Recent Question/Assignment

HRMT20024 Term 2 2017 Assessment Task 3 Guidelines
Assessment Task 3 Report on Recruitment in an Industry/Organisation
Due date Week 12 Monday 2 October 5.00PM (AEST)
Any requests for extension must be submitted through the CQU system at least 48 hours prior to the due date, with relevant supporting documents.
Late submissions without approval will result in a penalty of 5% per day. Assessment 3 has
45 marks, and 2.25 marks will be deducted for each calendar day of delayed submission
Weighting 45%
Length 1,800 words ± 10% (including executive summary, introduction, heading and
subheadings, recommendations and conclusion but excluding title page and reference list)
Learning outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4
Purpose This assessment will assist students to develop skills in analysing an organisational/industry environment, identifying specific issues, and suggesting practical solutions. It will give students the opportunity to enhance their research, analysis, critical thinking and written communication skills; particularly in the areas of argument development and report writing.
Before starting this assessment, please read the marking criteria (at the end of this document).
Assessment Task Select an organisation or industry as the case study for your report. Identify some of the key challenges for recruiting the workforce for this organisation/industry, and recommend strategies to address these challenges. Your report should make reference to factors such as labour supply/demand, organisational image, demographic issues (such as an ageing workforce, generations, diversity etc), as well as recruitment strategies such as employer branding and types of advertising.
You should be familiar with concepts outlined in Modules 3, 6, 7 and 8, and related chapters of your textbook Human Resource Management in Australia (5th Ed.) by Kramar et al.
You should also engage in extensive research within the academic literature to develop an argument with appropriate theoretical discussion and references. You must cite at least ten (10) relevant peer reviewed journal articles (absolute minimum requirement). You can cite other academic references such as books, conference papers, and book chapters but these will NOT be counted as part of the 10 journal articles.
Report Format Title page: The title page of a report should be brief and precise. It contains the following information: the name of the report, who prepared the report, for whom the report was prepared, the nature of the report, the date the report was prepared.
Executive summary (ideally be approx. 100 words): The executive summary is a one page (or less) statement of a report’s purpose, findings and recommendations. It is more detailed than a couple of sentences, enabling the reader to see the -big picture- without getting absorbed in technicalities.
Table of contents: List the page numbers for headings and sub headings of the report. Introduction (ideally be approx. 200 words): The introduction consists of two or three paragraphs in which the aims, structure and methodology of the report are outlined. It states
clearly the purpose or main task of the report and what the reader can expect to obtain from it. Important background information is included, such as why the report was initiated in the first place. Please include a thesis statement that clearly mentions the main purpose of the report. The introduction may mention previous reports and research projects if the present report builds on, or challenges them.
Body of report with Headings and Subheadings (ideally approx. 1,200 words): The body of the report should be formatted into logical sections by topic. It may be appropriate to format into sections according to major topics or questions and then outline logical subtopics with sub- sections (if needed). Headings and sub-headings can be used to organise arguments, to reflect your answers to the assessment questions. Present evidence to support your arguments. All answers to the assessment questions should be based on arguments and sources from research findings (references).
Conclusion and recommendations (ideally approx. 300 words): The conclusion is a brief section (less than a page) in which the writer analyses the significance of the report's findings and reiterates the main points of the report. These findings must derive logically from material presented in the report. A generalisation is then drawn from the specific findings of the research. New information is not included in the conclusion.
References: A Reference List is a listing of all external resources that were consulted and mentioned during research for the report, and information from which is directly referred to in the text of the report. Avoid secondary referencing in assessments. Ensure you use APA referencing. For more information, see : https://www.cqu.edu.au/?a=14033
Creating a consistent and professional looking document is important and demonstrates that you have taken care with the work. Ideally, use a font such as Times New roman 12 font, 1.5 spacing for the body of the paper and Bold 14 point for major headings and bold 12 point for minor headings.
All assessments must be submitted through Moodle site. No email submissions will be accepted. All assessments submitted electronically through Moodle must be through the Student Portal http://my.cqu.edu.au. Failure to submit electronically will be taken as a failure to submit and therefore a zero (0) score will apply to the specific assessment. No assessment coversheet is needed to be attached while submitting through Moodle
Plagiarism Copy detection software (TurnitIn) is used in this course and work found in contravention of the copying and plagiarism rules will be investigated. Penalties apply in the case of proven instances of copying, plagiarism and academic dishonesty. Please check the following links to know more about TurnitIn: http://turnitin.com/en_us/training/student-training/viewing- originality-reports http://turnitin.com/en_us/training/student-training/about-originalitycheck
TurnitIn is only a tool and judgement needs to be used when you view your Originality Report. TurnitIn does not make a judgement as to what is referenced properly, it highlights the non-original material in a piece of work. You should use the similarity score as a guide only and must then check the originality report to determine whether or not changes need to be made to the assessment.
Required Students must familiarise themselves with the following policies and procedures at http://policy.cqu.edu.au: Assessment of Coursework Policy; Assessment of Coursework
Principles; Assessment of Coursework Procedures
HRMT20024 Assessment Task 3 Rubric – Report on Recruitment in an Industry/Organisation
Note: This is an illustration of the marking criteria that will be used in the Turnitin system. To see your marks on the criteria, open your assessment through Turnitin and click on the marking criteria button.The markers will provide feedback throughout your assessment in the ‘Grademark’ view in Turnitin. You can access this by clicking on the small blue pencil icon next to your assessment submission.
