Digital Technologies for Market Analysis

18LLP123 – Digital Technologies for Market Analysis 

Group Assessments

Weighting:                 90% of the module assessment + 10% of peer assessment

Task

Students need to form up task groups with each group of max. 5 students to complete the project portfolio (90%) and a group peer assessment (one submission per group, 10%).

 

Each task group needs to conduct an independent research project by:

  • Picking a business/marketing problem of interest and transform it into a researchworthy topic, and establish your research objectives and research questions;
  • Conducting exploratory studies by conducting qualitative studies or collecting secondary data to provide an initial insight into the problem;
  • Planning and executing quantitative data collection by using any of the taught techniques and successfully collecting a suitable number of records;
  • Applying appropriate techniques of data analysis and spotlighting the findings from data;
  • Presenting the project’s outcomes to the audience

 

Assessment Structure

  • All groups will use a multi-stage research report format, as suggested in the following text. This will show the relationship between the exploratory, qualitative research, and the descriptive, quantitative research stages.
  • All groups will use a standard 5-part report format, as shown in the table below and shown in lectures.
  • Generally, each student should plan, manage, collaborate, and submit one progressive task from the five components for feedback, unless the group is with <5 members.
  • All the submitted works SHOULD be updated based on the feedback and re-included in the final submission due on 2nd June consistently and logically.

 

Format

  • Submit online through the link on the LLP123 module page.
    • The final submission must be with several different files. Don’t compact the files into.zip format to keep the original information. o Text files should be.DOC, or.DOCX, RTF, or ODF. Please do not submit the text in PDF (except for the poster) or any other format.
    • The poster should be in Pdf format.
    • The data file should be an MS Excel document.

 

  • All group members should have a copy of the submission for safety and their records.

  

 

Progressive Submissions with the deadlines on the following dates

Stage   Word limit Group Submission Deadline Completed by (nominate one student per task)
1 Business context, problem identification, Research Questions (RQs) development, research objective setting 500 words excluding reference, appendix Week 6

19th March

(to be updated and included in the final submission)

Student A
2 Exploratory Study

Summary

500 words excluding reference, appendix Week 8-  30th April

(to be updated and included in the final submission)

Student B
3 Methodology- data collection procedure and data upload 500 words excluding reference,

appendix

 

Data collected, to be submitted

in either Excel or

CSV format

 

2nd June Student C
4 Data analysis and findings 500 words excluding reference, appendix 2nd June Student D
5 Research poster upload Saved as pdf file 2nd Jun Student E
6 Peer Assessment Fill and sign the peer review

form, and upload

it

2nd June All the team members

 

Peer Evaluation

Deadline 3:00 pm, 2nd June

  • Peer Evaluation will be operated in two approaches. The Web-PA scoring evaluation is mandatory and decisive, and the qualitative feedback (on LEARN page) is optional.
  • Both peer evaluations are strictly confidential.
  • Students will need to fill the peer evaluation to earn the Peer Evaluation mark. (Caution: if you do not complete the peer evaluation for every one of your team-mates and submit these evaluations before the deadline, your Peer Evaluation score will be ZERO regardless of how you were scored by your team-mates.) This mandatory evaluation is decisive and crucial.
  • The score you receive will be based solely on the total scores awarded to you by your team-mates when they perform the Peer Evaluation.
  • Mandatory evaluation is designed based on each member’s demonstrated behavioural standard in the whole progress, according to the table below.
Item Measure
1 Is accountable (e.g., does what they say; when they say it, they’ll do it)
2 Understands the needs and priorities of others and is proactive in communicating to others the information upon which they depend
3 Is effective at planning and coordinating their tasks with other team members to increase their effectiveness
4 Is good at following the plans of others
5 Attends team and other meetings in a timely fashion on a regular basis
6 Is a constructive force in group work and maintains a positive attitude when dealing with unexpected challenge
7 Understands where their expertise lies and how to leverage it for the team’s benefit
8 Listens well to others and makes it easy to give feedback to them
9 Is effective in providing helpful feedback to others
10 Treats others with respect

 

