Mark Range Knowledge Acquisition Interpretation and Analysis Construction of Argument Referencing Presentation 90+ Clearly creates new knowledge in the analysis of the chosen retailer Original work of a publishable standard; excellent analysis of the retailer in all required aspects; goes beyond the required fields to demonstrate original and incisive analysis Thoroughly convincing and opens up new perspectives on the retailer; highly relevant arguments made when discussing the future changes References are complete, accurate and effectively presented to support the arguments made; many relevant citations; References are of an academic standard Of an excellent standard 80-89 Of a high standard beyond normal expectations when analysing the retailer’s strategy This report shows originality of insight when analysing the retailer’s strategy and excellent intellectual engagement Convincing, fluent and going beyond received wisdom, highly relevant arguments the retailer’s strategy References are complete, accurate and effectively presented to support the arguments made; many citations; References are all of an academic standard Of an excellent standard 70-79 Clear and complete knowledge of what the assignment involves. Complete analysis of retailer’s strategy Shows a sound understanding, offering a consistent and mature insight into the retailer’s strategy Incisive and persuasive with strong evidence for the conclusions drawn; highly relevant arguments made References are complete and of an academic standard, accurate and effectively presented, many references; Of a good standard with very minor lapses 60-69 Provides substantial information and displays solid knowledge of the retailer’s strategy Shows a clear understanding of retail theory and its significance; insight demonstrated into the retailer’s strategy Argues in an assured way with some clear development and some understanding of the retailer’s strategy; relevant material covered References are complete and effectively presented and are mostly of an academic standard Shows a good level of competence. May contain errors that do not significantly impair the piece 50-59 Provides a reasonable quality of accurate information regarding the retailer’s strategy Shows a competent if dependent or incomplete understanding of the retailer’s strategy Presents the general outline of an appropriate argument; basic relevant material covered regarding the retailer References are complete but non- standardised and poorly presented; some references are not of an academic standard Displays a general grasp of the appropriate requirements of presentation 40-49 Provides limited quality of information with some accuracy regarding the retailer’s current offerings Shows some limited understanding of the retailer and the changes required Presents some elements of an appropriate argument; questionable relevance of material Few references; few references are of an academic standard Displays some limited care a and competence in presentation 30-39 Limited and inaccurate assessment of the retailer’s strategy Patchy interpretation of the retailer’s strategy Ill- considered or poorly constructed arguments regarding the retailer’s strategy; irrelevant material Inadequate number of references; references are not of an academic standard Significant lapse in presentational standards 20-29 Very inaccurate assessment of the retailer Showing little understanding of the retailer or how the retailers can change Lacking identifiable arguments regarding the retailer; irrelevant material; Inadequate number of references; references are not of an academic standard Shows a lack of awareness of presentation standards 0-20 No evidence of study No evidence of ability to interpret or analyse Lacking coherence throughout; no relevance No sourcing of material Disregard for any formalities of academic work