PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS COURSEWORK BRIEF 2015/2016

People and Organisations Coursework Brief 2015/2016

Introduction

 

This coursework serves two purposes. First and foremost, it aims to improve your capacity for academic literature searches, critical reading, and brief discursive writing. Your postgraduate academic program will benefit from this in turn. Second, you must thoroughly research a current topic affecting human relations in the context of project management as part of your homework. The coursework in this 15-credit core unit is worth 33% of the final grade. As a result, you must put in roughly 50 hours of personal effort to complete this program. Please carefully study the directions contained in this coursework brief.

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now

Detailed Guidelines
You must write a critical analysis on the following theme:

“Psychological Contract and Project Management” is the focus of the course.

A peer-reviewed academic journal article of your choice must serve as the foundation for your critical review. You must conduct in-depth research on the course topic by identifying the specific article that served as your inspiration for this critical assessment.

The review must be written in word processing software and must not be longer than one A4 page, using the Arial font, single line spacing no less than 12 points, and margins no less than 2 cm all around. On page 2, you must also include the list of bibliographic references used to support your critical review. As a result, submitting more than 2 pages will result in you receiving a failing grade for this coursework. Don’t carry over your critique to the second page either. Only the list of the mentioned bibliographic sources, preferably presented using the Harvard referencing method, should be on the second page. At the top of page 2, in bold, you must include the complete reference for the peer-reviewed academic journal article that your critical review is based on. Please make sure the article you choose is from the collection of electronic journals maintained by the University of Manchester Library.

It is conceivable that a coursework seminar session is scheduled for you to share the insights you learned from the coursework with your classmates, subject to the availability of time in the schedule. If so, you will be required to participate in and attend the coursework seminar (details will be provided). If a coursework seminar is scheduled but you don’t show up, you won’t get credit for the coursework.

The deadline to submit this critical review is Friday, November 13, 2015, at 23:59 UTC using the link on the Blackboard 9 site’s home page. To prevent missing the deadline due to delays on the day of submission, kindly post interim publications before the deadline. Versions will be overwritten by new uploads.

Instructions on How to Write a Critical Review
The theme mentioned above, “Psychological Contract and Project Management,” must be addressed in your critical assessment.

You must choose a peer-reviewed journal article focusing on a specific psychological contract component and connect it to the discipline of project management. This can be done in a variety of ways. Before selecting which article to highlight for your critical evaluation, it is crucial that you read more than one article on the topic from a peer-reviewed publication. Before deciding which article to use as the basis for your critical review, it is expected that you become familiar with the idea of the “psychological contract,” including what it means, why it is important, and what research has already been done on and written about it. It is advised that you pick a piece of writing that has really influenced the way you view psychological contracts in relation to project management.

A peer-reviewed academic journal is what? The definition of peer review and what it means to the general public may be found at http://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.html (accessed July 27, 2015). Furthermore, the homepage of any academic publication’s website must have comprehensive information about the journal. If there is a peer review procedure, it is typically described in the “Instructions for Authors” or something similar. On a need-basis, periodic direction will be given; the official session will take place in Week 5.

The chosen paper needs to be evaluated critically using relevant sources and reasoned reasoning. When writing the critical review, students are recommended to concentrate on evaluating the subject matter rather than expressing their own personal thoughts or writing in the first person. On Blackboard 9, you may get general guidance on library and study techniques (see Learning Resources). This should be read before starting your work.

Typically, you are suggested to take into account the following issues while writing a critical review of this kind:
• What is the topic of the selected scholarly paper from a peer-reviewed journal? What/what are the main argument(s)? What judgments are the authors drawing?
• Where did the author(s) get the ideas for their arguments? What techniques were employed, and how did they affect the potency of the argument(s)? How much do the techniques employed persuade you of the argument(s) they present?
• How does the selected article advance our comprehension of the course theme as a whole? What are the consequences of the argument(s) in the selected article, particularly for project management theory and practice?
• What are the chosen article’s constraints? What are the points of weakness?
What do these mean in terms of theory and application?

You might be able to read the literature more intently if you give these questions some thought.

When looking through the literature and choosing peer-reviewed journal articles, care should be taken to ensure that the publications you read have enough content. The selection of journalistic articles by students is a common mistake. We will not accept journalistic pieces or “lightweight” unreferenced content. It must be emphasized once more that students will need to do extensive library research in order to choose appropriate materials.

Notes on General Principles
untimely submissions
The Mechanical, Aerospace, and Civil Engineering School (MACE) has a policy regarding late coursework submissions. The following procedures will apply to any coursework received after the due date: Work turned in after the due date will still be graded, but the grade will be deducted gradually for each day, or portion of a day, that the work is late. Per day of lateness, 10% of the available marks are deducted from the final grade. For instance, if you submitted your assignment a day late, your 71% score would drop to 61%; similarly, if you received a grade of 55%, your mark would drop to 45%. Work that is submitted after the official deadline has passed by more than 5 days will receive a zero. This should not, however, limit your ability to use the Personal Mitigating Circumstances method.