  • Qualitative feedback is collected as a supplement to the Web-PA evaluation, without changing the marks of Web-PA, unless there is an investigation for the violation of an elemental spirit in assignment sharing and collaboration (which will go to the point list next). No particular format to adopt for this feedback. No feedback will be provided for this review. The ML/teacher reserves the right to request further information from the group members, adjust the student’s mark based on the feedback, and submit as a case of Academic Misconduct to the AMC.
  • Severe workload share issues (e.g. freeload) will be identified from the qualitative peer feedback and trigger a case-to-case investigation. With demonstrated evidence, students involved in a significantly uneven share of the workload will be referred to AMC.

Feedback returned on/within 15 working days from the final piece of submission

Each s tudent should take one’s own responsibility to liaise others for a topic idea, form a task group, maintain effective team communication, play a leading role in one’s assigned task, and collaborate with teammates for imroving the quality of research project

continuously.

 

EACH student is required to make an individual contribution to the group project in an

 

engaging and collaborative manner from the start to the end, by undertaking to lead in at least one task from the list of submissions. The lead on the task is not expected to carry  out all the work on that task, but rather to take responsibility in coordinating the group’s activity towards completing the task and be responsible for ensuring the submission is  done on time and to the group’s best ability. The group as a whole is expected is work  towards compiling a final submission of the portfolio on the final submission day.

 

The objective of this coursework is to provide the students the individual opportunity to build up on the group project carried out by engaging in independent study.

In the report, you will drill your research skills,presenting skills and project management  skills:

 

•       Each submission should provide the relevant contribution to the group project,   including key references. You need to find out the best presentation in an engaging   way.

•       The whole group will learn and apply the steps of market analysis to solve the  problem, which include defining RQs, design research, collecting data, analysing data and reporting.

 

•       Be critical of the approach(es) taken in the group work, including your own   contribution.

•       Please pay attention to the marking scheme, and try to structure your report to be inline with the marking scheme.

•       All submitted pieces must be accompanied by a cover page. It should make clear who was the lead on the task, and a brief description of the contributions of others

 

in the team. A recommended cover page can be found in the assessment folder.

You can either customise it for use or create your own cover page with the requested information displayed on it.

 

•       The peer assessment reserves the assessor a further right to use other regulation to refer to the academic misconduct to adjust individual student’s mark based on the  peer review and subsequent investigation.

 

Feedback will be provided based on Criteria Rubric, and should you need further feedback please contact the examiner (Mr Mahmoud Wardeh)  

 

Marking Criteria

Part I

Criteria Standards      
  Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Excellent
Introduction and Background

(10%)

None. Vague without a clear relationship to the problem. A brief history of the organisation. A brief explanation of the implications of the problem, and motivations for the research. Brief history relates to the problem.

Evidence that the team has

prioritised

symptoms and possible causes. Priorities are echoed in the choice of the research question.

Brief history links directly to the problem. Clear priorities of

symptoms and possible causes with a direct link to a choice of the

research question.

Research

Question/

Objectives

(8%)

Not clear. One or

a list of topics with no differentiation between the business problem and the research.

Clearly worded statements of a research question or hypotheses that follow from the problem statement. A clear outline of specific data needs. Clearly worded statements of a research question or hypotheses that follow from the problem statement, and are likely & possible to answer. One or two clearly worded statements of a research question or hypotheses that will link directly to appropriate data-gathering and processing methods. A clear outline of specific data needs.

 

Part II

Criteria Standards      
  Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Excellent
Summary of exploratory study (10%) None. Loose and

unlogical

summary of findings with a vague relationship to the RQ/research objectives. No informative input received.

A brief summary

of the exploratory investigation. In depth- evidence and possible reasons are grounded but with limited connection to the issue.

