Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Homework answers / question archive / Assignment Briefing (level 7) Module Name Talent Acquisition Module Code BH7305 Assignment Title Business Portfolio Type of Submission Individual coursework Weighting of the assignment in the overall module grade 80% Word Count/Time allocation (for presentations) 2,500 (2000 report, 500 digital project overview, excluding cover page, references and appendices) Issue Date August 2021 Submission Date 10th Jan 2022 by 1pm Date of Feedback to Students After 20 working days of submission Where feedback can be found Comments on the rubrics relating to the scoring guide, summary comments for ‘what you did well’ and ‘what could be improved’ in the “Comments” box
Assignment Briefing (level 7)
|
Module Name |
Talent Acquisition |
|
Module Code |
BH7305 |
|
Assignment Title |
Business Portfolio |
|
Type of Submission |
Individual coursework |
|
Weighting of the assignment in the overall module grade |
80% |
|
Word Count/Time allocation (for presentations) |
2,500 (2000 report, 500 digital project overview, excluding cover page, references and appendices) |
|
Issue Date |
August 2021 |
|
Submission Date |
10th Jan 2022 by 1pm |
|
Date of Feedback to Students |
After 20 working days of submission |
|
Where feedback can be found |
Comments on the rubrics relating to the scoring guide, summary comments for ‘what you did well’ and ‘what could be improved’ in the “Comments” box. |
|
Allocation of marks |
|
|
Project overview (digital poster) |
20% |
|
Report – job analysis, attraction and recruitment |
20% |
|
Report – selection with implementation plan |
30% |
|
Report – onboarding |
20% |
|
Overall structure and style |
10% |
|
Rubric |
|
Rubric can be found on the next page under “Assessment criteria” |
Assessment criteria
|
20 to >13.8 Pts Extremely good (A-) / Excellent (A) / Outstanding (A+) |
13.8 to >11.8 Pts Good (B) |
11.8 to >9.8 Pts Sufficient (C ) |
9.8 to >8.8 Pts Unsatisfactory (D) |
8.8 to >0 Pts Fail (F) |
Points
|
|||
|
Concise yet informative overview of the whole project; each strategy is presented in a clear, logical and effective way. Detailed information about each action, with people involved, timeline and metrics of success. Easy to read, visually effective, eye catching.
|
Concise yet informative overview of the whole project; each strategy is presented in a clear, logical and effective way with some inaccuracies. The poster is easy to read. |
A project overview is presented; however, it could have been more detailed in the actions/timelines/metrics. Better attention could have been given to the layout (in terms of use of space). |
Some important pieces of information are missing (i.e., one part of the strategy is completely missing). Lack of flow, clarity and details. |
Missing or inadequate, insufficient or incomplete |
20 |
|||
|
Attraction and recruitment (Linked to Learning outcome 1)
|
20 to >17.8 Pts Outstanding (A+) |
17.8 to >15.8 Pts Excellent (A) |
15.8 to >13.8 Pts Extremely good (A-) |
13.8 to >11.8 Pts Good (B) |
11.8 to >9.8 Pts Sufficient (C ) |
9.8 to >8.8 Pts Unsatisfactory (D) |
8.8 to >0 Pts Fail (F) |
Points |
|
Outstanding definition of job analysis, its usefulness, suggested method and technique(s) to conduct it. Insightful discussion of how the key elements of the brands EVP inform the attraction and recruitment strategy, together with the competences resulting from the job analysis.
|
Excellent definition of job analysis, its usefulness, suggested method and technique(s) to conduct it. Comprehensive discussion of how the key elements of the brands EVP inform the attraction and recruitment strategy, together with the competences resulting from the job analysis. There are one or two minor inaccuracies in one of the elements above. |
The definition of job analysis, its usefulness, suggested method and technique(s) are very good, with only few minor inaccuracies. The discussion of how the key elements of the brands EVP inform the attraction and recruitment strategy is very good, although the contribution of the competences resulting from the JA could have been better developed/highlighted.
|
The definition of job analysis, its usefulness, suggested method and technique(s) could have been more detailed/specific or they are quite descriptive. The discussion of how the key elements of the brands EVP inform the attraction and recruitment strategy is incomplete/not fully accurate. |
Some attempt to define what job analysis is; however, the suggestion of either a JA method and/or a technique is missing/generic/inaccurate. There is an attempt to propose and discuss an attraction and recruitment strategy with some mention to the brand EVP; however, this should have been better supported with scientific evidence and/or the contribution of the JA to the recruitment strategy is missing/inaccurate. |
A section on job analysis is missing. The attraction and recruitment strategy are briefly mentioned with major misunderstandings and/or there is no discussion of the contribution of the brand EVP and JA to those. |
Missing or inadequate, insufficient or incomplete |
20 |
|
|
Selection and implementation plan (Linked to Learning outcome 3) |
30 to >25.3 Pts Outstanding (A+) |
25.3 to >23.4 Pts Excellent (A) |
23.4 to >20.5 Pts Extremely good (A-) |
20.5 to > 17.6 Pts Good (B) |
17.6 to >14.7 Pts Sufficient (C ) |
14.7 to >13.2 Pts Unsatisfactory (D) |
13.2 to >0 Pts Fail (F) |
Points |
|
Outstanding justification (based on scientific evidence) for the choice of the selection methods, with reference to their validity, reliability and practicality. Balanced consideration of the contemporary issues (e.g., digital, D&I, etc.) affecting the feasibility of each method and how to manage them, which generates new insight and understanding. Highly detailed indications are given for a smooth and balanced implementation of the selection programme.
