HR Internationalization in Health Systems Paper

HR Internationalization in Health Systems Paper

Question Description

I need help with a Business question. All explanations and answers will be used to help me learn.

Earlier you completed Steps 1-3 of the HR Internationalization Final Paper Assignment based on the HR Internationalization Final Paper Scenario.docx. It is now time to finalize Step 4 and submit your final paper.

Important: Prior to turning in your paper, you must run it through TURNIT IN. It is recommended that you do this a few days before the deadline in case it turns up any problems with your paper. To do so, you will use the information your instructor will provide to access the TURNITIN services. Then follow the instructions to download your paper to “First Submission.” It sometimes takes several minutes for the program to analyze your paper. Eventually you should see your report. The report should include a percentage score and a color code. If the color is green or blue, you are OK. If it is yellow or red, click to see comments. The report should indicate where your text is too similar to a publication. If the program turns up passages of more than one or two lines, this needs correction–you will need to paraphrase them and cite the source, indicate they are quotations and cite the source, or remove these passages.

Final Project Information ESSAY

Rubric

Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOverall ContentExcellent: Excellent selection and application of appropriate lesson tools and concepts to develop an in-depth and critical analysis of the topic. Strong demonstration of a critical understanding of lesson materials. Draws insightful conclusions thoroughly grounded in relevant theory. Excellent use of relevant evidence to support analysis and discussion. Good: Very good selection and application of appropriate lesson tools and concepts to develop a good level of analysis of the topic. Satisfactory: Adequate selection and application of appropriate lesson tools and concepts to develop some analysis. Needs Improvement: Inappropriate, poor, or no use of lesson tools and concepts and failure to develop a coherent analysis.	40.0 ptsExcellent28.0 ptsGood12.0 ptsSatisfactory0.0 ptsNeeds Improvement	40.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysisExcellent: Provides a critical analysis and well structured discussion, including diagnostic tools. Demonstrates an excellent ability to compare, contrast, and critique the available information. Good: Discursive but somewhat critical analysis. Demonstrates adequate ability to compare, contrast, and critique the available information. Satisfactory: Little or no critical analysis. Demonstrates a limited ability to compare, contrast, and critique available information. Needs Improvement: Lacking critical analysis. No attempt to compare, contrast, and critique available information.	40.0 ptsExcellent28.0 ptsGood12.0 ptsSatisfactory0.0 ptsNeeds Improvement	40.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Recommendations Excellent: Well thought out recommendations with logical justification that flows clearly from the analysis. Fully explores measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations and provides a contingency plan. Good: Appropriate recommendations with justification that flows clearly from the analysis. Identifies some measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations and considers contingency. Satisfactory: Limited recommendations for improvements with some justification that flows somewhat from the analysis. Suggests measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations. Needs Improvement: Minimal or lack of recommendations with no justification that may minimally flow from the analysis. Limited or no identification of measures, benefits, and risks associated with recommendations.	40.0 ptsExcellent28.0 ptsGood12.0 ptsSatisfactory0.0 ptsNeeds Improvement	40.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReflectionExcellent: Provides excellent personal reflection to demonstrate greater insight and understanding. Spends an appropriate amount of time addressing each assignment aspect. Well structured connections between sections, developing a strong, logical structure that is easy to follow. Good: Very good and appropriate personal reflection to enhance insight and understanding. Adequately addresses most assignment aspects. Very good connections between sections to develop a somewhat logical structure. Satisfactory: Personal reflection included but could be further developed in more appropriate areas. Poorly addresses each assignment aspect. Some connections between components to develop a generally coherent structure. Needs Improvement: Limited or no personal reflection or reflection of little relevance to the issue. Significant omissions or unequal time addressing assignment components. Poor or no connections between components with an illogical or incoherent structure.	40.0 ptsExcellent28.0 ptsGood12.0 ptsSatisfactory0.0 ptsNeeds Improvement	40.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentationExcellent: Presentation enhances the logical structure of the arguments (larger assignments include creative and appropriate use of graphical and tabular presentation to support analysis). Where applicable, all figures and tables are appropriately captioned and discussed in text. Accurate referencing using the APA referencing system. Word count within allowed range. Good: Presentation that supports some of the arguments at a glance. Where applicable, most figures and tables are appropriately captioned and discussed in text. Word count within allowed range (+/-10%). Satisfactory: Presentation supports few arguments. Where applicable, some figures and tables are appropriately captioned and discussed in text. Word count within 20% above or below allowed range. Needs Improvement: Poor presentation with that does not support the arguments or there is no use or overuse of presentation formats. Incorrectly captioned figures and tables with no discussion in text or no figures and tables used. Limited or no referencing or failure to understand the concept of referencing. Word count 40% above or below allowed range.	40.0 ptsExcellent28.0 ptsGood12.0 ptsSatisfactory0.0 ptsNeeds Improvement	40.0 pts
Total Points: 200.0