Managing in a Challenging Environment | My Assignment Tutor

EXAMPLE TEESSIDE university BUSINESS SCHOOL (TUBS) Managing in a Challenging Environment (MICE) Postgraduate Module In-Course Assessment Feedback. This feedback is being given for purposes of advice and guidance and to assist your learning and development in this module. References to standards or marks are entirely provisional and subject to confirmation following University procedures. Only University Assessment Boards are able to issue confirmed, definitive marks Student Name: Joe Bloggs (C1234567). Assessment Criterion. PART A – 30% (30x /100 = %) Critical Analysis of Management Processesbased on the Case Study: (MLO 1,2,7). PART B – 70% (70x /100 = %)Critical Analysis of Internal and External Challengesbased on the Case Study: (MLO 1,2,3,4,5,6). Total (A + B):100Note that pass mark is 50%. CommentsPlease see Rubric for explanation of marking. . Overall Comment Joe, you present… Marking Rubric – Managing in a Challenging Environment (CSE4035-N) – May 2021. Student: Joe Bloggs (C1234567). The assessment for this module is based on an assigned BMW case study. You are required to produce an essay providing critical analysis of two key areas: Part A (30% of final mark) where you provide a 1000-word critical analysis of management processes within the case study and Part B (70% of final mark) where you provide a 2500-word critical analysis of internal and external challenges within the case study.    The above Mark/Feedback Form provides your actual module mark based on calculation of Part A and Part B mark (see below), and also an overall comment on your work. Part A – 30% of overall mark – Critical Analysis of Management Processes. Criteria.Potential MarksFail (under 50%).Pass (50% – 59%).Merit (60% – 69%).Distinction (70% plus).Mark.Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the concepts discussed during the module.35(0 -16.5).Poor evidence of understanding of relevant knowledge and concepts addressed within the module.Needed to demonstrate more knowledge and understanding of concepts from the module.A less than adequate explanation of the BMW context and the management processes being undertaken.Tended to write generally or descriptively about the BMW case study management processes – not keeping focused on providing a critical analysis of the processes.– 20.5).Adequate/good evidence of understanding of relevant knowledge and concepts addressed within the module.Adequate/good explanation of the BMW context and the management processes being undertaken by BMW in the case study.Adequate/good critical analysis of management processes by BMW in the case study.(21 – 24).Very good evidence of understanding of relevant knowledge and concepts addressed within the module.Very good explanation of the BMW context and the management processes being undertaken by BMW in the case study.Very good critical analysis of management processes by BMW in the case study.(24.5 – 35).Excellent evidence of understanding of relevant knowledge and concepts addressed within the module.Excellent explanation of the BMW context and the management processes being undertaken by BMW in the case study.Excellent critical analysis of management processes by BMW in the case study.The ability to develop an argument and critically reflect on alternative debates and thinking in a clear and logical critical discussion drawing from appropriate theory and the case study.35(0 -16.5).Poor in providing a critical argument that draws in evidence from: the BMW case study; theory/concepts; or understanding of alternative debates.Poor flow of writing so no clear logical critical discussion.Writing at times is difficult to follow due to convoluted statements.(17 – 20.5).Adequate/good provision of a critical argument that draws in evidence from: the BMW case study; theory/concepts; or understanding of alternative debates.Adequate/good flow of writing so evident of a clear logical critical discussion.(21- 24).Very good provision of a critical argument that draws in evidence from: the BMW case study; theory/concepts; or understanding of alternative debates.Very good flow of writing so evident of a clear logical critical discussion.(24.5 – 35).Excellent provision of a critical argument that draws in evidence from: the BMW case study; theory/concepts; or understanding of alternative debates.Excellent flow of writing so evident of a clear logical critical discussion.Evidence of wider reading and research and effective application to the case study.20(0 – 9.5).Poor evidence or no evidence of own research and wider reading beyond the provided BMW case study.Poor application of own research and wider reading to help in supporting critical discussion.(10 – 11.5).Adequate/good evidence of own research and wider reading beyond the provided BMW case study.Adequate/good application of own research and wider reading to help in supporting critical discussion.(12 – 13.5).Very good evidence of own research and wider reading beyond the provided BMW case study.Very good application of own research and wider reading to help in supporting critical discussion.(14 – 20).Excellent evidence of own research and wider reading beyond the provided BMW case study.Excellent application of own research and wider reading to help in supporting critical discussion.Appropriate format of presentation, free of spelling or grammatical error, fluent and clear writing style, adherence to norms of referencing in Harvard Style, incl. References to online sources10(0 – 4.5).Poor presentation of work (e.g., absence of Harvard referencing; reference list, referencing within narrative, details of Figs., Tables or quotes., spelling/phrasing/ formatting slips, page numbers not in sync.).