Markingguides for Assessments follow the assessment descriptions. Students shouldcompare their assessment final drafts against the marking guide beforesubmission.
Assessment submission is as per the instructionsbelow. Please retain a photocopy and softcopy of all assessments.
Assessment1
Assessment Type: BusinessPlan Evaluation – Individual Case Study response
Purpose: Thisassessment is designed to allow students to critically evaluate a small business plan, and make supportedrecommendations to improve the plan to
ensureachievement of the plan’s objectives for various stakeholders. This
assessmentrelates to Learning Outcomes a, b and c.
Value: 30%
DueDate: Week6, 12 midnight Sunday April 27 2014, australia time
Submission:
Step 1 –upload to Turnitin for similarity checking
Students need to upload acopy of their submission to Turnitin for similarity checking – youwill receive an email from Turnitin regarding access sent to the email given to KOI when enrolling. If youhave not received this email by the end of week 4, please contact your tutorimmediately.
Step 2 – upload to Moodle for marking
Once you are happy withthe level of similarity, the assessment needs to be uploaded to Moodlefor marking.
Assessmentsnot submitted to both Turnitin and Moodle as required may not be marked.
Topic: The Enchanted Vineyard Bed & Breakfast – a copy of thisplan is available in Moodle
Task Details: Students are to review theEnchanted Vineyard Bed & Breakfast Business Plan provided in theAssessments Folder in Moodle. The review should reflect the current externalenvironmental factors that might affect the business plan’s successfulachievement of objectives, given current situational factors in company’s currentmarket.
Students should usesuitable, current and academically approved research to evaluate the positivesand negatives of the Business plan, as if this were a real business operatingin the time and location given – Sydney in2014.
Research Requirements: Students are to supporttheir analysis using thetext, and a MINIMUM of 6 current, relevant and academically approved sourcesincluding academic journal articles plus other supporting research as requirede.g. reports on current trends in the given industry and market.. Grades higher than a pass will only be awarded if more than the minimumnumber of academically acceptable sources are used.
Research chosen need to berecent (written since at least 2008 for theory, and 2012 – 2014 for market orindustry related information) and relevant to both the topic and context of theassessment task. Additional non-academic sources may also be used, howeverstudents need to show an understanding of their validity.
Sources such as Wiki…, scribed.com, docstore.com,etc.
Sources such as Wiki…, scribed.com, docstore.com, etc. are notconsidered acceptable sources and should not be used – use of such sources willresult in a fail grade.
Presentation: Word .doc or .docx – 1000 +10% word short report – title page, executive summary,table of contents, suitable headings and subheadings, conclusions,reference list (Harvard – Anglia style),attachments (if needed). Typed using 12 pt TimesNew Roman or 11 pt Calibri fonts. Single line spacing.
|
Mark / Weight |
HD |
D |
C |
P |
Fail |
||||||||
|
Range of research sources |
/ 30% |
Shows exceptional abilityin finding and using a wide range of sources to support analysis |
Shows strong ability infinding and using a wide range of sources to support analysis |
Shows good ability infinding and using a wide range of sources to support analysis |
Shows limited ability infinding and using a wide range of sources to support analysis |
Insufficient range or inappropriate sources used to supportanalysis. |
|||||||
|
Analysis |
/40% |
Excellentbalance between summary and commentary Superiorability to ask cogent questions Clearand precise evaluation of information and very convincing argumentsrecognising alternate viewpoints and uncertainties. Showsexceptional ability in identifying and discussing relevant success factors |
Good balance betweensummary and commentary Identifies assumptions andasks thoughtful questions Evaluates information andargues convincingly recognizing alternate viewpoints and uncertainties. Demonstratesstrong ability to identify and discuss relevant success factors |
Reasonable level ofcomments Identifies someassumptions and asks appropriate questions Generally clear andlogical argument but lacking depth in understanding of alternate viewpointsand uncertainties Demonstratesa good ability to identify and discuss relevant success factors |
Some appropriate commenton but not only a few issues examined. Assumptions with limitedsupport and questions limited. Unclear or illogicalarguments and explanations, some uncertainties not recognised. Somelimited ability to identify and discuss success factors |
Unbalanced, too muchsummary, not enough comment. Does not ask appropriatequestions. Presents assumptions asfacts or does not recognise alternate viewpoints. Verylimited identification and discussion of success factors. |
|||||||
|
Reservations and strategyrecommendations |
/20% |
Shows superior ability toanalyse information logically and impartially from gathered information andreach reliable and trustworthy recommendations |
Shows ability to analyseinformation logically and impartially from gathered information and reachreliable and trustworthy recommendations |
Analyse informationlogically, skilfully, and impartially from gathered information and reachesreliable recommendations |
Analyse informationlogically from gathered information and reaches logical, but occasionallyunsupported recommendations |
Shows biased, unskilled,and/or poor analysis of information from gathered information and unable toreliably identify logical recommendations |
|||||||
|
Written communication,referencing and presentation |
/10% |
Excellentscholarly written communication and presentation Superiorskill demonstrated in use of correct referencing style (Harvard) Excellentpresentation |
Strong scholarly writtencommunication and presentation Sound skill demonstratedin use of correct referencing style (Harvard) Very good presentation |
Good written communicationand presentation Good skill demonstrated inuse of correct referencing style (Harvard) Good presentation |
Acceptable written communicationand presentation – some errors Skill demonstrated in useof correct referencing style (Harvard) – some errors Acceptable presentation |
Poor written communicationand presentation Poor/no skill demonstratedin use of correct referencing style (Harvard) Poor presentation |
|||||||
|
TotalMark |
/100% |
||||||||||||
|
Assessment Mark |
/25% |
0 comments