductory

paragraph, you will need to introduce the topic of your essay and highlight the key topics you

will address in subsequent paragraphs of this essay.

How do I write body paragraphs?

Each paragraph has one main point or topic. A good paragraph needs a clear topic sentence to

state the purpose of this paragraph. Then you will write 3-4 statements elaborating on that

point using citations (in-text references) to attribute ideas to journal articles you read. Your

analysis should demonstrate critical thinking based on research, not just your opinion.

Please paraphrase your ideas from journal articles rather than using quotations.

What goes in a conclusion?

The conclusion is not a restatement of the introduction. Instead, it must briefly summarise the

key points in the body paragraphs and leave the reader with a clear message(s).

4

What about references?

Your list of references do not count towards word limit, but in-text citations do. The

referencing format for both the in-text referencing and reference list is Harvard style. Please

see the Harvard referencing style and ProQuest login in the additional resources folder in

Blackboard.

Marking Criteria

Marking Criteria Weighting

Embark + Clarity 4

Find + Generate 3

Evaluate + Reflect 3

Organise + Manage 3

Analyse + Synthesise 3

Communicate + Apply 4

Total Weight 20%

5

Marking Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts.

Embark + Clarity

(Addresses the task

requirements)

3.5-4 Pts. HD Exceptionally clear understanding and ability to address all task requirements and with clear purpose.

3 Pts. D Strong grasp of understanding and ability to address all task requirements.

2.5 Pts. CR Competent understanding and ability to address all task requirements.

2 Pts. PA Some understanding of the task evident but some requirements are missing.

0-1.9 Pts. NN Lack of understanding of the task requirements and an inability to offer structured directions from researching.

4

Find + Generate

(Evidence of research +

Harvard referencing format)

3 Pts. HD Uses refined academic research skills to locate current, credible, accurate and authoritative data/information. Uses Harvard referencing style and in-text citations with no errors.

2.5 Pts D Uses academic research skills to locate current, credible and authoritative data/information. Uses Harvard referencing style and in-text citations with minimal errors.

2 Pts. CR Uses academic research skills to locate current and credible data/information. Uses Harvard referencing style and in-text citations, with some consistent errors.

1.5 Pts. PA Uses general academic research skills to locate current data/information. Inconsistently applies Harvard referencing style. In-text citations and reference list show multiple errors.

0-1.4 Pts. NN Does not locate and report data/information from a number of sources across a specified range. The articles sourced do not meet the academic standard required or are not cited or do not have a clear application to the task.

3

Evaluate + Reflect

(Articles meet task criteria, is

current, relevant, accurate and

peer-reviewed)

3 Pts. HD Articles selected relate strongly to the purpose of the task,

and meet the academic standard required. Strongly

support reflection on the essay topic.

2.5 Pts. D Articles selected relate to the purpose of the task, and meet the academic

standard required. Support reflection on the essay topic.

2 Pts CR Articles selected generally relate to the purpose of the task and meet the academic standard required. Support some reflection on the essay topic.

1.5 Pts. PA Articles selected generally relate to the purpose of the task. The

articles may not fully meet the academic standard required.

Minimal reflection on the essay topic.

0-1.4 Pts. NN Student has not made connections to the essay topic. Unable to demonstrate satisfactory original reflection on the essay topic.

3

Organise + Manage

(Logical structure of

information)

3 Pts. HD Main ideas clearly outlined. Discussion and analysis organised logically. Cohesive structure- consistently encourages reader engagement with the

2.5 Pts. D Main ideas clearly outlined. Discussion and analysis organised

logically. Cohesive structure - supports reader engagement

with the content.

2 Pts. CR Main ideas clearly outlined. Information organised mostly

logically. Generally cohesive structure aids reader understanding of

ideas.

1.5 Pts. PA Main ideas outlined but require more description or explanation. Some logical order in the structure but there is limited linking between ideas and

0-1.4 Pts. NN Main ideas not clearly defined. Information randomly presented. No sense of cohesion between ideas. Inappropriate structure and

organisation and information not always coherent nor integrated.

3

6

content. information presented.

Analyse + Synthesise

(Critical analysis and synthesis

of ideas to produce

understanding)

3 Pts. HD Analysis, critical personal reflection and evaluation are fully integrated effectively to a high standard of performance.

2.5 Pts. D Analysis and personal reflection are quite well integrated.

2 Pts. CR Some analysis and attempts at personal reflection. Attempts to synthesise ideas to discuss/analyse the essay topic.

1.5 Pts. PA Minimal analysis and personal reflection. Some attempts to discuss/analyse the essay topic. Limited integration or synthesis to show understanding of the essay topic.

0-1.4 Pts. NN Alignment of the key idea with the essay topic and main ideas not outlined clearly. Limited understanding of the essay topic.

3

Communicate + Apply 3.5-4 Pts. HD Uses discipline specific language to demonstrate understanding from an academic/professional and personal perspective. Writing is fluent and uses appropriate paragraph/sentence structures.

3 Pts. D Includes discipline specific language. Generally demonstrates understanding from an academic/professional and personal perspective. Some interpretation and application of new knowledge to similar contexts. Writing is generally fluent and uses mostly appropriate paragraph/sentence structures.

2.5 Pts. CR Some discipline specific language. Attempts to demonstrate understanding from both academic/professional and personal perspectives. Attempted interpretation and application of new knowledge. Writing is generally understandable and uses mostly appropriate paragraph/sentence structures.

2 Pts. PA Limited vocabulary with little use of discipline specific language. Demonstrates understanding from one perspective. Minimal interpretation or application of new knowledge. Errors are frequent, often making understanding difficult.

0-1.9 Pts. NN Mostly general vocabulary with an inability to use discipline-specific and academic language. Unable to act as an independent critical thinker. Unsatisfactory attempt to discuss the essay topic. Inability to demonstrate the originality of the solution.

4

7

Academic Integrity

Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding Academic Integrity, as Academic Integrity is integral to maintaining academic quality and the

reputation of Holmes’ graduates. Accordingly, all assessment tasks need to comply with academic integrity guidelines. Table 1 identifies the six categories of

Academic Integrity breaches. If you have any questions about Academic Integrity issues related to your assessment tasks, please consult your lecturer or

tutor for relevant referencing guidelines and support resources. Many of these resources can also be found through the Study Sills link on Blackboard.

Academic Integrity breaches are a serious offence punishable by penalties that may range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit

involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.

Table 1: Six categories of Academic Integrity breaches

Plagiarism Reproducing the work of someone else without attribution. When

a student submits their own work on multiple occasions this is

known as self-plagiarism.

Collusion Working with one or more other individuals to complete an

assignment, in a way that is not authorised.

Copying Reproducing and submitting the work of another student, with or

without their knowledge. If a student fails to take reasonable

precautions to prevent their own original work from being copied,

this may also be considered an offence.

Impersonation Falsely presenting oneself, or engaging someone else to present as

oneself, in an in-person examination.

Contract cheating Contracting a third party to complete an assessment task,

generally in exchange for money or other manner of payment.

8

Data fabrication and

falsification

Manipulating or inventing data with the intent of supporting false

conclusions, including manipulating images.

Source: INQAAHE, 2020