needed in apa7 th edition for references... rest everything is attached in the files
HRMT11011 Human Resource Management Supplementary Assessment (SA) task—Academic Essay SA task—Academic Essay (Individual task) Due date: Friday (13th November 2020) 11:45 pm AEST ASSESSMENT Weighting: 40% (However, SA is a pass or fail option and therefore you will need to pass this task to pass this unit) Length: Submission: 1600 words ±10% (excluding reference list) Email the final copy to the UC at
[email protected] by the deadline. The submission will be checked in Turnitin for similarity score by the UC before marking. If there is a high similarity score, the student will receive another chance to revise it in 2 days and resubmit by 22th November 2020. Please do not copy any part from your previous submissions. SA task should be original and brand new and self-plagiarism is not permissible. SA EMAIL THE UC DIRECTLY FOR ANY ADDITIONAL HELP OR INFORMATION FOR CLARITY WITHIN 11TH November 2020 Purpose This SA task is very similar to your Assessment 2. You must not repeat any of the mistakes that lead to an unsuccessful essay or report in this unit. Please read the feedback summary and all in-text comments of both your assessment 2 & 3 in the feedback studio before attending this task. This written assessment is designed to assist students to develop skills in the analysis of human resource issues based on relevant human resource theories and models. The secondary purpose of this assessment task is to give students the opportunity to enhance their analytical, critical thinking, and written communication skills, particularly in the areas of developing an argument and essay writing. Description You are required to research and write an ACADEMIC ESSAY. You should establish your argument and provide evidence from your research of academic and other appropriate sources to support your argument. You are expected to engage in extensive research within the academic literature (peer reviewed academic journal articles) relevant to the task and support your argument from scholarly sources. Other sources that make a significant contribution to the analysis may include industry and organisation specific examples. Task Details Due to socio-demographic, technological, and environmental trends the Australian workforce and nature of work continue to change. One such trend is the still developing COVID-19 economy which is vastly different from the usual business and employment relationships. In your essay titled "Innovative HRM practices in solving the age care sector labour crisis in Australia", you should: -identify how the unique trends and aspects of the age care sector labour crisis are influencing the performance outcomes of the age care organisations in Australia. -critically discuss the HRM implications related to the identified trend and unique aspects (Note - your discussion should focus on implications for at least three of the related HR functions such as HR planning, job design, recruitment, engagement, retention, performance management, diversity management, health and safety, HRIS, HRD, industrial relations, remunerations and benefits). -critically discuss associated challenges and opportunities for employers and the employees. Note - Your essay should incorporate examples from Australian age care organisations to support your discussion. Please do not commence this Assessment without referring to the 'Marking Rubric' provided in the Unit Moodle site for assessment 2 or attached to the SA email. Penalties for late submission are applied according to the Policy. Additional Information Your essay should be a properly constructed ACADEMIC ESSAY. It should contain an effective introduction, body and conclusion. The introduction should introduce the essay and include your argument. The introduction should reflect the task and provide a statement of purpose, scope and context. The body should be the critical analysis where you present your argument, which is supported throughout using the evidence you have collected from your research. The conclusion should restate your argument, summarise the evidence, and make a conclusion regarding your argument. The conclusion should link to the introduction. The essay should contain a coherent, and appropriate critical review of the academic literature across the issues you identify. The literature review should be integrated throughout the essay to evidence the critical analysis and develop your argument. · DO NOT INCLUDE HEADINGS IN YOUR ESSAY. · DO NOT INCLUDE AN ABSTRACT. · DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF CONTENTS. A reference list is compulsory, and it MUST be prepared according to the CQU APA Referencing Guide. DO NOT include a bibliography. This assessment item involves researching your assigned topic to enhance your understanding of the relevant human resource issues and utilisation of academic literature. You will be expected to present information and evidence from, and cite, relevant academic peer reviewed journal articles. You must undertake research more broadly than articles posted on Moodle. The minimum to pass this criterion [10/20] is SIX (6) scholarly references beyond 2013, one of which MUST be the prescribed textbook, plus FIVE (5) relevant academic peer reviewed journal articles. You may use the three articles from Assessment 1 Annotated Bibliography. The quality and number of citations will demonstrate the breadth and depth of the literature used to formulate your argument. It is not only about the number of references, but