HRM Dissertation

HRM Dissertation (BEMM056) Marking Form

Final Mark Awarded:  
   
Assessment Measure 0 – 39

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
HRM Dissertation
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Fail

40 – 49

Borderline Fail

50 – 59

Pass

60 – 69

Merit

70 +

Distinction

Introduction

 

Fails to identify a coherent research aim and set of research objectives.  Introduction to the research context is very weak or absent. Poor expression of research aims and objectives with limited justification.  A weak introduction to the research context. Articulates and justifies a clear research aim but may fail to effectively set out research objectives.  A solid introduction to the research context is provided. Sets clear research aims and objectives and provides some justification managerially and academically.  Introduces the research context effectively. Sets original and thoughtful research aims and objectives which are very effectively justified, both managerially and academically.  A comprehensive introduction to the research context is given.
Literature Review

 

A poor literature review which contains no/very limited academic, peer-reviewed content and no critical discussion.  Research questions / hypotheses poor or absent. An inaccurate or poorly focused literature review which contains limited peer-reviewed content.  It is almost entirely descriptive in nature.  Incoherent or inconsistent research questions / hypotheses. Provides a reasonably wide ranging review of relevant literature including some peer-reviewed journal articles.  Largely descriptive rather than critical in approach.  RQs / hypotheses present. Includes a sufficiently wide-ranging review of published sources, including peer-reviewed journal articles, which is mostly focused around RQs / hypotheses.  A reasonable amount of critical content is provided. Provides a comprehensive overview of published literature, including peer-reviewed journal articles, with an excellent amount of critical content.  Focuses the literature review around the research questions / hypotheses.
Methodology

 

A simplistic methodology with no justification for decisions.  Essentially a description of data collection. Includes an overly brief, inadequate or inaccurate methodology.  Very limited justification provided. Adequate methodology which is largely descriptive but does identify a sound research plan and provide some justification for it. A solid and effective methodology which is well justified and argued.  Some critical content and reflection on possible limitations. A thoughtful, original and well referenced methodology.  Excellent critical commentary throughout.  Limitations and ethical questions are considered.
Findings, Analysis and Discussion

 

No/negligible original research in evidence.  Incoherent and descriptive account with no analysis of collected data. Very limited original research presented which is poorly described and/or insufficiently connected to the research questions.  Very limited analysis included. Adequate research findings are presented which are original and relevant to the research theme.  Some original analysis/discussion present. Relevant, original and reasonably extensive research findings are effectively presented.  Good levels of critical content are included with chapter(s) logical in structure. Relevant, original and extensive research findings are effectively presented and analysed.  Extensive critical discussion of findings presented, with chapter(s) organised logically and coherently.
Conclusion and Recommendations

 

An incoherent conclusion which does not link with the research aim/questions.  Recommendations and action plan are missing. A weak, poorly-focused conclusion which is overly brief or otherwise inadequate.  Includes basic recommendations with little justification.  An action plan may not be present. Adequate conclusion which summarises the research, some recommendations are made, if somewhat poorly justified.  A basic action plan is present. A solid and effective conclusion which addresses the research questions.  Sound recommendations are well justified and an appropriate action plan is included. A well-justified conclusion which provides answers to the research questions/hypotheses.  Credible, thoughtful and original recommendations are effectively justified and a thorough action plan is included.
Reflective Statement

 

No reflective statement is provided. A limited reflective statement which may be largely descriptive and/or overly brief.  Limited consideration of learning and not future-focused. Includes a sound reflective statement that may be somewhat descriptive in nature, but does include reflections on learning process. A clear and thoughtful reflective statement is provided which includes some commentary on learning and is somewhat future-focused. A thoughtful, original and future-focused reflection is provided which looks critically at the dissertation and seeks to draw out future learning points.
Presentation and Referencing

 

Very poorly presented document with significant errors in format/language.  APA referencing guidance not followed. Poorly presented document with errors in presentation format, making it difficult for the reader to discern meaning.  APA guidance not followed. Reasonable standard of presentation which generally meets required norms.  APA referencing guidance generally followed. Soundly written and professionally presented document which mostly adheres to standards and follows APA referencing conventions. A very well written and professionally presented piece of work which adheres to all required standards and follows APA referencing conventions.

 

 

During their consideration of the assessment measures listed above, markers are asked to consider the CIPD’s Management Research Report General Assessment Criteria (GAC), indicating where the student’s dissertation falls within the following areas.  For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a separate set of marking criteria, students will implicitly address the areas below during the production of their dissertations.

 

CIPD MRR GAC Measure Grading
Project management skills D+ D D- M+ M M- P+ P P- BF F
Project substance D+ D D- M+ M M- P+ P P- BF F
Data collection skills D+ D D- M+ M M- P+ P P- BF F
Presentation and analysis of data D+ D D- M+ M M- P+ P P- BF F
Conclusions and recommendations D+ D D- M+ M M- P+ P P- BF F

 

General comments, including comments related to the CIPD’s GAC (continue on separate sheet if necessary):

First mark: 44

 

Overall, this was a disappointing dissertation. There were some good ideas and you did conduct some good research in the literature, but overall it was quite disjointed and confusing. Your referencing generally followed APA guidelines, but much of the work was under-referenced with statements unsupported by evidence.

