THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHAMPTON
Faculty of Business and Law
MODULE NAME: Business Project
Module Code
Level
Credit Value
Module Leader
BUS4005
6
30
Dr Shahin Mitha
First Sit Assessment Brief
Assessment title:
Individual Presentation
Deadline:
Please see NILE
Weighting:
30%
Feedback and Grades due:
Please see NILE
Resit Date:
Please see NILE
Please read this assessment brief in its entirety before starting work on it.
The Assessment Task
Students are required to deliver a presentation that demonstrates how they will complete their Business Project Report (PJ1). Each student will deliver a 10-minute presentation with a 5-minute question and answer session from the panel of tutors and moderator. Presentations must include the following:
An explanation and justification of the international company you have chosen.
Two areas from below that you have chosen to discuss.
What are the main issues an organisation faces when trading internationally?
How does an organisation manage cultural implications in its global ventures?
What should an organisation consider when trying to create a positive social impact?
Initial research conducted that considers relevant theoretical frameworks to be utilised, with justification to their applicability in your research project.
Learning Outcomes
The learning outcomes that are being assessed in this assessment are:
Identify approaches and techniques which are appropriate for the task, critically applying a variety of academic frameworks, concepts and theories as a foundation for the project.
Research relevant information from a wide range of sources and use this to analyse the international business issue(s) under consideration.
Devise, sustain and convey an argument, verbally and in writing, supported by valid evidence and use of relevant sources.
Make judgments by critical analysis and evaluation in relation to complex situations and informed decisions in the context of real world issues justifying any conclusions and recommendations.
Your grade will depend on the extent to which you meet these learning outcomes in the way relevant for this assessment. Please see the grading rubric at the end of this assessment brief for further details of the criteria against which you will be assessed.
Assessment Support
Specific support sessions for this assessment will be provided by the module team and notified through NILE, You can also access individual support and guidance for your assessments from the Learning Development team. The Skills Hub is another useful source of online support for assessments and academic skills.
Other Limits
Students are allocated 10 minutes to present their presentation. The maximum limit for presentations is 12 minutes.
Generic Grading Criteria
You will find the generic grading criteria for achievement at University Grading Criteria. Also explained here are the meanings of the various G grades at the bottom of the grading scale.
Assessment Submission
To submit your work, please go to the ‘Submit your work’ area on the NILE site and use the relevant submission point to upload your report. The deadline for this is 11.59pm (UK local time) on the date of submission. Please note that essays and reports must be submitted as word documents and not PDFs.
Written work submitted to TURNITIN will be subject to anti-plagiarism detection software. Turnitin checks student work for possible textual matches against internet available resources and its own proprietary database.
When you upload your work correctly to TURNITIN you will receive a receipt which is your record and proof of submission.
If your assessment is not submitted to TURNITIN rather than a receipt you will see a green banner at the top of the screen that denotes successful submission.
N.B Work emailed directly to your tutor will not be marked. The only exception to this is when you are instructed to do so because TURNITIN is down.
Late submission of work
For first sits, if an item of assessment is submitted late and an extension has not been granted, the following will apply:
Within one week of the original deadline – work will be marked and returned with full feedback, and awarded a maximum bare pass grade.
More than one week from original deadline – maximum grade achievable LG (L indicating late).
For resits there are no allowances for work submitted late and it will be treated as a non-submission.
Extensions
The University of Northampton’s general policy with regard to extensions is to be supportive of students who have genuine difficulties, but not against pressures of work that could have reasonably been anticipated.
For full details please refer to the Extensions Policy. The module leader can, where appropriate, authorise a short extension of up to two weeks from the original submission date for first sits only.
Mitigating Circumstances
For guidance on Mitigating circumstances please go to Mitigating Circumstances where you will find detailed guidance on the policy as well as guidance and the form for making an application.
Please note, however, that an application to defer an assessment on the grounds of mitigating circumstances should normally be made in advance of the submission deadline or examination date.
