Assessment Brief

Academic year and term:	Level 5, term 2
Module title:	Cross Cultural Management
Module code:
Module Convener:
Learning outcomes assessed within this piece of work as agreed at the programme level meeting	Knowledge: You will be able to develop understandings of the nature and impact of cultural differences at a personal and a business level Intellectual/transferrable: You will be able to apply cross-cultural management techniques to a diverse range of issues and develop mindfulness of yourself and others in order to operate effectively and sensitively within cross-cultural teams
Type of assessment:	Group podcast, plus short reflective statement

Instructions for assessment

You will work in groups of 4 (maximum 5) to produce a scripted podcast which addresses problems described in a cross cultural management case study.

Formative Assessment

Group Podcast planning document to be submitted in week 8 to enable feedback which will enhance the final submission. One document should be submitted by each group – maximum 300 words.

Summative Assessment

This is in two parts.

1. Podcast & Script 50%

Group podcast and written script which responds to a range of CCM issues in a single case study. The marks will be awarded for both elements of the assessment.  The script will be submitted via Turnitin. The podcast audio file will be submitted online. If the podcast is not submitted the written element will not be marked and a mark of 0% will be recorded for this part of the assessment.

The case study describes an organisation that is experiencing some problems. Your group should address some of these problems by relating them to a minimum of three to a maximum of five topics that have been covered in lectures. The group should choose a minimum of one topic from each of the three categories listed below (maximum 5 topics altogether) and apply them to the selected problems that you have found in the case study. This application should be such that each problem identified in the given case is applied to the mentioned minimum of three to a maximum of five topics. It is the problems that should be identified first before each is applied to the topics in the combinations mentioned.

The topics are:

1. Category One
   1. National Culture
   1. Organisational Culture
2. Category Two
   1. Leadership
   1. Communication and Negotiation
   1. Organisational Structure
   1. Diversity
3. Category three
   1. Motivation and HRM
   1. Ethics and CSR

In the scripted podcast your group will describe the problems in the case study, use theories to analyse them and make specific recommendations for possible solutions.

You will work in groups of 4 or 5 to produce the podcast and accompanying script. This podcast will present your group’s analysis and recommendations. It will include approximately 2 minutes of spoken input from each group member. It will receive a group mark where all members of the group receive the same mark, which is 50% of the assessment for the course. You must submit the script of the podcast as well as the audio file.  

• Reflective Report 50%

Additionally, you will write a reflective report – maximum 1250 words.

The report will identify the sources used to support the argument of the podcast, including references in Harvard style. You should discuss how you applied the theory or theories that you chose to one of the issues you identified in your podcast. It will also include a short analysis of what went well in the group task and what could be improved if you were to be involved in a similar task in the future. The report receives an individual mark, which is 50% of the course assessment

Students will be allocated to their groups by tutors in the first 2 weeks.

All assessments will be carried out by tutors.

Resit Assignment Details

Resit submission date: TBC

For students who are offered a resit you are required to improve and resubmit your original work as well as adding a further reflective commentary discussing what you have learned from the process. You must resubmit your work using the specific resit Turnitin link on Moodle. The resit will be in the form of an individual reflective report. You should take into consideration the feedback given to you by your tutor both from the group podcast and reflective report and write an individual 2500 word reflective report.

You should:

1.      Review your previously submitted work and read carefully the feedback given by the marker.

2.      Use this feedback to help you revisit and rewrite your work, improving it in the areas identified as weak in the original marking process

3.      Include with your resubmission an additional reflective piece (up to 500 words) on what you understand was weak, how you set about addressing this and what you have learned from this that may help you with further assignments. You should address the following specifically:

i) Identify tutor feedback points on your original work and identify where/how the resit work has changed (give page number) in response to feedback

ii) Identify the lessons you have learnt from doing the resit

iii) Reflect on how your feedback and this process will help you improve future assignments

If you did not submit work at the first opportunity you cannot reflect on your feedback. However, you are still required to submit a reflective piece in which you identify your reasons for non-submission, the implications of non-submission for your future success and how you propose to address this in the future.

If you were deferred at the first assessment opportunity you do not need to include the reflective piece as this is a first submission at a later date, not a resit.

