MSIN0003 Communication and Behaviour in Organisations
For staff reference only: template version 1.1 October 2023
Assessment (non-exam) Brief
Module code/name
MSIN0003 Communication and Behaviour in Organisations
Module leader name
Miha Stan
Academic year
2023/24
Term
2
MSIN0003_2023_24 Presentation and engagement (brief) v140224
Assessment title
Presentation & Engagement
Individual/group assessment
Individual
Submission deadlines: Students should submit all work by the published deadline date and time. Students experiencing sudden or unexpected events beyond your control which impact your ability to complete assessed work by the set deadlines may request mitigation via the extenuating circumstances procedure. Students with disabilities or ongoing, long-term conditions should explore a Summary of Reasonable Adjustments.
Return and status of marked assessments: Students should expect to receive feedback within one calendar month of the submission deadline, as per UCL guidelines. The module team will update you if there are delays through unforeseen circumstances (e.g. ill health). All results when first published are provisional until confirmed by the Examination Board.
Copyright Note to students: Copyright of this assessment brief is with UCL and the module leader(s) named above. If this brief draws upon work by third parties (e.g. Case Study publishers) such third parties also hold copyright. It must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or shared with any other individual(s) and/or organisations, including web-based organisations, without permission of the copyright holder(s) at any point in time. Academic Misconduct: Academic Misconduct is defined as any action or attempted action that may result in a student obtaining an unfair academic advantage. Academic misconduct includes plagiarism, obtaining help from/sharing work with others be they individuals and/or organisations or any other form of cheating. Refer to Academic Manual Chapter 6, Section 9: Student Academic Misconduct Procedure – 9.2 Definitions.
Referencing: You must reference and provide full citation for ALL sources used, including AI sources, articles, text books, lecture slides and module materials. This includes any direct quotes and paraphrased text. If in doubt, reference it. If you need further guidance on referencing please see UCL’s referencing tutorial for students. Failure to cite references correctly may result in your work being referred to the Academic Misconduct Panel. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools in your Assessment: Your module leader will explain to you if and how AI tools can be used to support your assessment. In some assessments, the use of generative AI is not permitted at all. In others, AI may be used in an assistive role which means students are permitted to use AI tools to support the development of specific skills required for the assessment as specified by the module leader. In others, the use of AI tools may be an integral component of the assessment; in these cases the assessment will provide an opportunity to demonstrate effective and responsible use of AI. See page 3 of this brief to check which category use of AI falls into for this assessment. Students should refer to the UCL guidance on acknowledging use of AI and referencing AI. Failure to correctly reference use of AI in assessments may result in students being reported via the Academic Misconduct procedure. Refer to the section of the UCL Assessment success guide on Engaging with AI in your education and assessment.
Content of this assessment brief
Section
Content A Core information
B
Coursework brief and requirements C Module learning outcomes covered in this assessment
D
Groupwork instructions (if applicable) E How your work is assessed
F
Additional information
Section A: Core information
Submission date
15/03/2024
Submission time
10:00 AM
Assessment is marked out of:
100 marks
% weighting of this assessment within total module mark
20%
Maximum word count/page length/duration
3 minutes and 5 seconds (self-recorded video) Footnotes, appendices, tables, figures, diagrams, charts included in/excluded from word count/page length?
The assignment doesn’t need any of these elements. Bibliographies, reference lists included in/excluded from word count/page length?
The assignment doesn’t need any of these elements.
Penalty for exceeding word count/page length
Penalty for exceeding word count will be a deduction of 10 percentage points, capped at 40% for Levels 4,5, 6, and 50% for Level 7) Refer to Academic Manual Section 3: Module Assessment – 3.13 Word Counts.
Penalty for late submission
Standard UCL penalties apply. Students should refer to https://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/chapters/chapter-4-assessment-framework-taught-programmes/section-3-module-assessment#3.12
Artificial Intelligence (AI) category
Not permitted
Submitting your assessment
On the Moodle link under Assessments tab.
