HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T1 2021
Unit Code HC2121
Unit Title Comparative Business Ethics and Social Responsibility
Assessment Type Group Assignment
(Group Report)
Note: Groups of 4 students only. Once a group is formed and entered into Blackboard, no changes are allowed.
This is strictly required to be your own original work. Plagiarism will be penalised. Students must use correct in-text citation conventions in accordance with the ‘Referencing Requirements’ on pp. 7-8.
Assessment Title Group Report (Reflection on individual and organisational problems and challenges).
Purpose of the assessment and linkage to Unit Learning
Outcomes (ULO) This assignment aimed to draw on the concepts and models used in this unit to evaluate diverse approaches to ethical decision-making and to apply problem-solving skills in solving and managing ethical dilemmas within an organisation. This assignment will help you develop skills in applying the course contents in an organisational analysis.
Assessment
Weight Group Report
Total = 30%
Total Marks 30 Marks
Word limit Report not more than 2,500 words excluding references.
Due Date Week 10 at 5pm (Melbourne/Sydney time)
[Late submission penalties accrue at the rate of - 5% per day]
Submission Guidelines • All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.
• The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list, all using Harvard referencing style. References provided must follow ‘Reference Requirements’ detailed on page
7 & 8.
• Students must show adequate evidence of additional research with a minimum of 10 academic references.
Each group must include a statement of “who did what part” of the report in the cover sheet.
Consult your lecturer if you are unsure or you require clarification on plagiarism.
Note: You may not get the assignment submission links unless you are registered/enrolled in a group on Blackboard.
Note: All students must contribute equally to the assessment. You must acknowledge your group members’ names in the cover sheet. If your name is not included in the cover sheet, you might not receive marks. If you choose to complete the assessment individually, you should self-enrol in a solo group and submit your group assessment individually.
Assignment Specifications
Purpose
This assignment aims at providing students with an opportunity to reflect on ethical dilemmas and challenges in contemporary organisations and apply concepts and frameworks covered within the subject to solving such problems.
In groups of 4, students must:
Search local newspapers/reports for an ethical issue that is topical. It might be the politics surrounding a minority group, or the latest corporate scandal, or some other issue of interest to you. In 2500 words, briefly describe the case and then evaluate it using the key terminologies/theories that have been discussed in the lecture slides and support your claims/arguments with key research findings/peer-reviewed academic articles. If you can’t locate an ethical issue in local newspapers/reports, you may wish to investigate One of the following corporate scandals: United Airlines https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/11/travel/united-customer-dragged-off-overbookedflight/index.html Equifax https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/10/equifax-breach-preventable-house-oversight-report/ Enron https://www.britannica.com/event/Enron-scandal Google https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/20/18270891/google-eu-antitrust-fine-adsense-advertising
Assignment report structure should be, as follows:
• The report must include a cover page with who did what section in the report.
• Table of Contents
• Executive Summary
• An Introduction and background information of the selected organisation: Briefly introduce the purpose of the report. Within the introductory paragraph, you need to address the key topics you will address in the body paragraphs.
• Overview of the current organisational ethical problem or challenge.
• Detailed analysis of the current organisational ethical problem supported with relevant concepts and theories that have been covered in the lectures and tutorials.
• Recommendations and Conclusion: Outline some recommendations and the conclusion must briefly summarise the key points in the body paragraphs.
• Reference List: Please include all in-text references in the list of references formatted in
Harvard style. A minimum of 10 references is required.
Marking Criteria Weighting
Group Report Total 30 marks
Overall Structure, format and presentation of report 3 marks
Application of knowledge and course concepts 8 marks
Critical analysis and research demonstrated in organisational problem or challenge 8 marks
Conclusion, recommendation and strength of overall arguments 6 marks
Evidence of quality research and referencing 5 marks
Marking Rubric for the Written Report
Criteria Ratings
Overall structure, format and presentation
(3 marks) Excellent
Very Good
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Report is
exceptionally structured,
with sub-
sections and correct use of paragraphs.
Correct layout including font, font size, spacing and the right length. Report is very well-structured, with sub-sections and correct use of paragraphs.
Correct layout including font, font size, spacing and the right length. Report is
somewhat structured, with sub-sections and correct use of paragraphs.
Correct layout including font, font size, spacing and about the right length. Report is
structured,
with sub-
sections and correct use of paragraphs. Some elements of layout or
length incorrect. Report is poorly structured. No sub-section and/or paragraphs.
Some elements of layout or length incorrect.
Application of knowledge and course concepts
(8 marks) Excellent
Very Good
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Gives a very detailed
background of the ethical problem and demonstrated sound knowledge of course concepts.
There is
excellent
proof of research on the topic. Gives a detailed background of the ethical problem and
demonstrated sound knowledge of course concepts. There is very good proof of research on the topic. Gives some
general
background of the ethical problem and demonstrated
good knowledge of course concepts. There is adequate proof of research on the topic. Gives a
general background of the ethical problem. Demonstrate
d fair knowledge of course concepts.
There is
satisfactory
proof of research on the topic. Omits a general background of the topic and/or demonstrated
poor knowledge of course concepts. There is little or no proof of research on the topic.
Critical analysis and research demonstrated in organisational Excellent
Very Good
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Exceptionally logical, Very logical,
insightful, Detailed, original discussion Adequate discussion Inadequate discussion of
problem or challenge (8 marks) insightful, original discussion develops.