While there is no set rule for what your similarity index should be, you should aim for a similarity score that is less than 20%. It is possible that you could have a higher level if you have a very long reference list though. The main thing to look out for is WHERE the similarity is being shown. If there is a high level of similarity found in the body of the assessment, you will probably lose marks for not presenting your own ideas. A high level of similarity in the body of your assessment may significantly affect your marks for each of the criteria, as marks are given based on original text and appropriately referenced text only. It is suggested that you reduce the use of direct quotes from other sources wherever possible. Markers will analyse the similarity score reported by Turnitin on a case by case basis.
Key Criteria 0 (Not shown) 1 (Poor) 2 (Unsatisfactory)
3 (Satisfactory) 4 (Above Average) 5 (Good) 6 (Excellent)
Analysis and
Recommendations (35%) No ability to analyse case. No recommendations. Limited ability to identify and demonstrate an understanding of key factors in case.
Demonstrated poor analysis of case evidence, inaccurate interpretations and/or judgements.
No discernible statement of position or argument or recommendations. Emerging ability to identify and demonstrate an understanding of key factors in case. Limited analysis of case evidence, inaccurate interpretations and/or judgements. Many inaccuracies of fact, or unsubstantiated information for recommendations. Satisfactory ability to identify the key factors in the case but there are a number of errors or omissions and only a basic understanding is demonstrated.
Limited critical analysis evident. Statement of position or argument given but is not always supported by evidence. Limited contrary evidence or argument is provided. Argument may not always follow logically from information provided. Limited and marginally supported recommendations. Identifies some of the key factors in the case and demonstrates some understanding of their complexities. Some critical analysis evident with some lapses into description. Statement of position or argument is clear, and while evidence is provided to support the argument, only some contrary evidence is given. Argument mostly follows logically from
information provided and reasonably considered and supported recommendations. Identifies most of the key factors in the case and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of these. Critical analysis evident with mostly accurate application of theory and law (where relevant).Statement of position or argument is clear, with evidence and argument for and against the
position taken nearly always given. Argument follows logically from information provided and appropriately considered and justifiable recommendations. Clearly identifies all key factors in the case and demonstrates a
highly sophisticated understanding of these. Extensive critical analysis evident with consistently
accurate application of theory (and law where relevant).
Statement of position or argument is very clear, & well developed with comprehensive evidence and argument for and against the position taken always given. Argument follows logically from information provided and insightful and substantiated recommendations.
Integration of literature with
case (25%) No integration of literature with case. Minimal ability to apply theory, integrate literature with case. Mostly description of case and theory and/or law with negligible integration, so no analysis. Emerging ability to apply theory, integrate literature with case. May contain several minor errors of fact or sweeping generalisations. Basic application of theory.
Integrates some case examples with the application of theory, but many are not. Good application of theory. Some parts done in a degree of depth and detail. Integrates most case examples with the application of theory and/or law, but some are not well founded. Sophisticated application of theory. Detailed approach with application of theory and/or law generally well integrated with case examples. Highly sophisticated application of theory. Highly detailed approach with well integrated case examples to aid the application of theory and/or law.
Research (20%) No research evident. Very limited number ( 5) of poor quality, inappropriate or noncritical. A limited number ( 10) of poor quality, inappropriate or noncritical resources selected. Some sources may be irrelevant. Some quality, appropriate critical academic resources selected, but also a few poorer quality sources. A body of quality, appropriate critical academic resources is selected with some omissions or errors of judgement. A body of almost entirely top quality, mostly appropriate critical academic resources and/or law is selected. An extensive body of top quality, highly appropriate critical academic resources and/or law is selected.
Presentation, referencing, organisation, structure, communication (20%) No use of referencing and no organization and structure Minimal ability to acknowledge sources by citations in-text or in reference list. Poor structure to answer the questions, with most elements missing. No introduction. Conclusion missing, or contains serious omissions. Communication is very poor and incoherent. Very poor vocabulary with frequent and significant grammar and spelling errors.
Inadequate ability to acknowledge sources by citations in-text or in reference list. Attempted to structure the report to answer the questions, with most elements missing. Poor introduction and/or conclusion. Communication is poor. Poor vocabulary, and incoherent in most parts, poor vocabulary hampered by many grammar and spelling errors. A reasonable attempt has been made to acknowledge sources, with a few citation errors in-text or in reference list.
Attempted to structure the report to answer the questions, but some elements missing. Weak introduction. Conclusion recaps obvious arguments or evidence, but not necessarily both. Communication is generally coherent in most parts, vocabulary suitable, with some grammar and spelling errors. Generally sources have been correctly acknowledged, both intext and in reference list (might be a few errors).
Good structure with appropriate headings that identify the questions, but lacks one element.
Good introduction Conclusion recaps most arguments and evidence. Communication is clear and generally easily understood, using a suitable range of vocabulary with one or two grammar and spelling errors. Sources are correctly acknowledged, both in-text and in reference list (might be one or two errors). Very good structure that guides the reader through the report and answers to all
research questions. Very good
introduction that foreshadows the report. Detailed conclusion recaps arguments and evidence. Communication is clear, concise & easily understood, using an extensive range of suitable vocabulary with no grammar and spelling errors. Sources are all correctly acknowledged, both in-text and in reference list.
Superb attention to detail. Clear and succinct report that clearly identifies the research questions under separate
headings. Well formulated introduction. Sophisticated and succinct conclusion recaps arguments and evidence. Communication is clear, concise & easily understood, using a sophisticated vocabulary with no grammar and spelling errors.
Penalties Late submission without approval [(-5% X 45) / day = – 2.25 Marks/day ]– × () Days = – ( ) Plagiarism will be reported to the Academic Services Centre and may result in a “zero” score.

Looking for answers ?