Anonymity of identity. Normally, all submissions are anonymous unless the nature of the submission is such that anonymity is not appropriate, illustratively as in presentations or where minutes of group meetings are required as part of a group work submission
The nature of this assessment is such that anonymity is not required.
Section B: Assessment Brief and Requirements
Details of the assessment brief. Generic assessment criteria are included in section E. Any additional criteria specific to this assessment are detailed in section F.
Assessment title: “Video Presentation & Engagement”
The assignment has 2 parts: weekly engagement (Part A, 40%) and a self-recorded video (Part B, 60%).
More specifically, Part A refers to your meaningful input in the lecture and/or seminar during weeks 2-8 inclusively (8 x 5 marks). Brelates to a 3-minute and 5 seconds video presentation of one of the 9 academic articles assigned during weeks 1-9. Part B.
PART A (40%): ENGAGEMENT You must be ethical to qualify for Engagement points. Any suspicions of unethical behaviour (e.g. attendance fraud; test colluding, etc.) must to be cleared with the seminar tutor and the lecturer before week9. If you are found at ANY point to have committed attendance fraud (i.e. your card is tapped-in but you are not in the lecture/seminar), your entire Engagement component will be set to zero, by invalidating past and subsequent engagement points. From week 2 until week 9, in the lectures and seminars of MSIN0003, valuable contributions to the discussion will be rewarded with physical “raffle tickets” handed to the contributor in-class. These tickets have a unique code [letters, small cap numbers, AND large cap numbers] which must be inputted in their entirety via a weekly link under the Assessment tab. The submission of the same code by two or more students is considered fraud, please keep your tickets safe if you want to prove you submitted it correctly. Only one raffle ticket can be handed per student in a week, either in the lecture or the seminar (not both). A cap of 10 tickets is set for the lecture and unlimited tickets are available in the seminars. A test run of the tickets will take place in week 1. Part A provisions: SORA students and/or students with extenuating circumstances (EC): • If you are a confirmed SORA student and have difficulties participating in-class: Submit on the designated Moodle link a written answer to one of the questions listed for each week’s seminar in the MSIN0003 Handbook. Submissions are due at 5 PM on Wednesdays of weeks 2 through 9 and only answers that exceed the average level of quality will get engagement credits. No submissions will be allowed after the deadline. • After your ECs have been approved for absences in MSIN0003 seminars and/or lectures, ensure you attend the in-class presentations in your week 10 seminar. You will give a 3-minute in-class presentation of an article that is different than the article presented in your self-recorded video AND is listed as required reading for weeks 8 or 9. Your seminar tutor will audio-record your in-class presentation, making notes of your non-verbal performance to determine the mark for part B.
PART B (60%): SELF-RECORDED PRESENTATION
This subcomponent refers to a 3-minute and 5 seconds self-recorded video presentation of an article selected from the academic research assigned as weekly readings in MSIN0003 this term. A list is below:
Week
Academic Article
1. Social Perception
The Fundamental Recruitment Error: Candidate-Recruiter Discrepancy in Their Relative Valuation of Innate Talent vs. Hard Work – Xianchi & Kao, 2003. (Organization Science) 2. Personality: The NEO (OCEAN) & contemporary research
Integrating Personality and Social Networks: A Meta-Analysis of Personality, Network Position, and Work Outcomes in Organizations — Fang et al, 2015 (Organization Science) 3. Motivation
Pursuing parenthood: integrating cultural and cognitive perspectives on persistent goal striving – Fischer et al., 2007 (Journal of Consumer Research) 4. Decision making
Use of Linear Models to Analyze Physicians’ Decisions – Wigton 1988 (Medical Decision Making) 5. Negotiations & Persuasion
The negotiation dance: Time, culture, and behavioral sequences in negotiation – Adair & Brett, 2005 (Organization Science) 6. Team Psychology
Cooperative Criticism: When Criticism Enhances Creativity in Brainstorming and Negotiation – Curhan et al., 2021 (Organization Science) 7. Team Structure
Blurred Lines: How the Collectivism Norm Operates Through Perceived Group Diversity to Boost or Harm Group Performance in Himalayan Mountain Climbing – Chatman et al, 2019. (Organization Science) 8. Leadership
Learning to Share: Exploring Temporality in Shared Leadership and Team Learning – Wang et al., 2017 (Small Group Research,) 9. Culture & Creativity
Unexpected Interruptions, Idle Time, and Creativity: Evidence from a Natural Experiment – Schweisfurth & Greul, 2023. (Organization Science)
B1. Content of presentation (30%)
Every presentation is assessed by means of its content and form. This section assesses the effectiveness of how well the content of your chosen academic article is delivered. State the name of the authors, year of publication and title on a slide shown for 5 seconds at the beginning of your video.
