|
MGT2209 Business and Hong Kong Society
Part I Course Intended Learning Outcomes (CILOs) No. CILOs Weighting 1. Explain the importance of the complex socio-economic and political inter-relationship between business and society in Hong Kong. 3 2. Examine and critique business practices and its implications for the various stakeholders. 3 3. Interpret and evaluate data collected by self or presented by others, and assess the social, economic and political implications of these data. 2 4. Debate controversial topics related to business operations and its effects on the community, and society’s influences on business practices. 3 5. Critically analyse the significance of events or a situation from a managerial perspective. 2 Teaching and learning Activities (TLAs) CILO No TLAs Remarks Hours/week CILO 1,2 Lecture and readings Equip students with knowledge and information CILO 1,2,3,4,5 Class discussions Students will reflect and critically analyse scenarios and cases, and discuss their views with peers CILO Team presentations and debates Students will practice their research skills and ability to persuasively present their case on a controversial topic Assessment Tasks/Activities CILO No Type of assessment tasks/activities Weighting Remarks CILO 1,2,4,5 Class participation 10% CILO Team research, presentation and written report of a case 30% CILO 3,4 Inter-team debate 20% CILO 1,2,4,5 Examination 40% Grading of Student Achievement: Appendix A: Description and Grading of Assessment Tasks As mentioned in Section 4, the assessed activities will consist of class participation; a team presentation and report of a contemporary issue; an inter-team debate; and an examination. Team Presentation and Written Report (30%) a. Stating the nature and background of the topic/the key problem(s) and organization; b. Identifying the course concepts relevant to the issue/situation, and establishing the thrust of your presentation; c. Providing a thorough analysis of the issues, and stating who the pertinent stakeholders are and how they may be affected; d. Suggesting solutions with clear explanations/justifications, or providing an evaluation of the outcome (if it is already known); e. Discussing the implications and providing a conclusion. or All teams must submit a hardcopy of their Powerpoint Presentation file to me, plus a team written report based on their presented topic. Written report should not be more than 2000 words in length. Use 1.5 line spacing, font size 12, double-sided, stapled in top left hand corner. No plastic folders please. Inter-team debate (20%) In each week between Weeks 11-13, two teams will engage in a debate, presenting their views on a topic. The format will be as follows: Examination (40%) Class Participation (10%) ASSESSING AND GRADING TEAM DEBATE Marginal Adequate Good Excellent Poorly presented and weakly researched evidence for team’s views on the issue. Low debating skills, demonstrating inability to handle questions intelligibly and with little or no relevant evidence, and poses weak or inappropriate questions. Present reasonably clearly, adequately researched evidence for team’s views on the issue. Demonstrate varying ability to contribute to the debate. Handle questions in an unpersuasive manner with little supporting evidence, and rarely asks stimulating or appropriate questions. Present clearly, thoroughly researched evidence for team’s views on the issue. Demonstrate ability to contribute to good quality debate, by handling questions with convincing and substantive answers, yet stimulate others by asking good questions. Present with excellent clarity, extensively researched evidence for team’s views on the issue. Demonstrate ability to maintain high level of debating quality, by effectively handling questions with strong and substantive answers, yet stimulate others by asking relevant and challenging questions. ASSESSING AND GRADING TEAM PRESENTATION AND REPORT Category Marginal Adequate Good Excellent Background to The introduction has poor information value; is not structured or presented well or clearly. The introduction is limited in information value; is reasonably structured and quite clearly presented. The introduction has good information value; is well-structured and clearly presented. The introduction has very good information value; is very well-structured and presented with absolute clarity. Analysis Pieces of evidence are relevant, but are isolated, addressing a limited number of issues. Demonstration of understanding of issues in a minimally acceptable way. Poor coverage and weak analysis. The evidence is relevant and covers a fair number of issues. Demonstrates declarative understanding of a reasonable number of issues. Able to discuss issues meaningfully but with little integration. The case is well researched, with good coverage of issues. There is good integration and application of the concepts to the situation, with rigorous analysis of the issues. The case is extensively researched, with excellent coverage of issues. There is excellent integration and application of the concepts to the situation, with high degree of rigour and critical analysis of the issues. Conclusions Weak arguments for conclusions or recommendations based on theory and practice. Reasonably argued conclusions or recommendations based on theory and practice. Strongly argued conclusions or recommendations based on theory and practice. Very strongly argued conclusions or recommendations based on theory and practice. Related Links
Department of Management |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||