|
Module Code: FN0360 Instructions on Assessment: Summative assessment is by assignment. This represents 100% of the module mark. In the assignment, each student responds to the four tasks already addressed in seminars. However, responses must be independently composed by each student, using skills developed through dialogue during seminars. Dialogue during seminars focused on three formative cases. The techniques developed formatively are to be applied to a fourth, summative case, the case of BP (Texas City). Marks achieved for each task in the assignment will be stated on the assessed work form or other forms approved for the purpose of feedback. All tasks carry equal marks. Task 1 Identify laudable and culpable decisions in the BP (Texas City) case and rank the culpable decisions on a scale of merit and demerit. Show how context makes (or could make) some difference to how much blame the culprits deserve. Task 2 Outlining standard ways to place blame and to avoid it, interpret the culprits’ (and their supporters’) defensive utterances; and interpret their critics’ (and victims’) utterances. Task 3 Evaluate the use of ethical standards to assess business conduct. Does such conduct require an alternative or complementary type of appraisal, by other standards? Task 4 Explain how, in this and similar cases, external governance (or other external) constraints and expectations might (or might not) protect victims of corporate misconduct more effectively than ethical constraints. Overall word limit: 2000 words (Absolute word limit: 2,200 words) No introduction or appendix is permitted. There must be scholarly references, in respect of which there is no word limit. References in parenthesis, in the text (name, date) do not affect the word count. Graphs count as one word but must not be used to incorporate words that belong in the text. All pages are to be submitted, numbered in order and unstapled, in a single plastic sleeve. No other kind of document-holder may be used. Individual pages must not come in separate sleeves. Module specific mandatory requirements Legibility Text must be entirely legible and of good enough quality for photocopying. This means that your printer’s supply of black ink or toner must be adequate. Colour printing is discouraged.
As for dissertations, you are required to use a word processor, on A4 paper: Font face – Arial These stylistic requirements, above and as follows, are mandatory. Line spacing must be set at ‘one and a half’ (1.5). Pages must be numbered at the top right hand corner. The right margin should be left ragged (unjustified). Print your document in such a way that it fits in a single plastic sleeve. Do not present your work in any other kind of container.
The regulations specify that students must complete every assessment component contributing to the modules on their programme. This applies to all forms of assessment, as defined in the module descriptor. Please note that: • if any assessment component is not completed, students will be failed in the module even if the module pass mark has been achieved; This change was approved by Academic Board on 12 October 2009 in consultation with the Students’ Union. Students should consult their Programme Leader or Guidance Tutor if they have any queries. Independent advice and support is also available from the Students’ Union Advice & Representation Centre ([email protected]) or from a student adviser in Student Services.
The word count, task by task and in total, is to be declared on the front page of your assignment. The word count does not include title page, contents page, glossary, tables, figures, illustrations, reference list, bibliography and appendices. (In FN0360, no appendix is permitted. Students are not permitted to use figures, tables or illustrations etc. as a means of incorporating additional text.) Summarising and compressing the information in your assignment into the word limit is one of the skills that students are expected to acquire, and demonstrate as part of the assessment process. Word limits and penalties for assignments A penalty of 10% will apply to work using fewer than 1,800 words, or exceeding 2,200 words. If the assignment is within 10% of the stated word limit no penalty will apply, unless the word count for individual tasks is disproportionate. However, if the word count deviates from 2000 words by more than the 10% limit, 10% of the mark provisionally awarded to the assignment will be deducted. For example: if the assignment is worth 70% but is above the word limit by more than 10%, a penalty of 7% will be imposed, giving a final mark of 63%. (For FN0360, please note that greater than 10% penalties apply if disproportionate attention is given to tasks, as defined below.)
Note the following illustration of how you might satisfy the word-count requirements: full use of the stated maximum quota (600 words) in response to any two tasks would mean that 550 is the implied maximum quota available for the next-sized response: 2(600)+550+450=2200. If the absolute word limit is breached and attention to tasks is disproportionate (fewer than 450 words per task, or more than 600), a penalty of up to 20% will apply. Word counts per task and in total must be accurately stated on the title page. If not, it will be assumed that the absolute word limit has been breached and that attention to all tasks is disproportionate. Therefore, a penalty of 20% will apply. If you grossly disregard the required size and structure of the assignment, 40% is the maximum mark possible. Responses to the tasks must be written in continuous prose. Note making formats, including numbered or alphabetical lists, and bullet-points, must not be used. Time limits and penalties for presentations (Not applicable in FN0360. In FN0360, there will be no presentations: neither for formative nor for summative purposes.) The time allocated for the presentation must be adhered to. At the end of this time, the presentation will be stopped and will be marked based on what has been delivered within the time limit. Submission of Assessment: All assignments must be submitted via the Undergraduate Programme Office. Each assignment must be accompanied by an Assessed Work Form which must be completed in full. The assignment will not be accepted by the Undergraduate Programme Office unless the form is completed correctly. It will not be accepted, moreover, unless it is in a single plastic sleeve. Marked assignments will be returned to students. It is advisable to retain a copy of your assignment for your own records. Your mark will be returned on the Assessed Work Form via the Undergraduate Programme Office. The marker responsible for your mark will sign and date the Assessed Work Form. You must retain an electronic copy of your assignment in case you are requested to submit it for inspection. After you have submitted a hard copy of your assignment and after it has been accepted by the Undergraduate Programme Office, you must not make any changes to the electronic copy. Changes will be suspected if the electronic version has been opened since acceptance. You must write, on the Title Page of your assignment: 1. First, your own family name(s) and, second, your given name(s); You must write the same information and other required information on the Assessed Work form. The Assessed Work form