Informative summary of the exploratory investigation. In depth- with selective evidence and plausible reasons well-sorted to explain the mechanism. Insightful summary of the exploratory investigation. In depth- with typical evidence and creduous reasons wellsorted to explain the mechanism.  In width- with a comprehensive collection of
    In width- with a collection of perspectives. In width- with a vast collection of perspectives. perspectives that frame a whole picture of the views.
From research questions to data collection of the next stage(8%) No clear research questions identified from exploratory studies to link with data collection at all. A refined set of research questions for a quantitative study are established based on the exploratory findings, with a clear outline of specific data needs. Clearly worded research questions with a good fit with objectives,

measurement

plan, data availability that follow from the exploratory study and are likely & possible to answer.

Clearly worded research questions with an excellent fit, in conceptualisation and methodological sense, with objectives,

measurement

plan, data availability that follow from the exploratory study and are likely & possible to answer.

 

Part III, IV, V

Criteria Standards    
  Unsatisfactory Average Good Excellent
Method (10%) None. Vague comments. Explanation of population of interest, sampling frame and data collection tool

(e.g.,

questionnaire, assembled database, or API).

A clear outline of specific data needs.

Demonstration that the population of

interest, sampling frame and data collection tool

(e.g.,

questionnaire, assembled database, or API) to address the data needs.

Clear statements of type and form of data to be gathered. Detailed procedures and results of the sampling frame, instrumentation (including sources and reasons for particular questions).

 

Instrumentation for data collection(8%) Poorly worded – spelling mistakes. Poor questions – leading, doublebarrelled, assumed knowledge, etc. Redundant questions that aren’t, or can’t be, analysed with no clear information for how the data can be acquired at all. Good spelling and

Presentation. Straightforward, easy-tounderstand questions or where the data are from. The order of questions is sound. The layout makes fo easy answers.

 

r

Attractive Presentation, no typos or grammatical errors. Easy to answer or where the data are from.  Easy to process. No redundancy in questions or constructs. Appropriate and justified scales for each construct. Attractive Presentation, no typos or grammatical errors. Easy to answer and easy to process. No redundancy in questions or constructs. Appropriate and justified scales for each construct.  Key questions come from established sources or shown to be validated with the preliminary trial.
Analysis of results (18%) None or incorrect technique. Appropriate analysis of the basic questions.   Appropriate analysis of the basic questions.

Demonstrated understanding of the analysis technique and interpretation.  Presentation of results suitable for practising manager – no redundant output, tables and charts that communicate a useful story.

Appropriate analysis of the basic questions. Demonstrated understanding of the analysis technique and interpretation.  Presentation of results suitable for practising manager – no redundant output, tables and charts that communicate a useful story.  The extended analysis outlines more than the original question.
Criteria Standards  
  Unsatisfactory Average Good Excellent

 

Conclusions and Presentation (5%) None, or confused and inconsistent with the business problem or research question. Summary of

analysis. A Clear link between results and research question.

Summary of

analysis. A Clear link between results and research question. Show the extent that the business problem has been resolved.

Summary of

analysis. A Clear link between results and research question. Show the extent that the business problem has been resolved. What additional questions have been raised, or information is needed.  Practical managerial implications.

Review of assumptions and study limitations

(4%)

None recognised. Limitations or problems with sampling, research design, instrumentation, etc., that could affect results & conclusions. Limitations with sampling, research design, instrumentation, etc. Underlying assumptions of the method, psychological or economic theories, etc. Limitations with sampling, research design, instrumentation, etc. Underlying assumptions of the method, psychological or economic theories, etc.

Clear evaluations of the extent that these limitations and assumptions have affected the results & conclusions.

Recommendations for further research (4%) None. Specific suggestions for overcoming identified limitations with different or better method. Specific suggestions for overcoming identified limitations with different or better method.  Prioritised further questions raised by the research study. Specific suggestions for overcoming identified limitations with different or better method.

Prioritised further questions raised by the research study. Specific suggestions for addressing new research questions.

 

 

Criteria Standards      
  Unsatisfactory Average Good Excellent
Structure and

Presentation

(5%)

A sea of grey. Poor grammar and spelling. Overly long. The logical flow of the argument. The logical flow of the argument. Succinct. STYLES used to create a consistent look and accurate

Contents page.

The logical flow of the argument. Succinct. Well signposted. STYLES used to create a consistent look and accurate

Contents page.