International People Management

Presentation Part 1

The assessment constitutes 25% of the total assessment for the International People Management module.

The form of the assessment is an Action Learning Set (ALS) presentation on a topic within the field of International People Management to be agreed with module tutor. The topic you select for your ALS presentation should lie within the areas indicated by the weekly programme and the research themes of the module.

Composition of each ALS will be determined by themes of interest expressed by individual candidates in consultation with the module tutor. (See ALS Research themes Preference Forms).

Format of the presentation

•    The presentation of each ALS is to be of 15(±2) minutes’ duration with the possibility of up to 5 minutes for questions afterwards. If you are still presenting after 17 minutes, your presentation will be terminated and any material you had planned to deliver after that point will not be considered.
•    All members of the ALS are required to make some verbal input but the precise allocation of tasks is left to the ALS as a whole to decide. Your presentation does not need to be of the ‘stand-up-and-talk’ variety: it could be a role play or other activity. A major consideration is to engage the audience with your material.
•    The use of laptop computers, PowerPoint, etc. is permitted. Hardcopy handout material will be required as part of the submission.
•    It is strongly recommended that you meet regularly and carry out at least one final rehearsal of your presentation in order to ensure that the ‘flow’ and timing of the presentation meet the criteria below.

Content of the presentation

The content of the presentation must adhere to that set out in your ALS’s research theme, agreed with the module tutor. In general, each research theme will be concerned with the investigation of a particular topic or issue, or answering a specific question, within the field of International People Management. The major focus of the presentation should be upon the line of reasoning (the argument) your ALS has developed to answer the topic / issue / question agreed, backed up by relevant ‘facts’ / evidence.

Materials to accompany the presentation

At the time of your presentation, you should supply to the tutor (two copies, please):
•    Hard copy (handout) of any visual materials (pp Slides x 3 per side of A4)
•    a sheet of A4 paper with
»    on side 1,
?    the major points / steps of your presentation (can be bullet-points, if you wish)
?    brief comments upon the reliability and validity of the evidence you have used to support your argument
»    on side 2, a bibliography listing all the sources (books, articles, reports, websites, etc.) which you used in the development and construction of your presentation.
Assessment of the presentation

The presentation will be independently assessed by two members of staff and, after consultation, written comments and provisional marks will be provided to each ALS no later than the International People Management session in Week 11.

The different elements of the presentation will be weighted as follows:

Clarity
this refers to the ease with which your presentation is understood and concerns not only audibility but also the structure and flow of the content of the presentation    20%
As per Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (see below *)    Knowledge    6%
Comprehension    8%
Application    10%
Analysis    16%
Synthesis    20%
Evaluation    10%
Quality of materials supplied to staff
copy of OHP(s); brief summary of content and sequence; evaluative comments on source materials; list of source materials    10%
TOTAL    100%

The mark out of 100% will be converted to one out of 25% for entry into the module assessment sheet.

*    These criteria are based upon Bloom, B. S. (ed.), 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Volume 1: The Cognitive Domain, McKay, summarised below:

Component    refers to the ability …
Knowledge    … to recall or to recognise facts, rules or concepts.
Comprehension    … to understand facts, rules and concepts.
Application    … to use facts, rules and concepts to solve new problems.
Analysis    … to identify component parts of a whole and to see how they are
inter-related.
Synthesis    … to integrate components into a new whole.
Evaluation    … to judge and to compare procedures, products, etc. one with
another or against a stated evaluative framework.

In making the assessment, staff will also need to judge the extent to which your presentation meets the International People Management module learning outcomes (see below) and the general criteria for Master’s level courses in Business and Management (see below).

The form of the assessment is a conceptual analysis and evaluation based on the critique of an individually selected research paper within the field of International People Management to be agreed with the module tutor.

Purpose of the Assessment

The purpose of the assessment is to provide an opportunity for the development, exercise and assessment of skills, expertise and understanding, at postgraduate level, of the nature of international people management theory and research, focussing especially upon the demonstration of understanding of central aspects of people management theory and their applicability, and of the opportunities and limitations of research in the area.