B1.1. 15% Methodology
B1.2. 15% Reflection
B1.1. Methodology (15%)
The content should include the research question that motivated the authors or at least one key effect/outcome/relationship that they set out to test (e.g., an important/intriguing hypothesis, a conundrum, etc.). Clarify if the method was quantitative, qualitative or a mix-method research design. State the actual tools used to get the data (e.g., survey, interviews, archival data, etc.), along with the size and characteristics of the data used for analysis.
• For quantitative approaches state the main unit of analysis and how many units have been analysed in the study
• For qualitative approaches state any characteristics relating to the scope of the data (timeline, characteristics of the subjects interviewed or the setting that has been explored, etc.).
B1.2. Reflection (15%)
Reflect on whether the authors were able to support their claims (e.g. when testing quantitatively a hypothesis) or to find edifying themes running through their (qualitative) data. Why are their findings important as claimed by them? Include your own personal perspective on why their findings are important/useful.
How does the article supplement your knowledge of the elements that were discussed in the lecture and/or seminar of the week when it was assigned? Build a logical argument for a link between the article and a framework from that week’s lecture.
B2. Form of presentation (30%)
Every presentation is assessed by means of its content and form. This section assesses the effectiveness of how well the form of your chosen academic article is delivered. In the presentation you should demonstrate effective use of communication skills you have learnt in MSIN0003.
15% Structure. The student is effective in expressing a compelling governing thought (hook), implied question and at least three summarising key points.
15% Technique. The student has developed presentation skills that show command of pace, nonverbal gestures & posture, eye contact, audibility, immersion and improvisation skills. Specifically:
1. Pacing – Speech content should be proportionally spread across the time allotted. Pauses can be powerful. Rushing through the speech detracts from its message.
2. Nonverbal gestures & posture – The speaker has a relaxed but upright stance and experiments with a variety of nonverbal gestures.
3. Audibility – The speaker commands capability to use their voice as an effective tool of vocal delivery. They show pitch variation and use sufficient volume to project either through a room or through an audio-visual device.
4. Immersion – The speaker has successfully immersed themselves in the given circumstances of their case study and demonstrates empathy with their character.
5. Improvisation – Speakers have attained improvisation skills which enable them to deliver their speech conversationally, animatedly and without obviously reading notes or learning a script. Only glancing for key points or notes is permitted.
Tips:
• Be authentic, not theatrical, by mentally visualizing your article context. This cannot be achieved without the preparatory stage above, where you applied yourself to the analysis of your article and its form. Reading off prompts or notes can be distracting to viewers, diminishing the authenticity of your delivery.
• Watch for signals/emotions in your body. Put them to use in words and/or in non-verbal cues (e.g., enthusiasm, voice pitch/volume/timbre, body posture/movement/gestures, etc.)
• While recording yourself, you may start with an attention-evoking hook and/or may want to to use physical items such as props, lighting and clothes that relate to the context of the research article.