Plagiarism and Academic Integrity
Unless this is a group assessment, the work you produce must be your own with work taken from any other source properly referenced and attributed. The University of Northampton policy will apply in all cases of copying, plagiarism or any other methods by which students have obtained (or attempted to obtain) an unfair advantage.
If you are in any doubt about what constitutes plagiarism or any other infringement of academic integrity, please read the University’s Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy. For help with understanding academic integrity go to UNPAC and follow the Top Tips for Good Academic Practice on the student hub.
Please note that the penalties for copying work from another source without proper referencing are severe and can include failing the assessment, failing the module and expulsion from the university.
Feedback and Grades
These can be accessed through clicking on the Feedback and Grades tab on NILE. Feedback will be provided by a rubric with summary comments.
Individual Presentation (PS1) Grading Rubric
Learning outcomes addressed through this assignment
NO SUBMISSION
FAIL
PASS
COMMENDED
MERIT
DISTINCTION
Grading Criteria
Work submitted and presented are of no academic value / nothing submitted
Evidence included or provided but missing in some very important aspects of the task
Of satisfactory quality, demonstrating evidence of achieving the requirements of the learning outcomes
Of sound quality, demonstrating evidence which is sufficient and appropriate to the task or activity
Of high quality, demonstrating evidence which is rigorous and convincing, appropriate to the task or activity
Of very high quality, demonstrating evidence which is strong, robust and consistent, appropriate to the task or activity
Identify approaches and techniques which are appropriate for the task, critically applying a variety of academic frameworks, concepts and theories as a foundation for the presentation.
Your presentation did not apply a sufficient variety of academic theories relevant to study.
Your presentation included some academic theories relevant to study. However, the theory application is highly descriptive and generalised.
Your presentation included a variety of academic theories relevant to study.
However, theories are described rather than applied.
Your presentation applied a variety of academic theories relevant to study.
Good application of theories and models throughout the presentation.
Your presentation applied a variety of academic theories relevant to study.
Excellent application of appropriate theories and models throughout the presentation.
Research relevant information from a wide range of sources and use this to analyse the international business issue(s) under consideration.
Poor choice of company data from a limited range of resources; Unsatisfactory data evaluation and theoretical underpinning.
Satisfactory use of company data from a wide range of resources including academic publications; Satisfactory data evaluation and theoretical underpinning but highly descriptive and generalised.
Good use of company data relevant and appropriate to the task from a wide range of resources including academic publications; Good data evaluation and theoretical underpinning but elements of generalisation and descriptiveness.
Very good use of company data relevant and appropriate to the task from a wide range of resources including academic publications; Very good level of critical analysis of data using appropriate theoretical frameworks.
Excellent level of identification and utilisation of company data relevant and appropriate to the task from a wide range of resources including academic publications; Excellent level of critical analysis of data using appropriate theoretical framework.
Devise, sustain and convey an argument, verbally and in writing, supported by valid evidence and use of relevant sources.
Your arguments or points were not clearly expressed, and / or your presentation did not have an appropriate structure.
Your arguments or points were sufficiently clearly expressed, and your presentation was sufficiently well structured to pass.
Your arguments or points were generally clearly expressed, and your presentation was reasonably well structured, however, there is much room for improvement here.
Most of your arguments or points were generally clearly expressed and your presentation was well structured.
Your arguments and points were clearly expressed and your presentation was well structured.
Make judgments by critical analysis and evaluation in relation to complex situations and informed decisions in the context of real world issues justifying any conclusions and recommendations.
Little to no direction that demonstrates evaluation intentions for business project.
Generic and descriptive direction that demonstrates evaluation intentions for business project.
Satisfactory demonstration of direction and evaluation intentions for business project.
Very good and clear demonstration of direction and evaluation intentions for business project.
Excellent clear demonstration of direction and evaluation intentions for business project.
Academic / Professional quality
Poor command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline.
Satisfactory command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline.
Sound command of academic / professional conventions sufficient and appropriate to the discipline.
Rigorous command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline.
Authoritative
command of academic / professional conventions appropriate to the discipline.
1