The original marking criteria will still apply (see marking grid provided above*) except that the 10% weighting for presentation will be awarded instead to your reflective piece.

*this refers to your marking grid included in your assessment brief

How will we support you with your assessment?

• There will be an assessment briefing in Week 1.
• You will be allocated to a group by the seminar tutor by week 2
• You will receive formative feedback in Week 9, 10 and 11 on the Group Podcast Plan. This will take the form of session with each group separately.
• Frequently asked questions (and their answers) will be posted on the module’s Moodle site

How will your work be assessed?

Your work will be assessed by a subject expert who will use the marking grid provided in this assessment brief. When you access your marked work it is important that you reflect on the feedback so that you can use it to improve future assignments.

Referencing

You MUST use the Harvard System.  The Harvard system is very easy to use once you become familiar with it.

Assignment submissions

The Business School requires a digital version of all assignment submissions. These must be submitted via Turnitin on the module’s Moodle site.  They must be submitted as a Word file (not as a pdf) and must not include scanned in text or text boxes.  They must be submitted by 2pm on the given date. For further general details on coursework preparation refer to the online information via StudentZone http://studentzone.roehampton.ac.uk/howtostudy/index.html. 

Mitigating circumstances/what to do if you cannot submit a piece of work or attend your presentation

The University Mitigating Circumstances Policy can be found on the University website –  Mitigating  Circumstances Policy

Marking and feedback process

Between you handing in your work and then receiving your feedback and marks within 20 days, there are a number of quality assurance processes that we go through to ensure that students receive marks which reflects their work. A brief summary is provided below.

• Step One – The module and marking team meet to agree standards, expectations and how feedback will be provided.
• Step Two – A subject expert will mark your work using the criteria provided in the assessment brief.
• Step Three – A moderation meeting takes place where all members of the teaching and marking team will review the marking of others to confirm whether they agree with the mark and feedback
• Step Four – Work at Levels 5 and 6 then goes to an external examiner who will review a sample of work to confirm that the marking between different staff is consistent and fair
• Stop Five – Your mark and feedback is processed by the Office and made available to you.
  