also it is about how you use the content from your research. You can cite the textbook, and any of your journal articles more than once as appropriate to develop your argument. Keep your key research recent (from 2013 onwards), unless you are using the primary source articles of theories and/or models. You also will need to obtain material from appropriate sources to provide industry examples. Your marker is interested in the argument and critical analysis that you have developed from YOUR review of the literature and how well you use the literature to respond to the topic. There should be minimal use, if any, of direct quotes, and you should be paraphrasing. The in text referencing in the body of the essay must be appropriate and sufficient. ( HRMT11011 ) ( 1 ) ( Term 1 , 20 20 ) HRMT11011 – Assessment 2 – Academic Essay Marking Criteria CRITERIA 0 (not shown) 1 (Poor) 2 (Unsatisfactory) 3 (Satisfactory) 4 (Above average) 5 (Good) 6 (Excellent) Research (20%) None or a limited number (<2) of="" poor="" quality,="" inappropriate="" or="" non-="" critical="" resources="" is="" selected.="" some="" sources="" may="" be="" fictional="" or="" irrelevant.="" a="" limited="" number="">2)><6) of poor quality, inappropriate or non- critical resources is selected. some sources may be fictional or irrelevant. some quality, appropriate critical academic resources are selected, but they include a few poorer quality sources (e.g. lecture notes, websites) a body of quality, appropriate critical academic resources is selected with some omissions or errors of judgement. a body of quality, appropriate critical academic resources is selected. a body of almost entirely top quality, mostly appropriate critical academic resources is selected. an extensive body of top quality, highly appropriate critical academic resources is selected. analysis (35%) not identified issues related to hrm or the topic fails to identify and demonstrate an understanding of key points related to the topic. limited analysis and inaccurate interpretations and/or judgements. no discernible statement of position or argument. no contrary evidence or argument provided many inaccuracies of fact, or unsubstantiated information. an attempt is made to identify the key points related to the topic, 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. identifies some of the key points related to the topic 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 somewhat follows logically from information provided. identifies many of the key points related to the topic and demonstrates a good understanding of their complexities. adequate 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 largely follows logically from information provided. identifies most of the key points related to the topic and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of these. good 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. clearly identifies all key points related to the topic 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. application of theory (15%) no reference to hrm theory, concepts or frameworks little or no application of theory (where relevant). e.g. mostly description of theory with negligible integration; so no analysis. basic application of theory. e.g. integrates some evidence from the literature and theory, but many are missed out. may contain several minor errors of fact or sweeping generalisations. good application of theory. e.g. some parts done in a degree of depth and detail. integrates considerable evidence from the literature with the application of theory, but some points are not well founded. very good application of theory. e.g. some parts done in a degree of depth and detail. integrates considerable evidence from the literature with the application of theory, but some points are not well founded. sophisticated application of theory. e.g. detailed approach with application of theory; generally, well integrated with the evidence from the literature. highly sophisticated application of theory. e.g. highly detailed approach with well-integrated evidence to aid the application of theory. presentation: of="" poor="" quality,="" inappropriate="" or="" non-="" critical="" resources="" is="" selected.="" some="" sources="" may="" be="" fictional="" or="" irrelevant.="" some="" quality,="" appropriate="" critical="" academic="" resources="" are="" selected,="" but="" they="" include="" a="" few="" poorer="" quality="" sources="" (e.g.="" lecture="" notes,="" websites)="" a="" body="" of="" quality,="" appropriate="" critical="" academic="" resources="" is="" selected="" with="" some="" omissions="" or="" errors="" of="" judgement.="" a="" body="" of="" quality,="" appropriate="" critical="" academic="" resources="" is="" selected.="" a="" body="" of="" almost="" entirely="" top="" quality,="" mostly="" appropriate="" critical="" academic="" resources="" is="" selected.="" an="" extensive="" body="" of="" top="" quality,="" highly="" appropriate="" critical="" academic="" resources="" is="" selected.="" analysis="" (35%)="" not="" identified="" issues="" related="" to="" hrm="" or="" the="" topic="" fails="" to="" identify="" and="" demonstrate="" an="" understanding="" of="" key="" points="" related="" to="" the="" topic.="" limited="" analysis="" and="" inaccurate="" interpretations="" and/or="" judgements.="" no="" discernible="" statement="" of="" position="" or="" argument.="" no="" contrary="" evidence="" or="" argument="" provided="" many="" inaccuracies="" of="" fact,="" or="" unsubstantiated="" information.