The introduction was quite descriptive and did not clearly state the aims and objectives of the research.

 

The literature review was also descriptive and lacked criticality. It did not give a clear account of where this project sat in the literature. You presented a good review of motivation theory but it was not clear how these theories related to your research project. I liked the conceptual framework you presented and I think you could have made more of this, maybe structuring your work around this framework. Again, there was no clear statement of the aims and objectives or the research questions you were seeking to answer.

 

You reviewed aspects of methodology and you did provide limited justification for your choice. There was no discussion of how you intended to handle your secondary data and cases studies. Overall, however, the section was confusing. The analysis section reviewed some secondary literature but this was not done in any systematic way and the section was descriptive. You presented and discussed some descriptive statistics but there was no attempt at any statistical analysis of your data.

 

The conclusion was weak and many of your conclusions were not supported by your data.

 

Overall there is not enough here to justify a pass.

 

 

 

HRM Dissertation (BEMM056) Marking Form

Candidate Name: Lei Chuan Final Mark Awarded: 45%  
Candidate Number:079708    
Assessment Measure 0 – 39

Fail

40 – 49

Borderline Fail

50 – 59

Pass

60 – 69

Merit

70 +

Distinction

Introduction

 

Fails to identify a coherent research aim and set of research objectives.  Introduction to the research context is very weak or absent. Poor expression of research aims and objectives with limited justification.  A weak introduction to the research context. Articulates and justifies a clear research aim but may fail to effectively set out research objectives.  A solid introduction to the research context is provided. Sets clear research aims and objectives and provides some justification managerially and academically.  Introduces the research context effectively. Sets original and thoughtful research aims and objectives which are very effectively justified, both managerially and academically.  A comprehensive introduction to the research context is given.
Literature Review

 

A poor literature review which contains no/very limited academic, peer-reviewed content and no critical discussion.  Research questions / hypotheses poor or absent. An inaccurate or poorly focused literature review which contains limited peer-reviewed content.  It is almost entirely descriptive in nature.  Incoherent or inconsistent research questions / hypotheses. Provides a reasonably wide ranging review of relevant literature including some peer-reviewed journal articles.  Largely descriptive rather than critical in approach.  RQs / hypotheses present. Includes a sufficiently wide-ranging review of published sources, including peer-reviewed journal articles, which is mostly focused around RQs / hypotheses.  A reasonable amount of critical content is provided. Provides a comprehensive overview of published literature, including peer-reviewed journal articles, with an excellent amount of critical content.  Focuses the literature review around the research questions / hypotheses.
Methodology

 

A simplistic methodology with no justification for decisions.  Essentially a description of data collection. Includes an overly brief, inadequate or inaccurate methodology.  Very limited justification provided. Adequate methodology which is largely descriptive but does identify a sound research plan and provide some justification for it. A solid and effective methodology which is well justified and argued.  Some critical content and reflection on possible limitations. A thoughtful, original and well referenced methodology.  Excellent critical commentary throughout.  Limitations and ethical questions are considered.
Findings, Analysis and Discussion

 

No/negligible original research in evidence.  Incoherent and descriptive account with no analysis of collected data. Very limited original research presented which is poorly described and/or insufficiently connected to the research questions.  Very limited analysis included. Adequate research findings are presented which are original and relevant to the research theme.  Some original analysis/discussion present. Relevant, original and reasonably extensive research findings are effectively presented.  Good levels of critical content are included with chapter(s) logical in structure. Relevant, original and extensive research findings are effectively presented and analysed.  Extensive critical discussion of findings presented, with chapter(s) organised logically and coherently.
Conclusion and Recommendations

 

An incoherent conclusion which does not link with the research aim/questions.  Recommendations and action plan are missing. A weak, poorly-focused conclusion which is overly brief or otherwise inadequate.  Includes basic recommendations with little justification.  An action plan may not be present. Adequate conclusion which summarises the research, some recommendations are made, if somewhat poorly justified.  A basic action plan is present. A solid and effective conclusion which addresses the research questions.  Sound recommendations are well justified and an appropriate action plan is included. A well-justified conclusion which provides answers to the research questions/hypotheses.  Credible, thoughtful and original recommendations are effectively justified and a thorough action plan is included.
Reflective Statement

 

No reflective statement is provided. A limited reflective statement which may be largely descriptive and/or overly brief.  Limited consideration of learning and not future-focused. Includes a sound reflective statement that may be somewhat descriptive in nature, but does include reflections on learning process. A clear and thoughtful reflective statement is provided which includes some commentary on learning and is somewhat future-focused. A thoughtful, original and future-focused reflection is provided which looks critically at the dissertation and seeks to draw out future learning points.
Presentation and Referencing

 

Very poorly presented document with significant errors in format/language.  APA referencing guidance not followed. Poorly presented document with errors in presentation format, making it difficult for the reader to discern meaning.  APA guidance not followed. Reasonable standard of presentation which generally meets required norms.  APA referencing guidance generally followed. Soundly written and professionally presented document which mostly adheres to standards and follows APA referencing conventions. A very well written and professionally presented piece of work which adheres to all required standards and follows APA referencing conventions.