Video specifications:
a) It is the speaker’s responsibility to ensure their presentation can be seen/heard to the best clarity.
b) Upload the video in MP4 format. To convert to mp4 video format, you can use an open-source converter such as Miro.
c) Record the presentation in one take and a single camera shot. No cuts, edits, copy/pastes allowed. Absolutely no speed alteration is allowed.
d) Do not include video alterations and enhancements of any kind. Examples of which, but not limited to, are annotations, callouts, texts, subtitles, color, special effects, pictures, additional slides.
e) Begin the video with an illustrative slide (shown for 5 seconds), making the entire video length 3 minutes and 5 seconds. This slide should identify the article you will be presenting by the last names of the authors, in this format: Brown & Smith, Organization Science 2024, “This title is an example”
f) Do not include a voice over recording for the illustrative slide. The marker will pause the video if the slide content requires more time to process.
Section C: Module Learning Outcomes covered in this Assessment
This assessment contributes towards the achievement of the following stated module Learning Outcomes as highlighted below:
• Ability to critically reflect on the appropriate use of concepts and theories
• Concise and precise articulation of ideas, both in-class and in a video-presentation
• Opportunity to reflect on conceptual frameworks and associated practical examples
• Opportunity to practice communication exercises
• Opportunity to identify key features of research articles in top management journals
Section D: Groupwork Instructions (where relevant/appropriate)
N/A
Section E: How your work is assessed
Within each section of this assessment you may be assessed on the following aspects, as applicable and appropriate to this assessment, and should thus consider these aspects when fulfilling the requirements of each section:
• The accuracy of any calculations required.
• The strengths and quality of your overall analysis and evaluation;
• Appropriate use of relevant theoretical models, concepts and frameworks;
• The rationale and evidence that you provide in support of your arguments;
• The credibility and viability of the evidenced conclusions/recommendations/plans of action you put forward;
• Structure and coherence of your considerations and reports;
• Appropriate and relevant use of, as and where relevant and appropriate, real world examples, academic materials and referenced sources. Any references should use either the Harvard OR Vancouver referencing system (see References, Citations and Avoiding Plagiarism)
• Academic judgement regarding the blend of scope, thrust and communication of ideas, contentions, evidence, knowledge, arguments, conclusions.
• Each assessment requirement(s) has allocated marks/weightings.
Student submissions are reviewed/scrutinised by an internal assessor and are available to an External Examiner for further review/scrutiny before consideration by the relevant Examination Board.
It is not uncommon for some students to feel that their submissions deserve higher marks (irrespective of whether they actually deserve higher marks). To help you assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of your submission please refer to SOM Assessment Criteria Guidelines, located on the Assessment tab of the SOM Student Information Centre Moodle site. The above is an important link as it specifies the criteria for attaining the pass/fail bandings shown below: At UG Levels 4, 5 and 6: 80% to 100%: Outstanding Pass – 1st; 70% to 79%: Excellent Pass – 1st; 60%-69%: Very Good Pass – 2.1; 50% to 59%: Good Pass – 2.2; 40% to 49%: Satisfactory Pass – 3rd; 20% to 39%: Insufficient to Pass – Fail; 0% to 19%: Poor and Insufficient to Pass – Fail. At PG Level 7: 86% to 100%: Outstanding Pass – Distinction; 70% to 85%: Excellent Pass – Distinction; 60%-69%: Good Pass – Merit; 50% to 59%: Satisfactory – Pass; 40% to 49%: Insufficient to Pass – Fail; 0% to 39%: Poor and Insufficient to Pass – Fail. You are strongly advised to review these criteria before you start your work and during your work, and before you submit.
You are strongly advised to not compare your mark with marks of other submissions from your student colleagues. Each submission has its own range of characteristics which differ from others in terms of breadth, scope, depth, insights, and subtleties and nuances. On the surface one submission may appear to be similar to another but invariably, digging beneath the surface reveals a range of differing characteristics.
Students who wish to request a review of a decision made by the Board of Examiners should refer to the UCL Academic Appeals Procedure, taking note of the acceptable grounds for such appeals. Note that the purpose of this procedure is not to dispute academic judgement – it is to ensure correct application of UCL’s regulations and procedures. The appeals process is evidence-based and circumstances must be supported by independent evidence.
Section F: Additional information from module leader (as appropriate)