|
Excellent justification (based on scientific evidence) for the choice of the selection methods, with reference to their validity, reliability and practicality, with one or two minor inaccuracies. Balanced consideration of the contemporary issues affecting the feasibility of each method and how to manage them. Detailed indications are given for a smooth and balanced implementation of the selection programme. |
Clear justification (based on scientific evidence) for the choice of the selection methods, with reference to their validity, reliability and practicality. Balanced consideration of the contemporary issues affecting the feasibility of each method and how to manage them, with either few minor gaps or one major inaccuracy. Very good indications are given for a smooth and balanced implementation of the selection programme, although they could have been more specific. |
Good justification (based on scientific evidence) for the choice of the selection methods, however the reference to their validity, reliability or practicality could have been discussed more clearly a/o in a more critical and less descriptive way. Some consideration of the contemporary issues to be considered when applying the assessment methods; however, there is not much attention in the implementation plan to balance each method's limitation/weakness.
|
Descriptive discussion on the selection methods to be applied, with poor justification for their choice with regards to their validity, reliability and practicality. There is some attempt at proposing an implementation plan; however, this does not take into consideration the contemporary issues affecting each method implementation, nor how to balance each method's limitation/weakness. |
Vague identification/recommendation of some selection methods; the supporting evidence for their validity, reliability and practicality is missing or inadequate. No implementation plan is provided and/or it is summarised very roughly, with no consideration for a balanced and smooth application of the methods, especially in light of the contemporary issues affecting their implementation. |
Missing or inadequate, insufficient or incomplete |
30 |
|
|
Onboarding (Linked to Learning outcome 2) |
20 to >17.8 Pts Outstanding (A+) |
17.8 to >15.8 Pts Excellent (A) |
15.8 to >13.8 Pts Extremely good (A-) |
13.8 to >11.8 Pts Good (B) |
11.8 to >9.8 Pts Sufficient (C ) |
9.8 to >8.8 Pts Unsatisfactory (D) |
8.8 to >0 Pts Fail (F) |
Points |
|
Outstanding onboarding strategy, for level of details and justification through supporting evidence and theories. The onboarding process contains insightful and specific recommendations with regards to pre-boarding and after hiring actions, tailored to the company of choice. Outstanding reference to ethical and inclusive practices.
|
Highly detailed onboarding strategy, with full justification through supporting evidence and theory. The onboarding process contains specific recommendations with regards to pre-boarding and after hiring actions tailored to the company of choice. There are only one or two minor inaccuracies in one of the elements above. Excellent reference to ethical and inclusive practices. |
Clear onboarding strategy, although some elements could have been justified further (e.g., more supporting evidence). The onboarding process contains specific recommendations with regards to pre-boarding and after hiring actions, with few minor inaccuracies. Very good reference to ethical and inclusive practices.
|
The onboarding strategy contains all the main elements with reference to pre-boarding and after hiring actions. However, the strategy is not always well justified or it is sometimes generic with regards to how those actions will be delivered. The reference to ethical and inclusive practices could have been stronger/clearer.
|
There is an onboarding strategy, but either it is not justified/supported by academic references or it is not tailored to the company of choice. The reference to ethical and inclusive practices is missing.