Evidence of
full
engagement
with the
literature
found, with relevant and very detailed
critical
analysis of
organisational problem or challenge. original discussion develops.
Evidence of full engagement with the literature found, with relevant and detailed critical analysis of
organisational
problem or challenge. develops logically.
Understanding of reading shown. Some relevant critical analysis of organisational
problem or challenge. develops logically.
Understandin g of reading shown. Few
relevant
analysis
provided on organisational problem or challenge. issues and/or lacking in logical flow. Little/no demonstrated understanding of reading. Poor or no critical analysis of
organisational
problem or challenge.
Conclusion, recommendation s and strength of overall arguments
(6 marks)
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
An interesting,
well written summary of the main points. An excellent final comment on the topic, based on the information provided. A very good summary of the main points. A good final comment on the topic, based on the information provided. Good summary of the main points. A final comment on the topic based on the
information provided. Satisfactory
summary of the main points. A final comment on the topic, but introduced new material. Poor/no summary of the main points. A poor final comment on the topic and/or new material introduced.
Evidence of quality research and Referencing
(5 marks) Excellent
Very Good
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Correct
referencing
style (10 references).
All quoted material in quotes and acknowledged
. Correctly set out reference list and bibliography included. All articles cited are current and peer- reviewed. Correct referencing style (8 references). All quoted material in quotes and acknowledged. Correctly set out reference list and bibliography
included. All articles cited are current and mostly peerreviewed. Mostly correct referencing style (6 references). All quoted material in quotes and acknowledged.
Mostly correct set out of reference list and bibliography included. A good number of
current and peerreviewed articles cited. Somewhat
correct
referencing
style (5 references).
Some problems with quoted material.
Some problems
with the reference list or bibliography.
Few of the articles cited were outdated and
not peerreviewed. Not all material correctly acknowledged. Some problems with the reference list or bibliography.
Most articles cited were outdated and not peerreviewed.
Note: Please note that the lecture slides may contain the basic key concepts only and students are expected to have read a wide range of scholarly literature to complete all assessments. In addition, for many subjects, students are expected to have undertaken additional research using ProQuest research database and/or Google Scholar.
Submission Guideline
To be eligible to pass this unit, you should complete all forms of assessment and demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes. All assignments must be submitted electronically ONLY, uploaded to Blackboard via the Final Check and Submission of SafeAssign.
Submission deadlines are strictly enforced and a late submission incurs penalties. For full details, please refer to your Student Handbook. Students can access the Assessment and Marking Policy online (h ttps://www.holmes.edu.au/pages/about/policies).
Academic Integrity
Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding Academic Integrity, as Academic Integrity is integral to maintaining academic quality and the reputation of Holmes’ graduates. Accordingly, all assessment tasks need to comply with academic integrity guidelines. Table 1 identifies the six categories of Academic Integrity breaches. If you have any questions about Academic Integrity issues related to your assessment tasks, please consult your lecturer or tutor for relevant referencing guidelines and support resources. Many of these resources can also be found through the Study Sills link on Blackboard.
Academic Integrity breaches are a serious offence punishable by penalties that may range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.
Table 1: Six categories of Academic Integrity breaches
Plagiarism Reproducing the work of someone else without attribution. When a student submits their own work on multiple occasions this is known as self-plagiarism.
Collusion Working with one or more other individuals to complete an assignment, in a way that is not authorised.
Copying Reproducing and submitting the work of another student, with or without their knowledge. If a student fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent their own original work from being copied, this may also be considered an offence.
Impersonation Falsely presenting oneself, or engaging someone else to present as oneself, in an in-person examination.
Contract cheating Contracting a third party to complete an assessment task, generally in exchange for money or other manner of payment.
Data fabrication and falsification Manipulating or inventing data with the intent of supporting false conclusions, including manipulating images.
Source: INQAAHE, 2020
Reference requirements
Assessment Design – Adapted Harvard Referencing
Holmes will be implementing as a pilot program a revised Harvard approach to referencing. The following guidelines apply:
1. Reference sources in assignments are limited to sources which provide full text access to the source’s content for lecturers and markers.
2. The Reference list should be located on a separate page at the end of the essay and titled:
References.
3. It should include the details of all the in-text citations, arranged alphabetically A-Z by author surname. In addition, it MUST include a hyperlink to the full text of the cited reference source.
For example;
P Hawking, B McCarthy, A Stein (2004), Second Wave ERP Education, Journal of Information Systems Education, Fall, http://jise.org/Volume15/n3/JISEv15n3p327.pdf
4. All assignments will require additional in-text reference details which will consist of the surname of the author/authors or name of the authoring body, year of publication, page number of content, paragraph where the content can be found.
For example;
“The company decided to implement a enterprise wide data warehouse business intelligence strategies (Hawking et al, 2004, p3(4)).”
Non-Adherence to Referencing Guidelines
Where students do not follow the above guidelines:
1. Students who submit assignments which do not comply with the guidelines will be asked to resubmit their assignments.
2. Late penalties will apply, as per the Student Handbook each day, after the student/s have been notified of the resubmission requirements.
3. Students who comply with guidelines and the citations are “fake” will be reported for academic misconduct.