should not be stapled to your assignment. Referencing your work The Harvard method of referring to publications and of arranging references uses the author's name and the date of the publication. References are listed at the end of the text in alphabetical order by author's family name. The general format of a journal reference is shown below: Smith, J. (1999) ‘How to succeed!’, Journal of Entrepreneurs, 1 (2),pp.34-56 The family name(s) of the author(s) comes first, each family name followed by the initials of an author’s given names; next follows the year of publication in brackets; then the title of the article, inside speech marks, and the journal, underlined or in italics; finally, the volume and issue number (in brackets), along with the pages where the article can be located. You must produce an assignment that demonstrates knowledge and understanding of a wide range of theories underpinning published research and scholarly thought in Ethics and Governance, and skill in the use of such theories. Your assignment is not to be understood as an opportunity for you to state opinions unsupported by scholarly thinking in the field.#p#分页标题#e# Do not rely on unscholarly sources. They are useful as a stimulus to interesting ideas but they are not authoritative. For further information, access the Referencing web page found on the Library website: www.northumbria.ac.uk/helpguides You will find other useful help guides on the Library web pages to help you with researching and writing your assessments. Plagiarism and Cheating Your attention is drawn to the University’s stated position on plagiarism and other forms of academic irregularity. THE WORK OF OTHERS, IF INCLUDED IN THE ASSIGNMENT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO ITS SOURCE (a full bibliography and a list of references must be submitted). Please note that this is intended to be an individual piece of work. Action will be taken where a student is suspected of having cheated or engaged in any dishonest practice. Students are referred to the University regulations on plagiarism and other forms of academic irregularity. Students must not copy or collude with one another or present any information that they themselves have not generated.
Students will be required to submit ‘Working Papers’ on demand. These include A4 versions of the Dialogue Sheet that each individual student will use to make notes on the summative case. They must not be submitted with the assignment but may be called for subsequently. Therefore, keep them. Action will be taken where a student is suspected of cheating or of any dishonest practice. Your assignment is an individual piece of work. It will be based on techniques developed through the use of dialogue sheets during and between seminars but these only facilitate the development of your own skills. Such skills must be applied by each student in her/his own way to the summative case. Your assignment must be your own work. You should be very careful to avoid any misunderstanding about this: the acceptable possibility that your work may have ideas in common with the work of other students must not be understood to give you license to elaborate and develop these points in the same way as other students. Your arguments must be distinctively your own. The best assignment will demonstrate that dialogue during, between and after all seminars has been productive but each student’s elaboration, development and use of all ideas, material, skills and techniques must be clearly and distinctively her/his own. Students should familiarise themselves with the University regulations on plagiarism, collusion and other forms of academic irregularity. Action will be taken if a student is suspected of having engaged in any dishonest practice. One student must not collude with another, either as provider to her/him of any other individual’s/individuals’ work, including the provider’s/providers’ own; or as a user of work so provided, with a view to the user’s presentation of that work as her/his own. A student who provides her/his own or a third party’s/parties’ work for such use will be held to be culpable and be penalised accordingly.
This assessment will contribute directly to the following programme goals and objectives. 1. Knowledgeable about the theory and practice of international business and management 1. Demonstrate current knowledge and understanding of the major functional areas of business. 2. Skilful in the use of personal, professional and managerial techniques and processes X 1. Demonstrate the acquisition and application of a range of personal transferable skills in numeracy, literacy, communication and time management. 3. Employable as graduates 1. Demonstrate a range of key skills for securing graduate employment, including self presentation e.g. in CVs, interviews and assessment centres. 4. Aware of ethical issues impacting on business and professional practice X 1. Demonstrate an understanding of UK and international organisations’ approaches to Corporate Social Responsibility and their implications for organisations and individuals.
Your assignment must, accordingly, fully satisfy the following learning outcomes: Students will be able: 1. Critically to appraise organizations’ approaches to ethical issues and the implications for those organizations, for individuals and for society in general; 2. Critically to evaluate different approaches to corporate governance and the role played by governance regulations in the ethical problems of business organizations.
Assessment Criteria (NBS) The first column in the table that follows indicates the general assessment criteria used within NBS; the second column indicates the specific criteria used by those who mark your FN0360 assessment. You are advised to study both columns very closely. They show you what, in order to succeed, you must do, and what you must avoid. To pass, students are expected, by means of an adequately structured assignment, underpinned by some scholarship, to demonstrate: • Some understanding of alternative ethical frameworks, principles of governance and theories of justice; Not all tasks set will test all of these types of understanding and competence but the assessment as a whole tests them all. In addition to satisfying the requirement, as above, of basic understanding and competence, highly successful assignments will be very well-informed and supported by very effective argument. An assignment must demonstrate a student’s ability to single out key points in the data, to supply additional material apart from the data and to synthesize all arguments. To get a high mark, students are expected to present a well composed and balanced argument that, informed by scholarly research, clearly and critically addresses the four tasks. Assignments must demonstrate reflectiveness and balance and must rely very little on assertion. Mark General Criteria Module Assessment Criteria First Upper Second (60 - 69) Knowledge base is up-to-date and relevant, but also may be broad or deep. Higher order critical appreciation skills are displayed. A significant ability to apply theory, concepts, ideas and their inter-relationship is illustrated. Task 1 Quite comprehensive in scope; explains rankings; effective contextualisation and calibration.#p#分页标题#e# Third
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