|
A vague onboarding strategy, with no support from theory nor specific recommendations/actions to be implemented. No reference to ethical and inclusive practices, nor the strategy is tailored to the company of choice
|
Missing or inadequate, insufficient or incomplete. |
20
|
|
|
Overall structure and style (Linked to employability skills) |
10 to > 8.9 Pts Outstanding (A+) |
8.9 to > 7.9 Pts Excellent (A) |
7.9 to > 6.9 Pts Extremely good (A-) |
6.9 to > 5.9 Pts Good (B) |
5.9 to > 4.9 Pts Sufficient (C ) |
4.9 to >4.4 Pts Unsatisfactory (D) |
4.4 to >0 Pts Fail (F) |
Points |
|
|
|
Complies with most of the elements of the assignment briefing (professional title page, key headings are used to organise the main text). Contains at least 20 references, which are relevant, updated, from academic sources and they follow the Harvard’s guidelines, with several minor errors. A few minor proof-reading mistakes or exceeds the word count by up to half a page. |
Either a professional title page or key headings are inadequate/inaccurately used. The referencing in-text and the reference list meet the minimum criteria for APA presentation format but includes many formatting errors. Either there are several grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors or exceeds the word count by up to half a page. |
Either a professional title page or key headings are missing. The referencing in-text and the reference list meet the minimum criteria for APA presentation format but includes many formatting errors and they are mainly based on books rather than journals, or more than 50% of references is from before 2000. Inadequate grammar, spelling and/or proof reading. You have included your name or KU ID number in the assignment or file name and/or exceeded the word count by more than a page. |
Either a professional title page or key headings are missing. The referencing in-text and the reference list do not follow the Harvard’s presentation guidelines and/or they are not academic (e.g., slides or blogs). Inadequate grammar, spelling and/or proof reading. You have included your name or KU ID number in the assignment or file name and/or exceeded the word count by more than a page. There is evidence of plagiarism. |
Missing or inadequate, insufficient or incomplete |
10 |
|
|
Complies with all the elements of the assignment briefing (professional title page, key headings are used to organise the main text). Contains at least 20 references, which are relevant, updated, from academic sources and they follow the Harvard’s guidelines. Exemplary grammar, spelling, proof reading. Does not exceed the word count. |
Complies with all the elements of the assignment briefing (professional title page, key headings are used to organise the main text). Contains at least 20 references, which are relevant, updated, from academic sources and they follow the Harvard’s guidelines, with 1 or 2 minor errors. A few minimal proof-reading mistakes or exceeds the word count by up to half a page. |
|||||||
FEEDBACK ON THE WRITTEN ELEMENTS OF THE MODULE WILL BE BASED ON POSTGRADUATE GRADE CRITERIA:
|
CLASS |
% |
GRADE |
OVERALL DESCRIPTION |
GUIDELINE GRADE DESCRIPTIONS |
|
Distinction |
85-100 |
A+ |
Outstanding |
Your work is of an exceptionally high standard which has the potential for submission for publication in a peer reviewed journal or equivalent.
|
|
|
75-84
|
A
|
Excellent
|
Your work demonstrates a sophisticated and comprehensive knowledge of the subject area. You have shown an exceptional ability in the appropriate use of the relevant literature, theory, methodologies, practices or tools to analyse and synthesise at Masters level. Your work is well-constructed and demonstrates a professional approach to academic practice (citation and referencing; appropriate presentation format; clear, accurate English). It addresses the learning outcomes/assessment criteria fully.
|
|
|
70-74 |
A- |
Very Good |
Your work demonstrates strong knowledge of the subject area and the ability to develop an independent and sophisticated argument or evaluation. The ideas you put forward demonstrate exceptional clarity and focus and your work adheres to the principles of good academic practice (citation and referencing; appropriate presentation format; clear, accurate English). It addresses the learning outcomes/assessment criteria fully. |
|
Merit |
67-69
|
B+
|
Good
|
Your work demonstrates a well-developed critical and comprehensive understanding of the topic. It shows evidence that you have thoroughly researched the topic(s) and are able to construct an independent, logical argument or evaluation. Your work demonstrates a high degree of ability in the appropriate use of relevant literature, theory, methodologies, practices or tools to analyse and synthesise at Masters level. Your work is well-structured and logically written and demonstrates good academic practice (citation and referencing; appropriate presentation format; clear, accurate English). There is a good attempt to address the learning outcomes/assessment criteria, meeting all of them to some extent and some of them well. |
|
|
64-66
|
B
|
|
|
|
|
60-63 |
B- |
|
|
|
Pass |
57-59 |
C+ |
Satisfactory
|
Your work demonstrates knowledge of the subject area and the ability to develop an independent, logical argument or evaluation. It shows competence in the appropriate use of literature, theory, methodologies, practices or tools. The development of some ideas in your work is limited but it attempts to analyse materials critically. At times the expression and structure of your work is not clear and you have not consistently followed good academic practice (citation and referencing; presentation format; clear, accurate English). Your work provides some level of response to the learning outcomes/assessment criteria but does not fully address all of the criteria. |
|
|
54-56
|
C
|
|
|
|
|
50-53 |
C- |
|
|
|
Marginal Fail |
45-49 |
MF |
Unsatisfactory |
Your work contains some weaknesses. It provides some evidence that you have understood the topic and that you are able structure arguments or evaluation. Your work demonstrates some ability in the appropriate use of literature, theory, methodologies, practices or tools but not at Masters level. Your work fails to address one or more criteria fully. |
|
Fail |
35-44 |
F
|
Poor
|
Your work is unsatisfactory in it demonstrates very limited knowledge of the subject area and does not succeed in grasping the key issues There is little evidence of development of ideas and critical analysis is very limited. The presentation is confused and lacks coherence. Your work does not meet the learning outcomes/assessment criteria.
|
|
|
0-35 |
|
Very poor |
Your work demonstrates no real knowledge of the subject area and does not display the critical ability required at this level. Your work does not attempt to address the learning outcomes/assessment criteria adequately.
|
