Read the essay example and choose two (Student A-B-C), and discuss. Both reviews should address the following: the reasons for your grading decision, and how these students could improve to receive better grades.
In this discussion, Student A’s paper will be assessed with a focus on organisation, coherence, and critical thinking. The paper comprises two parts, the first addresses Question One (Q1) and the second answers Question Two (Q2).
In answering Q1, Student A shows a good understanding of the material relevant to Q1, with a clear identification of the two levels at which the employment relationship can take place–the individual and the collective–supported by references to relevant sources. Student A shows great descriptive details of the applicable law text and identifies several relevant distinctions between the different court systems and legal procedures. In support of their argument, Student A references the legal case Scottish Police Services Authority v McBride [2013]. The Q1 conclusion attempts to relate to HR practice.
In addressing Q2, Student A shows some understanding of the complexity concerning “managing recruitment, selection and appointments lawfully” by listing the different acts and regulations relevant to discrimination. In the introduction, Student A identifies several appropriate methods for organisations to consider, with strong reference to CIPD. They also identify the nine protected characteristics, three out of four unlawful acts of discrimination, and describe two relevant legal cases.
However, the paper lacks a clear introduction and conclusion, and the flow is disjointed. There are no in-text citations or coherence. References are also combined for both essays in closing, instead of being listed separately for each essay. Student A could have made more use of references, as only eight were used in total, which is a small number compared to the length of each essay. Additionally, there is a lack of critical analysis, as Student A does not go in-depth. Responses are written in a narrative form, with Q2 being written in list-style cataloguing statutory acts and regulations without further analysis. Grammar and spelling errors are evident throughout Q1 and Q2. The formatting does not adhere to the guidelines, making readability difficult.
In conclusion, while Student A demonstrates a clear understanding of the questions and addresses relevant issues, it is lacking in key areas. On this basis, they would likely score within the range of 55-64 out of 100. To achieve a higher score, Student A would need to demonstrate greater critical thinking, originality, and insight, in addition to a more in-depth analysis of the topic.
Read the essay example and choose two (Student A-B-C), and discuss. Both reviews should address the following: the reasons for your grading decision, and how these students could improve to receive better grades.
Student C’s paper will be assessed by focusing on organisation, coherence, and critical thinking. The paper comprises two parts, the first addresses Question One (Q1) and the second answers Question Two (Q2).
Q1 demonstrates a clear understanding of the question and addresses some of the relevant issues in employment law. The answer provides an overview of legal frameworks and relevance to HR, including case law and legislation. It explains the relationship between employers and employees and the need for employment law to ensure an equal balance of power. The answer also discusses the relationship between EU law, UK employment law, and the impact of EU directives. However, while the answer provides a detailed explanation of legal procedures, it does not offer much critical evaluation of these procedures or effectiveness. Student C briefly writes about the importance of EU law in UK employment law but does not explore the topic in depth or offer a broader analysis of its implications.
Q2 offers good breadth and depth of analysis, with a clear understanding of the question and an awareness of the key discrimination law issues in employment. There is some critical evaluation and contrasting of research and ideas, with some originality and insight. However, the analysis could be argued to lack developed originality and insight in some areas, along with limited critical evaluation of the research. However, the answer is coherent and overall shows a good understanding of the topic with some scope for improvement.
Based on these findings, Student C would likely score in the range of 60-64 on the Exam Marking Scale. While this paper demonstrates capable breadth and depth of analysis, it would benefit from greater originality and insight for higher grading.