The assignment links to the module in Research Methods and looks forward to the Dissertation and it is expected that the assignment will contribute to enhanced competence and confidence in course members’ design, execution and reporting of their own investigations by way of developing conceptual analysis and evaluation skills.

The article selected must be chosen from those provided by your tutor.

Critiquing the Article

The focus of your critique should be
•    the structure, nature, content and quality of the argument put forward in the paper, its strengths and weaknesses, related to your own knowledge of international people management  and the perspectives provided by several other related articles on the same topic/concept/model.

There is no set ‘method’ or set of procedural rules for critiquing a research article. A successful approach lies rather more in overall consideration of the aims and intentions of the author(s) and the extent to which these have been achieved.

The ‘flow’ of the discussion, the clarity and logic of the line of reasoning and the effective use of evidence are also matters upon which it may be worthwhile to comment.

At one level of generality, your discussion might include the general themes and tenor of the article; the overall purpose and delivery of the communication, its structure and meaningfulness, and an evaluation of the stance and style of the report but such comments are likely to be subsidiary to your critique of the argument, evidence, theory and techniques used.

Please note that a critique is not a ‘negative’ criticism, an attempt to find flaws, weaknesses and errors in an article. It may well involve that but, overall, the critique should be a conceptual analysis and evaluation of the central findings with reference to other journal articles and books related to the topic/concept/model under discussion.

Assessment of the Critique

The critique will be marked out of 100%.
(Marks will be presented to the appropriate Examinations Committee, where the 75% weighting for this assignment will be applied.)

Marks will be awarded on the extent to which your critique meets relevant learning outcomes of the module detailed below

Your critique needs to be related to relevant sources of information and debate and you need to emphasise the views of authorities as well as your own personal estimation: both are required.

Your answer should display a good level of knowledge and understanding and include relevant theory relating to international people management and to research issues. To avoid charges of plagiarism, all points which are not your own need to be referenced to the sources from which they come, by use of the Harvard method. Unacknowledged paraphrasing may also be plagiarism. If in doubt seek advice. Definitions of key terms, concepts, etc. need to be provided.

The critique should be well written and structured to provide a clear discussion and ‘answer’ for the reader.

Learning Outcomes:

Knowledge & Understanding

1.  Demonstrate a comprehensive and critical understanding of International people management appropriate to their career development
2.  Demonstrate originality in the application of international people management concept and principles, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline of international people management
3.  Demonstrate a systematic and critical understanding of the breadth and depth of knowledge in international people management and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights,
4. Within international people management, has the awareness and ability to manage the implications of ethical dilemmas and work pro-actively with others to formulate solutions

Cognitive & Intellectual Skills

5.  Able to integrate and synthesise diverse knowledge, evidence, concepts, theory and practice to promote understanding and/or good practice and solve foreseen and unforeseen problems
6.  Able to make argued conclusions on the basis of incomplete and/or contested data.  Able to challenge orthodoxy and formulate new/alternative hypotheses or solutions

Practical & Professional Skills

7.  Application of Skills  Can operate ethically in complex and unpredictable, possibly specialised, situations and has a critical understanding of the issues governing good practice
8.  Autonomy in Skill Use   Act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level

Key Transferable Skills

9.    Plan & Manage Own Learning. Demonstrate the independent learning ability required for continuing professional development
10.  Communication Skills.   Communicate complex academic or professional issues clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences
11.  Numeracy Skills.     Competent in the numeracy skills commensurate with the demands of research and scholarship in ways appropriate to the academic / professional context
12.  IT Skills.      Competent in the IT skills commensurate with the demands of research and scholarship in ways appropriate to the academic / professional context
13. Work With Others.  Collaborate effectively with others in ways appropriate to the operation of Action Learning Sets

Marking Criteria

You should notice that the higher grades place more emphasis on skills such as independent reading and the correct use of these sources, critical analysis, concise writing and well-presented arguments. On the other hand, the lower grades are obtained when the work is incoherent and descriptive.

