Research Weighting 20% No authoritative sources, no evidence of research or not relevant for the task. Very limited understanding. The research has not been linked to the main text. Less than 2 authoritative sources or sources are not relevant for the task. Limited understanding. Little evidence of meaningful integration of the research with the main text. 2-3 scholarly sources. Some sources lack relevance or authority but are still appropriate for the task. Adequate understanding. The research could be incorporated with the main text more consistently. 3-4 scholarly sources. Sources are mostly well- chosen, authoritative and appropriate for the task. Good understanding. The research is integrated with the main text. 4-5 scholarly sources. Sources are well- chosen, authoritative and are appropriate for the task. Excellent understanding. The research is very well integrated with the main text.

Writing Weighting 5% Muddled writing that is very difficult to follow. No consideration for presentation of accounting information. Numerous grammatical errors. Multiple spelling errors. Long winded and some clear writing presentation. Acceptable presentation of accounting information. Some grammatical errors. Multiple spelling errors. Mostly clear writing but at times long winded. Tidy presentation of accounting information. Writing style lacks consideration. Few issues around grammar. Less than 5 spelling errors. Clear writing mainly to the point. Professional presentation of accounting in formation. Considered writing style. Excellent grammar with only minor oversights. Less than 3 spelling errors. Clear and concise writing. Polished presentation of accounting information. Mature and appropriate writing style. Excellent grammar, correct in all aspects. No spelling errors.

Organisation/ logic Weighting 5% No flow. No argument. Poorly organised and difficult to read. Does not flow logically from one part to another. The argument is not clear. Generally well organised although the flow of the argument is not always logical. Argument is clear and mostly sound. Coherently organised and logical formation of sound argument. Exceptionally well structured. Logic is easy to follow. Arguments are sound and convincing.

Assess staff development needs and policies. Weighting 20% Staff development needs are not covered or covered too superficially to be meaningful. Staff development needs are covered in a shallow, inadequate way. . Staff development needs are covered but there is little originality or depth of thought. Staff development needs are covered well. May lack polish or innovative ideas. Staff development needs are covered in a polished way with innovative, credible suggestions. Apply human resource management options to a specific situation. Weighting 20% Options discussed are not credible or appropriate for the case study scenario e.g. too bureaucratic for size of organisation Few options are credible or appropriate for the case study scenario. Options are adequately linked to and argued in the context of the case study. However there may be weaknesses in some arguments

Need to write a New Zealand university standard assignment / essay with 1500 words. APA REFRENCING NEED TO BE DONE AS WELL All the instructions are mentioned in the assignment question attached above This is a compulsory assignment. It must be submitted and it makes up 35% of your final result for this paper. The completed assignment is to be submitted to your facilitator via Blackboard by the due date. Criteria E (0-39) D (40-49) C (50-64) B (65-79) A (80-100) Discuss the impact of key legislation on HRM practice in New Zealand Weighting 10% No link established between legislation and HR impacts Few impacts identified. Student identifies some impacts of legislation on HR practice but may omit some key areas. Student identifies the main impacts of legislation on HR practice with few omissions Polished discussion of the impacts of legislation on HR in this business.