="" an="" attempt="" is="" made="" to="" identify="" the="" key="" points="" related="" to="" the="" topic,="" 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.="" identifies="" some="" of="" the="" key="" points="" related="" to="" the="" topic="" 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="" somewhat="" follows="" logically="" from="" information="" provided.="" identifies="" many="" of="" the="" key="" points="" related="" to="" the="" topic="" and="" demonstrates="" a="" good="" understanding="" of="" their="" complexities.="" adequate="" 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="" largely="" follows="" logically="" from="" information="" provided.="" identifies="" most="" of="" the="" key="" points="" related="" to="" the="" topic="" and="" demonstrates="" a="" sophisticated="" understanding="" of="" these.="" good="" 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.="" clearly="" identifies="" all="" key="" points="" related="" to="" the="" topic="" 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.="" application="" of="" theory="" (15%)="" no="" reference="" to="" hrm="" theory,="" concepts="" or="" frameworks="" little="" or="" no="" application="" of="" theory="" (where="" relevant).="" e.g.="" mostly="" description="" of="" theory="" with="" negligible="" integration;="" so="" no="" analysis.="" basic="" application="" of="" theory.="" e.g.="" integrates="" some="" evidence="" from="" the="" literature="" and="" theory,="" but="" many="" are="" missed="" out.="" may="" contain="" several="" minor="" errors="" of="" fact="" or="" sweeping="" generalisations.="" good="" application="" of="" theory.="" e.g.="" some="" parts="" done="" in="" a="" degree="" of="" depth="" and="" detail.="" integrates="" considerable="" evidence="" from="" the="" literature="" with="" the="" application="" of="" theory,="" but="" some="" points="" are="" not="" well="" founded.="" very="" good="" application="" of="" theory.="" e.g.="" some="" parts="" done="" in="" a="" degree="" of="" depth="" and="" detail.="" integrates="" considerable="" evidence="" from="" the="" literature="" with="" the="" application="" of="" theory,="" but="" some="" points="" are="" not="" well="" founded.="" sophisticated="" application="" of="" theory.="" e.g.="" detailed="" approach="" with="" application="" of="" theory;="" generally,="" well="" integrated="" with="" the="" evidence="" from="" the="" literature.="" highly="" sophisticated="" application="" of="" theory.="" e.g.="" highly="" detailed="" approach="" with="" well-integrated="" evidence="" to="" aid="" the="" application="" of="" theory.="">6) of poor quality, inappropriate or non- critical resources is selected. some sources may be fictional or irrelevant. some quality, appropriate critical academic resources are selected, but they include a few poorer quality sources (e.g. lecture notes, websites) a body of quality, appropriate critical academic resources is selected with some omissions or errors of judgement. a body of quality, appropriate critical academic resources is selected. a body of almost entirely top quality, mostly appropriate critical academic resources is selected. an extensive body of top quality, highly appropriate critical academic resources is selected. analysis (35%) not identified issues related to hrm or the topic fails to identify and demonstrate an understanding of key points related to the topic. limited analysis and inaccurate interpretations and/or judgements. no discernible statement of position or argument. no contrary evidence or argument provided many inaccuracies of fact, or unsubstantiated information. an attempt is made to identify the key points related to the topic, 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. identifies some of the key points related to the topic 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 somewhat follows logically from information provided. identifies many of the key points related to the topic and demonstrates a good understanding of their complexities. adequate 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 largely follows logically from information provided. identifies most of the key points related to the topic and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of these. good 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. clearly identifies all key points related to the topic 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. application of theory (15%) no reference to hrm theory, concepts or frameworks little or no application of theory (where relevant). e.g. mostly description of theory with negligible integration; so no analysis. basic application of theory. e.g. integrates some evidence from the literature and theory, but many are missed out. may contain several minor errors of fact or sweeping generalisations. good application of theory. e.g. some parts done in a degree of depth and detail. integrates considerable evidence from the literature with the application of theory, but some points are not well founded. very good application of theory. e.g. some parts done in a degree of depth and detail. integrates considerable evidence from the literature with the application of theory, but some points are not well founded. sophisticated application of theory. e.g. detailed approach with application of theory; generally, well integrated with the evidence from the literature. highly sophisticated application of theory. e.g. highly detailed approach with well-integrated evidence to aid the application of theory. presentation:>