Band    Level 7 Teesside University Marking Criteria for International People Management
90-100%    An excellent critical and complete demonstration of understanding in all key areas of knowledge relevant to the literature and demonstrating an innovative and creative approach.  Evidence throughout the work of a sustained ability to synthesise and interpret complex concepts, to make inferences and to provide an original and/or compelling argument and discussion.  Excellent structure and immaculate presentation of your work, with cogent use of academic language and grounded in a pertinent and substantial selection of source materials.  Excellent use of appropriate analytical and research methods and addresses ethical considerations in an informed and perceptive manner.  Exceptional ability to link and critically analyse theory and practice where appropriate in your work.
80-89%    An excellent, critical and systematic demonstration of understanding in all key areas of knowledge relevant to the literature.  Evidence throughout of the ability to synthesise and interpret complex concepts to provide a compelling argument and discussion.  Very good structure and presentation, with confident use of academic language and grounded in a relevant and extensive selection of source materials.  Excellent use of appropriate analytical and research methods and fully addresses ethical considerations.  Excellent ability to link and critically analyse theory and practice where appropriate in your work.
70-79%    An excellent, critical and organised demonstration of understanding in all key areas of knowledge relevant to theliterature.  Evidence throughout of the ability to synthesise and interpret diverse concepts to provide a sound argument and discussion.  Good structure and presentation of your work, with fluent use of academic language and grounded in an appropriate and comprehensive selection of source materials.  Very effective use of appropriate analytical and research methods and consideration of ethical implications.  Very good ability to link and critically analyse theory and practice where appropriate in your work.
60-69%    A proficient, clearly stated and analytical demonstration of understanding in all key areas of knowledge relevant to the literature.  Evidence of the ability to integrate and analyse diverse concepts in a rational and logical argument and discussion.  Well-structured and clearly presented work, with fluent use of academic language and utilising a relevant and extensive range of source materials.  Effective use of appropriate analytical and research methods and consideration of ethical issues.  Good ability to link and critically analyse theory and practice where appropriate in your work.
50-59%    An acceptable and substantiated demonstration of understanding in all key areas of knowledge relevant to the literature.  Evidence of the ability to integrate and analyse diverse concepts in a reasoned and valid argument and discussion.  Adequately structured and presented work, with clear use of academic language and reference to a sufficient range of relevant source materials.  Adequate use of appropriate analytical and research methods and does address ethical considerations.  Effective linking of theory and practice where appropriate in the literature.
40-49%    A limited, insufficient and/or inaccurate understanding in key areas of knowledge relevant to the literature.  Insufficient evidence of ability to integrate and analyse concepts to provide a valid discussion. Unacceptably structured and presented, with insufficient use of academic language and conventions.  A limited range of source materials is used.  Limited or ineffective use of analytical and research methods and limited coverage of ethical considerations.  Inadequate linking of theory and practice where applicable in the literature.
30-39%    A descriptive and/or narrative account, with little critical and/or flawed understanding of key areas of knowledge relevant to the literature. Insufficient evidence of ability to discuss fundamental concepts.  Unclear and and/or un-evidenced argument and discussion.  Poorly structured and presented work, with little use of academic language and conventions.  A narrow and/or inappropriate range of source materials and analytical and research methods is used.  Failure to identify ethical considerations and to link theory and practice where applicable in your work.
20-29%    A weakly descriptive and/or narrative account, with no analytical content and/or significant inaccuracies in understanding of key areas of knowledge relevant to the literature.  Little or no evidence of research and the ability to discuss fundamental concepts.  No awareness of ethical issues.  Unclear and un-sourced arguments and discussion.  Flawed structure and presentation, with negligible attention to academic language or conventions.  Some or all source materials are unreferenced and/or irrelevant.  Failure to link theory and practice where applicable in the literature.  To obtain a mark of 20% the work must show evidence of a genuine attempt to demonstrate some knowledge of the subject.
0-19%    The work is almost entirely derivative and therefore lacks analysis or reflection, and shows little or no knowledge or understanding of key areas relevant to the work.  No evidence of research and the ability to discuss fundamental concepts.  The presentation and referencing does not conform to the standards required.