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is not permitted. Cheating takes the form of plagiarism. At the most fundamental level, all works written by others must be accurately and concisely cited. All internet sources must be properly cited. The tutor will provide guidance, and if there is any uncertainty, students must discuss referencing-related issues with the tutor. Additionally, plagiarism detection tools will be used to examine your work. Tutors will be able to use this software to check for student collaboration and copying and pasting from online sources (including pdf files, e-books, and journal articles).

coursework instruction
Week 5 will feature a formal session for coursework. It is encouraged that you attend this meeting. Tutors may not often be able to offer tutoring outside of the time slot indicated. Therefore, students should use the discussion board on Blackboard 9 to post their queries. Informing the entire group in this manner is also successful.
Marking Standards
For the caliber of the presentation, no points are awarded. Submissions should be of high caliber, as befits a setting of professionalism. Typographical errors, weak structures, and extremely poor grammar will result in lower grades since they hinder understanding. These criteria will be used to assess your coursework:
assessment standards Maximum Award Comprehending Number: 15
How well do you comprehend the course’s concept, particularly as it relates to cutting-edge thinking?
Structure and research evidence: 20
How well did you organize your critical review into a logical, understandable structure? How thoroughly have you combed through and reviewed the literature?
Citations, evidence, and justification: 35
How far have you gone in providing sufficient citations to back up your arguments and support your claims?
Argumentation and synthesis of logic: 30
How effectively have you argued your point? How thoroughly thought out and put together is this argument?

A third of the units’ evaluation is made up of this coursework. Pages 5 and 6 of this coursework brief contain more specific information on the marking guidelines.

Feedback
On Blackboard 9, you will have access to comments on your critical review. Prior to your December break for vacation, Week 12 is when you can anticipate receiving comments. You will have plenty of time to prepare for the exam by using the feedback.

Guidelines for MACE60006: People and Organizations Coursework Marking

Although you will only see your final grade on the Blackboard site, the instructions below explain how the component marks are put together.

Category Mark Range Consciousness (out of 15) Structure (20 points) Reasoning (out of 35) (out of 30) Logic

>80% distinction This is a fantastic breakdown of the course topic that traces its roots and innovative thinking. The justification offered is crucial. This is a beautiful entry that deserves quick publication. There is proof that the student examined a huge variety of esoteric references in peer-reviewed scholarly journal publications related to the homework topic. This submission’s discussion is concise and unmistakable. The arguments presented are thoroughly supported by solid evidence that is based on numerous reliable sources of pertinent reference materials. The topic and reasoning are really simple to follow. It is quite challenging to challenge the logic because the arguments made in this proposal are so strong.
>70% but <80% This entry makes a fair effort to show that the author understands the course’s concept. The need for explanation is reasonable. This submission is really simple and logical. There is proof that the student studied a variety of peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles related to the course topic. The contribution provides a significant amount of support for its claims, clearly citing and elaborating on the sources of any pertinent data or references used. The debate or argument is simple to understand. The reader is persuaded, and it is challenging to challenge the thesis statement in this contribution.
Merit >60% but 70% This entry makes a decent effort to show that the author understands the course’s concept. The explanation can be more important. This is really simple to understand, and the conversation makes sense in light of the goals and objectives. Here is proof that I read a variety of articles from scholarly journals that have been peer-reviewed and related to my studies. A reasonable effort has been made to support the arguments expressed in the proposal. However, the substantiation (or supporting evidence) might be made stronger. The topic and argument are really logical. Although there is room for further clarity in the explanation of the line of reasoning, the submission is largely persuasive.
Over 50% but under 60% This submission shows some evidence of comprehension of the course theme. More depth in the explanation would be beneficial, especially in light of contemporary thought. This proposal has a set of goals and objectives that are straightforward to understand.
There is proof that the student studied a variety of peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles related to the course topic. There is an attempt to provide evidence to back up the claims stated in the submission. The references used to support the discussion may need more thorough justification. The discussion and reasoning are sound. Some of the arguments offered in this submission leave the reader unconvinced.
Grade Mark Range Consciousness (out of 15) Structure (20 points) Reasoning (out of 35) (out of 30) Logic
Over 40% but under 50% compensable Basic efforts are made to elicit textbook explanations of the coursework theme. The explanation is brief. The aims and objectives of this submission are simply stated. The organization is comparatively simple to follow. The reading is only a little bit deep. This submission is quite elementary. The contribution makes certain points that could use a more thorough justification and explanation. This submission’s topic and reasoning are straightforward. The argument does not completely persuade the reader.

Over 30% but under 40% In this submission, there is not much evidence that the concept of the coursework has been understood. The explanation is hazy and insufficient. It is tough to follow this submission. The submission’s structure is a little jumbled, and its goals and objectives are not clearly stated. There is some proof that the literature was searched. This submission is not well-written. Some claims are made without proper and sufficient support. This contribution has a weak discussion and argument. The logic is challenging to comprehend.
<30% This entry shows very little evidence of grasping the coursework theme. The explanation is lacking. It is really tough to follow this submission. The submission’s goals and objectives are gravely unclear, and the direction of the evaluation is also uncertain. There isn’t much proof that anyone has looked through the literature. This submission is incredibly poorly written. Numerous claims are made without proper and sufficient justification. This contribution has very flimsy discussion and reasoning. It is really challenging to understand the logic.
2015–2016 MACE60006 People and Organizations Coursework Summary 6

"Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
Use the following coupon
"FIRST15"

Order Now