Assessment
Method

Description
of Item

% weighting

 Due on

Outcomes

Coursework

Group Presentation (ppt slides maximum 10 to 15)

20%

6 September 2024

1,2,3

Coursework

Individual Student Report
(maximum 2,500 +/- 10% words)

80%

13 November 2024

1,2,3,4

Individual Essay

70+

60-69

50-59

40-49

below
40

Background

An
academic discussion of marketing and operational requirements in a chosen
context

Demonstrate
an understanding of key marketing and operational academic concepts applied
to practice

Demonstrate a critical awareness of own
self-reflection within

organisation

Extensive
critical awareness of learning style and additional areas demonstrated

Key
theory identified

Demonstrate
a high level understanding of key marketing
and operational academic concepts and provide a detailed, critical
review of relevant academic area chosen and use to justify/ enhance answers

As
70+ but level of understanding of key marketing
and operational academic concepts may not be so thoroughly applied or
discussion of findings may lack depth (does not go far beyond reiterating
what is in a general background introduction

As
60+ but understanding of key marketing and operational academic concepts
generally lack depth of information and the discussion is rather superficial.
There may be a sense that one or perhaps two theories/ models are not well
understood.

As
50+ but there is limited understanding of key marketing and operational
academic concepts, or  models, poorly
applied.  There may be very limited
discussion of findings

At
40+

Key
marketing and operational academic concepts are not really understood and
concepts, or models,  poorly
applied.  There may be very limited
discussion of findings.

There
may be a strong sense that the student has not read the brief carefully
enough or has missed some key aspect of it.

Scholarship:  evidence of wide academic reading

A
record and critical discussion of theory applied to practice

Revisions
made as a result of formative feedforward

Practical application

Using the theory demonstrates evidence of
evaluating and improving organisational performance and development

Self-reflection

Good
evidence of wide academic reading (at least 8 different academic sources).
Citations are relevant and integrated well with the leadership issue i.e. not
just citing things without connecting it to their discussion

Excellent
evaluation of critical incident and self-reflection – Also considers how
theory can inform practice. Evidence of an integrative approach of theory to
practice

A
number of relevant , practical solutions to improve organisational
performance -informed by theory

Excellent
self reflection including detailed action plan

As
70+ but one of the sources might be an internet source or a different version
of the same book. Citations might not be as well integrated e.g. a quote but
with no real discussion of its relevance to the issue

As
70+ but slightly less evidence of how theory can inform practice. Evidence
and citations may not be as well integrated. 

As
70+ but slightly less evidence of detailed self-evaluation

As
60+ but with less evidence of wide academic reading. There is at least one
good academic source e.g. the core text book

As
60+ but with less evidence of how theory can be used to inform practice.

Generally
lacking depth of information, discussion, and application – somewhat
superficial. Some solutions – limited practical application

As
60+ but with less evidence of how theory can be used to inform practice.

As
50+ but with limited evidence of academic reading. A small number of
references or an over-reliance on internet / non academic sources for theory
e.g. Wikipedia or businessballs.com.

As
50+ but with limited evidence of the application of theory to practice

Not
really informed by theory

As 50+
but with limited evidence of the application of theory to practice

As
40+ but may have only internet references or no references at all.

As
40+ but with very poor information on how theory can inform practice.

performance
–not informed by theory

Limited
self-reflection

Presentation

Report/ Presentation:  follows recommended structure.  Logical and persuasive writing style. Well
presented with good grammar and spelling. Harvard referencing style
throughout. Submitted on time.

Excellent
standard of presentation. Logical, articulate and scholarly writing style.
Clearly conforms to the recommended structure. Good use of Harvard
referencing throughout.

As
70+ but there may be one or two minor referencing errors or some minor spelling,
presentation or grammatical errors

As 60+ but the writing style or presentation is
weak in places. There may be a number of referencing errors

As
50+ but the writing style or presentation is weak. There may be a lot of
referencing errors.

As
40+ but the writing style and presentation is poor and does not follow the
recommended structure. Harvard referencing is poor.

PERCENTAGE

CRITERIA

DISTINCTION

90-100%

(exceptional)

·       
As below, with highly sophisticated level of theorisation
and innovative conceptualisation or methodology

80-89%

(superior)

·       
As below, with greater insight/originality and
wider/deeper engagement with the literature

75-79%

(confident)

·       
Authoritative grasp of conceptual context

·       
Insight or originality in way topic is conceptualised or
developed

·       
Comprehensive integration of relevant literature/debates

·       
Advanced scholarly style (of publishable quality)

70-74%

(solid)

·       
Strong grasp of conceptual context

·       
Insight in way topic is conceptualised or developed

·       
Good integration of relevant literature/debates

·       
Scholarly style (publishable with minor revisions)

MERIT

65-69%

(very good)

·       
Good conceptual understanding

·       
Critical analysis using an appropriate range of sources

·       
Clarity and precision in presenting arguments

60-64%

(competent)

As above, with less depth and
criticality

PASS

55-59%

(promising)

As below, plus stronger on analysis

50-54%

(passable)

·       
Basic grasp of essential concepts/theory/sources

·       
Some analysis/interpretation

·       
Reasonably clear and orderly presentation

FAIL

45-49%

(borderline fail)

·       
Largely descriptive

·       
Limited interpretation

·       
Limited range of sources

·       
Lack of coherence and clarity

40-44%

(near borderline)

As above, with greater lack of
interpretation

30-39%

(poor)

Descriptive, unfocused work, lacking in interpretative or
conceptual dimension and use of sources

0-29%

(inadequate)

Incomplete or very poorly attempted
work