	Outstanding 100	Excellent 85	Very good 75	Good 65	Satisfactory 55	Adequate 45	Marginal fail 35	Fail 25	Not done 0
Question/Task 1 Podcast     Knowledge 40%	Outstanding podcast presentation examining the problem in a clear, perceptive and imaginative way using reasoned and well supported argument. Outstanding evidence of appropriate research and reading giving an insightful and well-balanced overview Outstanding critical appreciation of conflicting points of view and how they relate to each other.	Exceptional podcast presentation examining the problem in a clear, perceptive and imaginative way using reasoned and well supported argument. Excellent evidence of appropriate research and reading giving an insightful and well-balanced overview Excellent critical appreciation of conflicting points of view and how they relate to each other.	Very good podcast presentation examining the problem using reasoned and well supported argument. Very good evidence of appropriate research and reading giving a well-balanced overview Predominantly analytical with good links to research publications and development of a coherent academic discussion. Evidence of an appreciation of conflicting points of view	Podcast presentation is good. Argument is mostly convincing with logical progression and good supporting evidence. Good evidence of appropriate research and reading giving a well-balanced overview. Shows a good knowledge and understanding of the subject. Evidence of some research beyond core material. Predominantly descriptive but some evidence of analytical thought	Podcast presentation is satisfactory. Argument has convincing features including logical progression and some supporting evidence. Provides satisfactory evidence of appropriate research and reading giving a well-balanced overview. Shows an average knowledge and understanding of the subject. Evidence of some research beyond core material.	Podcast presentation is comprehensible but argument lacks depth and supporting evidence is minimal. Some evidence of appropriate research and reading, but lacks academic argument.   Little evidence of preparation and heavy reliance on few sources.	Podcast presentation is mostly comprehensible. Argument is unconvincing and supporting evidence is absent or minimal. Very little, inadequate research and reading	Irrelevant/ incomprehensible content. No evidence of research or reading.	Little or no content
Application 40%	Outstanding significant relevant and correct understanding and integration and application of relevant theory in an insightful and critical way. Shows an outstanding awareness of the subject and an ability to discuss key points in a critical and insightful way.	Excellent significant relevant and correct understanding and integration and application of relevant theory in an insightful and critical way. Shows an excellent awareness of the subject and an ability to discuss key points in a critical and insightful way.	Significant, relevant understanding and integration and application of relevant theory with few very minor errors of minor detail. Shows very good awareness and an ability to discuss key points in a critical way.	Clear evidence of understanding and application of integration and relevant theory, largely correct with minor errors of detail. Most of key points and arguments considered but not fully developed.	Fairly good and Clear evidence of understanding and application of integration and relevant theory, largely correct with minor errors of detail. Some key points and arguments considered but not fully developed.	Some understanding and integration and application of relevant theory but with errors. Engages with key issues but in a descriptive way.	Very little, inadequate, evidence of understanding or integration and application of relevant theory. Wholly descriptive and failing to mention key points.	No evidence of understanding or integration and application of relevant theory. Wholly descriptive with many key omissions.	Little or no application.
Presentation 20%	An outstanding example of a podcast with clear sections and clear, relevant, graphics. The time limit is respected & there are suitable appendices.	A high quality, podcast with clear sections, and graphics. The time limit is correct & references given.	A good quality, podcast with clear sections, and graphics. The time limit is correct & references given.	A sound podcast with clear sections, and some graphics. The time limit is correct & some references given.	A fair podcast with sections, and some, limited quality graphics. The time limit is not correct & references inaccurate.	A basic & scrappy podcast used with, limited contents & patchy sections. Limited quality graphics & poor Harvard referencing. The timing is not accurate & references very limited.	A sloppy podcast with limited contents & patchy sections. No graphics & no Harvard referencing. The material is under length & lacking references.	An obviously inadequate podcast without contents or question clarity. No attempt at sections or Harvard referencing. The material is unacceptable as a business report.	Poor presentation.
Question/Task 2 Content 30%	Report contains evidence of exceptional depth of research and grasp of theory	Report contains evidence of excellent research and grasp of theory	Report contains evidence of good research skills and grasp of relevant theory	Report contains evidence of some research skills and some grasp of relevant theory	Report contains evidence of only basic research skills and minimal grasp of theory	Report contains evidence of some relevant research and very limited grasp of theory	No research skills demonstrated and no real grasp of theory	No report submitted or minimal content	Incomplete
Application 30%	Report contains exceptional application of concepts to practical examples	Report contains evidence of excellent application of theory to practical examples	Report contains evidence of good application of theory to practical examples	Report contains evidence of some application of theory to practical examples	Report contains evidence of only basic application of theory to practical examples	Report contains evidence of only very limited application of theory to practical examples	No application of theory to examples	No report submitted or minimal content	Incomplete
Reflection 30%	Report contains exceptional depth of analysis of experience reflection	Report contains excellent depth of analysis of experience reflection	Report contains good description and analysis of learning from experience	Report contains some description and analysis of learning from experience	Report contains basic description and analysis of learning from experience	Report contains only very limited description of learning from experience and no analysis	Report contains no reflection	No report submitted or minimal content	Incomplete
Presentation 10%	An outstanding example of a professional report with frontsheet, contents, clear sections, tables & diagrams plus strong Harvard referencing. The word count is respected & there are suitable appendices with a full references section.	A high quality, professional report with frontsheet, contents, clear sections, tables & diagrams plus relevant Harvard referencing. The word count is correct & references given.	A quality report with frontsheet, contents, clear sections, tables & diagrams & sound Harvard referencing. The word count is correct & references given.	A sound report style used with frontsheet, contents, clear sections. Limited tables & diagrams with patchy Harvard referencing. The word count is correct but references limited.	A fair report style used with frontsheet, limited contents & patchy sections. Generic diagrams with weak Harvard referencing. The word count is not accurate & references limited.	A basic & scrappy report style used with no frontsheet, limited contents & patchy sections. Limited diagrams & poor Harvard referencing. The word count is not accurate & references very limited.	A sloppy report style used with no frontsheet, limited contents & patchy sections. No diagrams & no Harvard referencing. The material is under length & lacking references.	An obviously inadequate report without contents or question clarity. No attempt at sections or Harvard referencing. The material is unacceptable as a business report.	Incomplete