BUSM 4178 Issues in International Business: Case Study Report Assessment Marking Criteria CRITERIA BELOW EXPECTATION (FAIL) MEETS EXPECTATIONS (PASS) MEETS EXPECTATIONS (CREDIT) EXCEEDS EXPECTATION (DISTINCTION) EXCEEDS EXPECTATION (HIGH DISTINCTION) Introduction and executive summary (10%) Did not demonstrate adequate consideration of context and purpose and a clear focus on the task questions. Executive summary does not present a clear overview of the report; main points are not outlined, or cannot be understood. Demonstrates some consideration of context and purpose and attempts to focus on the task questions and key arguments. Executive summary provides a satisfactory overview of the report; misses a few minor points, but meets expectations. Demonstrates adequate consideration of context and purpose and a clear focus on the task questions. Executive summary provides a satisfactory overview of the report; misses a few minor points, but meets expectations. Demonstrates a good understanding of context and purpose and fully align with task questions. Executive summary is clear, concise, and effective; summary provides a thorough overview of the report, and key arguments /findings. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of context and purpose that is responsive to the task questions. Executive summary is clear, concise, and effective; summary provides a thorough overview of the report, and key arguments /findings. Theory-based analysis (30%) Theories and concepts are poorly discussed and little or no link made to issues/problem. Some relevant theories and concepts are discussed and attempt made to linked appropriately to issues/problems. Relevant key theories and concepts are discussed and linked made appropriately to issues/problems. Relevant key theories and concepts are discussed and linked made to the issues/problems with some evidence of critical evaluation and clarity. Relevant key theories and concepts are discussed and linked made to the issues/problems with exceptional critical evaluation and clarity. Evidence-based analysis (20%) The analysis was not coherent and based on irrelevant evidence and practice. An attempt at a coherent analysis was based on partial use of relevant evidence and practice. A coherent analysis was based on thorough use of some relevant evidence and practice. A coherent and comprehensive analysis was based on thorough use of the most relevant evidence and practice. A coherent and complete analysis was based on complete use of all relevant evidence, concepts and practice. Recommendations and conclusions (15%) Stated general conclusions and recommendations which were not fully supported by the analysis and development. Drew limited conclusions and recommendations which followed logically from the analysis and development of explicit elements in the topic. Drew conclusions and recommendations which followed logically from the analysis and development of explicit elements in the topic. Drew a good set of conclusions and recommendations which followed logically from the analysis and development of all explicit and some implicit elements evident in the topic. Drew an excellent set of conclusions and recommendations which followed logically from the analysis and development of both explicit and implicit elements evident in the topic.Structure and clarity of writing (10%) Text poorly structured. Ideas and points difficult to comprehend. Paragraphs and sentences were poorly constructed and illogical. Writing was fraught with clichés and misuse of language. Text is structured with clearly defined parts, although these could be developed more effectively / be more coherent. Significant problems with clarity, coherence, and/or consistency. Paragraphs were poorly organised or unfocused. More than an occasional problem with sentence construction, poor word choice, or over reliance on clichés. Text is structured with clearly defined parts, although these could be developed more effectively / be more coherent. Most ideas were clearly expressed, though with some need for improvement. Paragraphs generally coherent, but some were poorly organised or focused. Some problems with sentence construction and/or word choice. Text is well‐structured and coherent. Ideas were generally clearly expressed, perhaps with an occasional lapse in clarity. Paragraphs were generally coherent, sentences mostly wellcrafted and varied, and words well-chosen, though perhaps with a couple problems. Text is well‐structured and coherent. Clear, logical, creative expression and well-crafted sentences. Paragraphing was coherent and consistent with the ideas being presented. Demonstrated a creative and accurate use of language and phrasing. Quality of research and referencing (15%) The analysis was based very limited sources and did not adopt Harvard referencing style. Less than 8 academic references. The analysis was based on 8 + academic references, but mainly from course reading materials. Adopted Harvard referencing style appropriately (but not consistently with some errors). The analysis based on 8 + academic references; relevant sources beyond those provided. Adopted Harvard referencing style appropriately, accurately and consistently. The analysis based on 8 + academic references; relevant and high quality sources beyond those provided. Adopted Harvard referencing style appropriately, accurately and consistently. The analysis based on 8 + academic references; relevant, diverse and high quality sources beyond those provided. Adopted Harvard referencing style appropriately, accurately and consistently. Total / 40