 

 

During their consideration of the assessment measures listed above, markers are asked to consider the CIPD’s Management Research Report General Assessment Criteria (GAC), indicating where the student’s dissertation falls within the following areas.  For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a separate set of marking criteria, students will implicitly address the areas below during the production of their dissertations.

 

CIPD MRR GAC Measure Grading
Project management skills D+ D D- M+ M M- P+ P P- BF F
Project substance D+ D D- M+ M M- P+ P P- BF F
Data collection skills D+ D D- M+ M M- P+ P P- BF F
Presentation and analysis of data D+ D D- M+ M M- P+ P P- BF F
Conclusions and recommendations D+ D D- M+ M M- P+ P P- BF F

 

General comments, including comments related to the CIPD’s GAC (continue on separate sheet if necessary):

 

Introduction: While a general introduction to the research context is outlined, the overall structure is unfocused and largely descriptive.  It lacks specific aims and objectives and a full and proper engagement with the literature to provide the foundations for the overall dissertation.

 

Literature review: A broad, but largely unfocused and descriptive literature review which outlines several areas in relation to the research context, but fails to pull them together in terms of an argument, not outlining a suitable gap in the literature, nor specifying the research questions.

 

Methodology: A confused methodology which outlines some sensible methodological implications but doesn’t overall outline or assess these choices appropriately.

 

Findings and discussion: It is claimed that primary and secondary data is collected, however, there are few references to clarify the secondary data?  With regard to primary data collection, while this is demonstrated, analysis of the data is very limited.  No discussion is present in relation to existing literature in comparison to the research findings.

 

Conclusions: Some good points raised in the conclusion and an acknowledgement of the limitations and future research requirements.  Recommendations are also provided although in general, these need to have greater relevance to the research findings and associated literature and be outlined in terms of a specific action plan.  A personal reflection is present, with some attempt to clarify future learning.

 

FIRST MARKER: 44%

 

SECOND MARKER: 45%

 

AGREED MARK:45%

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Homework College
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Work with Us

Top Quality and Well-Researched Papers

We ensure that our writers and editors work within the work guidelines and follow all paper instructions to the letter. When placing an order, you choose the academic field and expert level (high school, college, university, or professional). Our team then assigns your paper to a writer with a respective qualification or degree to ensure that you receive quality work.

Professional and Experienced Academic Writers

We employ professional writers with more than two years of experience in academic and business writing. Most of our writers and editors are native English speakers to ensure quality and professional work. We are confident that our team of professional writers can handle all types of business and academic writing work.

Free Unlimited Revisions

We provide a free revision service for all orders. If you feel that our writers missed something, you can request a revision of your paper at no additional cost. When we deliver your work, you have seven days to go through it and request a revision or modification if you are not satisfied. You can also contact our support team directly for any clarifications and queries on revision.

Prompt Delivery and 100% Money-Back-Guarantee

We ensure that all papers are delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper requirements and deliver quality work, we may contact you and discuss a deadline extension. If a deadline extension is not feasible, depending on the work and submission deadlines, we guarantee a 100% refund.

Original & Confidential

To ensure that we deliver plagiarism-free work, we use various writing and plagiarism checking tools. Our professional editors' team carefully goes through all work and references used in papers to ensure proper referencing and that original work has been done. We also guarantee confidentiality in all the services that we provide.

24/7 Customer Support

Our support team is available round the clock for any customer queries and communication. We guarantee 24/7 customer support and assistance. Feel free to contact us at any time of day for questions and follow-ups.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

You do not have to spend sleepless nights worrying about your paper. We got you covered. We offer all kinds of writing services.

Essays

Essay Writing Service

Regardless of the type of academic paper you need and its urgency, we have writers on call ready to work on your paper. Feel free to choose the field, educational level, and type of paper you want, and we will deliver it at an affordable price. We are here for all your academic and business paper needs. With our round the clock service, we guarantee that you will receive your work on time.

Admissions

Admission Essays & Business Writing Help

Admission essays are written by students wishing to join a college, graduate school or university, as applications for enrollment. We guarantee quality admission essays and business papers with our professional writing and customer care support services.

Reviews

Editing Support

We have experienced academic writers and editors who are on standby to make all the necessary changed to your paper at your request. We ensure that your paper is polished and appropriately formatted (APA, Harvard, Chicago/Turabian, MLA formats) before it is delivered.

Reviews

Revision Support

We provide revision support, where you can request a revision of a delivered paper if you feel that it can be improved or repolished. Your paper is checked by an experienced writer or editor for revamping and improvement upon a revision request. Revision service is free, and you can use it as many times as you wish until you are satisfied with your paper.