(5 – 5.5).Adequate/good presentation of work (e.g., Harvard referencing; reference list, referencing within narrative, details of Figs., Tables or quotes., spelling/phrasing/ formatting slips, page numbers not in sync.).(6 – 6.5).Very good presentation of work (e.g., Harvard referencing; reference list, referencing within narrative, details of Figs., Tables or quotes., spelling/phrasing/ formatting slips).(7 – 10).Excellent presentation of work (e.g., Harvard referencing; reference list, referencing within narrative, details of Figs., Tables or quotes., spelling/phrasing/ formatting slips).Part A – Total Mark Part B – 70% of overall mark – Critical Analysis of Internal and External Challenges. Criteria.Potential Marks.Fail (under 50%).Pass (50% – 59%).Merit (60% – 69%).Distinction (70% plus).Mark.Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the concepts discussed during the module.35(0 – 16.5).Poor evidence of understanding of relevant knowledge and concepts addressed within the module.Needed to demonstrate more knowledge and understanding of concepts from the module.A less than adequate explanation of the BMW context and the internal and/or external challenges faced.Tended to write generally or descriptively about internal and/or external challenges faced by BMW in the case study – not keeping focused on providing a critical analysis of the challenges.(17 – 20.5).Adequate/good evidence of understanding of relevant knowledge and concepts addressed within the module.Adequate/good explanation of the BMW context and the internal and/or external challenges faced by BMW in the case study.Adequate/good critical analysis of the internal and/or external challenges faced by BMW in the case study.(21 – 24).Very good evidence of understanding of relevant knowledge and concepts addressed within the module.Very good explanation of the BMW context and the internal and/or external challenges faced by BMW in the case study.Very good critical analysis of the internal and/or external challenges faced by BMW in the case study.(24.5 – 35).Excellent evidence of understanding of relevant knowledge and concepts addressed within the module.Excellent explanation of the BMW context and the internal and/or external challenges faced by BMW in the case study.Excellent critical analysis of the internal and/or external challenges faced by BMW in the case study.The ability to apply the tools and techniques introduced during the module to the case study.35(0 -16.5).Very poor or no application of tools and techniques introduced within the module in the critical analysis of the BMW case study.Poor explanation, or understanding of the tools and techniques introduced within the module.Poor flow of writing so no clear logical critical discussion.Writing at times is difficult to follow due to convoluted statements.(17 -20.5).Adequate/good application of tools and techniques introduced within the module in the critical analysis of the BMW case study.Adequate/good explanation, or understanding of the tools and techniques introduced within the module.Adequate/good flow of writing so clear logical critical discussion.(21 – 24).Very good application of tools and techniques introduced within the module in the critical analysis of the BMW case study.Very good explanation, or understanding of the tools and techniques introduced within the module.Very good flow of writing so clear logical critical discussion.(24.5 – 35).Excellent application of tools and techniques introduced within the module in the critical analysis of the BMW case study.Excellent explanation, or understanding of the tools and techniques introduced within the module.Excellent flow of writing so clear logical critical discussion.Evidence of wider reading and research and effective application to the case study.20(0 – 9.5).Poor evidence or no evidence of own research and wider reading beyond the provided BMW case study.Poor application of own research and wider reading to help in supporting critical discussion.(10- 11.5).Adequate/good evidence of own research and wider reading beyond the provided BMW case study.Adequate/good application of own research and wider reading to help in supporting critical discussion.(12 – 13.5).Very good evidence of own research and wider reading beyond the provided BMW case study.Very good application of own research and wider reading to help in supporting critical discussion.(14 – 20).Excellent evidence of own research and wider reading beyond the provided BMW case study.Excellent application of own research and wider reading to help in supporting critical discussion.Appropriate format of presentation, free of spelling or grammatical error, fluent and clear writing style, adherence to norms of referencing in Harvard Style, incl. References to online sources.10(0 – 4.5).Poor presentation of work (e.g., absence of Harvard referencing; reference list, referencing within narrative, details of Figs., Tables or quotes., spelling/phrasing/ formatting slips, page numbers not in sync.).(5 – 5.5).Adequate/good presentation of work (e.g., Harvard referencing; reference list, referencing within narrative, details of Figs., Tables or quotes., spelling/phrasing/ formatting slips, page numbers not in sync.).(6 – 6.5).Very good presentation of work (e.g., Harvard referencing; reference list, referencing within narrative, details of Figs., Tables or quotes., spelling/phrasing/ formatting slips).(7 – 10).Excellent presentation of work (e.g., Harvard referencing; reference list, referencing within narrative, details of Figs., Tables or quotes., spelling/phrasing/ formatting slips).Part B – Total Mark NameSignatureDateTutorMay 2021.Moderator

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *