individual essay

Assignment1 – Question, Background Information, And Marking Scheme

The first assessment of the module is an individual essay. As outlined in the lecture information, this assessment will focus on the content delivered in the lectures in weeks 4-7. The purpose of this essay is to assess students’ understanding of the importance of change and innovation for organisations and their understanding of how the performance implications of innovation may differ across different types of innovation and different types of organisation and industries. The assignment, therefore, is directly linked to module learning outcomes 1, 3 and 5.

 

Assessment Weighting: 50% of the overall module grade.

 

Word Count: 1,250 words

 

Question: Students should critically discuss the below question.

 

Does firm innovation always improve firm performance?

 

Submission: Electronically via Turnitin.  No paper submission is required, or will be looked at.

 

What to Do in The Event That Turnitin is Not Available:

 

  • Checkthe module site on Blackboard for any announcements regarding assignment submission.
  • If there are no announcements,notify your tutor, particularly if you experience problems within 24 hours of the assessment deadline. Wherever possible, do so using your DMU email account.
  • If the problems occurred during or after you submitted your work, keep the submission receipt (and receipt number) for the Turnitin submission. Also record any possible error messages  If you are able to do so, take a picture or a screen-grab of the error message. Please include these in your email notification to the tutor.
  • If you are unable to upload your assignment due to Turnitin failure, please submit your work via email to the assessing tutor or the Module Leader to meet the original deadline.
  • Students will not be penalised for the late submission of work if there is a technical failure in the mechanism for submission (eg Blackboard).  If necessary, an alternative method of submission will be made available and a new deadline set.

 

 

Deadline: Monday 7th December 2019, at 12 pm (Midday). Submission after this will incur university penalties.

 

Assessment Return Date: Wednesday 12th of January 2020, by 12 pm (Midday). Grade and feedback will be available via Turnitin. All grades remain preliminary until the Summer Exam Boards and may be subject to change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ESSAY MARKING SCHEME

 

The below mark scheme, in addition to the De Montfort University Undergraduate Generic Mark Descriptors (included below), will be utilised to grade the submitted work. A more detailed version of the below-marking scheme, which breaks down the requirements for each section across the various grade boundaries available, is provided below. Students should closely follow the sections and word count guidance provided below, ensuring they meet all of the criteria listed in their desired grade band, as this will give them the best chance to perform well in the assessment.

 

Sections Section Guidance Word Count Guidance
1.      Introduction ·        Has the student provided adequate background information on firm innovation (e.g., statistics on the proportion of firms engaged in innovation? See link for example; examples of businesses discussing innovation as important for their performance, et cetera)

·        Has the student defined the key terms in their essay (innovation, product innovation et cetera)?

150
2.      Consideration and Critical Evaluation of the empirical evidence on the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. ·        Has the student drawn on and discussed a range of empirical studies from the academic (i.e. journal articles and books) literature on the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance?

·        Has the student engaged in critical evaluation and discussion (e.g., by comparing and contrasting studies that support and reject the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance, by considering the limitations of the studies discussed, et cetera) of the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance?

700
3.      Consideration and Evaluation of the nuances of the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. ·        Has the student discussed, using evidence, how the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance may differ across different types of innovation (e.g., product innovation, process innovation, management innovation et cetera) AND/OR different types of organisations (e.g., SMEs, micro and large firms; high-growth and low-growth firms et cetera) AND/OR different performance metrics (e.g., productivity, profit, turnover et cetera)?

·        Has the student drawn on relevant examples in their discussion?

250
4.      Quality of Conclusions Drawn ·        Does the conclusion provide a clear answer to the essay question?

·        Has the student drawn an appropriate conclusion based on the evidence and arguments presented in their essay?

·        Does the student justify and explain their conclusion (e.g., what evidence led to this conclusion and why did the student find this evidence more convincing than other evidence discussed? Et cetera).

150
5.      Structure and Organisation of Essay. Referencing Quality, and Formatting/ ·        Is the essay well organised and structured?

·        Are references cited appropriately?

·        Does a significant proportion of the references used come from academic (journal articles and books) sources, rather than online sources?

N/A
Total   1250

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DETAILED ESSAY MARKING SCHEME BY GRADE BAND

 

  80-100%

Excellent-Outstanding

70-79%

Very Good-Excellent

60-69%

Good – Very Good

50-59%

Satisfactory – Good

40-49%

Poor – Satisfactory

<40%

Fail

Introduction Exceptional quality and use of background information on firm innovation in contextualising the essay. Defines key terms exceptionally well using accepted definitions, and demonstrates excellent critical engagement with the definitions of innovation. Very good quality and use of background information on firm innovation in contextualising the essay. Defines key terms very well using accepted definitions, and demonstrates a high level of critical engagement with the definitions of innovation. Good quality and use of background information on firm innovation in contextualising the essay. Defines key terms well using accepted definitions, and may demonstrate some critical engagement with the definitions of innovation. Satisfactory quality and use of background information on firm innovation in contextualising the essay. Defines some key terms, potentially using some accepted definitions. Poor quality and/or little use of background information on firm innovation in contextualising the essay. May define some key terms, but with limited use of accepted definitions. Unsatisfactory background information on firm innovation in contextualising the essay. Failure to satisfactorily define key terms.
Consideration and Critical Evaluation of the empirical evidence on the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance.  Demonstrates outstanding knowledge/understanding AND critical analysis of the empirical evidence on the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. Draws on an exceptional range of high-quality sources of evidence to build their arguments. Demonstrates very good knowledge/understanding AND critical analysis of the empirical evidence on the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. Draws on a wide range of high-quality sources of evidence to build their arguments. Demonstrates good knowledge/understanding AND some critical analysis of the empirical evidence on the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. Draws on a range of high-quality sources of evidence to build their arguments. Demonstrates a reasonable level of knowledge/understanding of the empirical evidence on the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. Draws on a reasonable range of sources of evidence to build their arguments, some of which may be of high-quality. Demonstrates a poor level of knowledge/understanding of the empirical evidence on the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. May draw on some sources of evidence to build their arguments, but this is generally to a poor standard. Demonstrates an unsatisfactory level of knowledge/understanding of the empirical evidence on the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. Fails to draw on a sufficient level of evidence in their arguments.
Consideration and Evaluation of the nuances of the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. Demonstrates outstanding knowledge/understanding AND critical analysis of the boundary conditions of the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. Uses examples exceptionally well in supporting their arguments. Draws on an exceptional range of high-quality sources of evidence to build their arguments. Demonstrates very good knowledge/understanding AND critical analysis of the boundary conditions of the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. Uses examples very well in supporting their arguments. Draws on a wide range of high-quality sources of evidence to build their arguments. Demonstrates good knowledge/understanding AND may show some critical analysis of the boundary conditions of the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. Uses examples well in supporting their arguments. Draws on a range of high-quality sources of evidence to build their arguments. Demonstrates a reasonable level of knowledge/understanding of the boundary conditions of the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. Uses examples satisfactorily in supporting their arguments. Draws on a reasonable range of sources of evidence to build their arguments, some of which may be of high-quality. Demonstrates a poor level of knowledge/understanding of the boundary conditions of the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. May draw on some sources of evidence and/or examples to build/support their arguments, but this is generally to a poor standard. Demonstrates an unsatisfactory level of knowledge/understanding of the boundary conditions of the relationship between firm innovation and firm performance. Fails to draw on a sufficient level of evidence and/or examples in their arguments.
Conclusions Conclusion provides an exceptionally clear and convincing answer to the question, which is consistent with the arguments presented in the essay. Conclusions are exceptionally well justified and supported. Conclusion provides a clear and convincing answer to the question, which is consistent with the arguments presented in the essay. Conclusions are well justified and supported. Conclusion provides a mostly clear and convincing answer to the question, which is consistent with the arguments presented in the essay. Conclusions are mostly justified and supported. Conclusion provides a reasonably clear and convincing answer to the question, which mostly is consistent with the arguments presented in the essay. Conclusions are reasonably justified and supported. Conclusions provide a mostly unclear and unconvincing answer to the question, which is not overly consistent with the arguments presented in the essay. Conclusions are mostly unjustified, tangential and unsupported. Conclusions are unclear, unconvincing and tangential, and fail to satisfactorily answer the question.
Structure and Organisation of Essay. Referencing Quality, and Formatting Outstanding structure, coherence, clarity and presentation, with an exceptionally high-quality use of sources. Very good structure, coherence, clarity and presentation, with a very high-quality use of sources. Good structure, coherence, clarity and presentation, with a high-quality use of sources. Reasonable structure, coherence, clarity and presentation, with a reasonable quality of sources used. Poor structure, coherence, clarity and presentation, with a poor quality of sources used. Unsatisfactory structure, coherence, clarity and presentation, with very few and very poor quality of sources used.

 

DMU GENERIC UNDERGRADUATE MARKING DESCRIPTORS

 

Modules are marked on a range of 0-100%. Mark descriptors are given in the table below.

These descriptors are inter-related: with regard to marks of 40 and above there is an assumption that in awarding marks in one band work will have met the requirements of the previous band; with regard to marks of 39 and below there is an assumption that in awarding marks in one band work will NOT have met the requirements of the previous higher band. When marking an individual piece of work there is an expectation that it will clearly demonstrate most of the criteria within each band.

 

Mark Range Criteria Degree Classification Boundary
90%-100% ·        Responds to all of the assessment criteria for the task.

·        Displays exceptional degree of originality.

·        Exceptional analytical, problem-solving and/or creative skills

·        No fault can be found with the work other than very minor errors, for example, minor typographical issues

First Class Honours

 

 

80%-90% ·        Responds to all of the assessment criteria for the task.

·        Work of outstanding quality, evidenced by an ability to engage critically and analytically with the source material.

·        Likely to exhibit independent lines of argument.

·        Highly original and/or creative responses.

·        Extremely wide range of relevant sources used where appropriate.

First Class Honours
70%-79% ·        Responds to all of the assessment criteria for the task.

·        An extremely, well-developed response showing clear knowledge and the ability to interpret and/or apply that knowledge.

·        An authoritative grasp of the subject, significant originality and insight,

·        Significant evidence of ability to sustain an argument, to think analytically, critically and/or creatively and to synthesise material.

·        Evidence of extensive study, appropriate to the task.

First Class Honours
60%-69% ·        Responds to most of the assessment criteria for the task.

·        A detailed response demonstrating a thorough grasp of theory, understanding of concepts, principles, methodology and content.

·        Clear evidence of insight and critical judgement in selecting, ordering and analysing content.

·        Demonstrates ability to synthesise material, to construct responses and demonstrate creative skills which reveal insight and may offer some originality.

·        Draws on an appropriate range of properly referenced sources.

Upper Second-Class Honours (2:1)
50%-59% ·        Responds to most of the assessment criteria for the task.

·        An effective response demonstrating evidence of a clear grasp of relevant material, principles and key concepts

·        An ability to construct and organise arguments.

·        Some degree of critical analysis, insight and creativity.

·        Demonstrating some conceptual ability, critical analysis and a degree of insight.

·        Accurate, clearly written/presented

Lower Second Class Honours (2:2)
40%-49% ·        Responds to some of the assessment criteria for the task.

·        A response demonstrating an understanding of basic points and principles sufficient to show that some of learning outcomes/assessment criteria have been achieved at a basic level.

·        Suitably organised work demonstrating a reasonable level of understanding

·        Covers the basic subject matter and is appropriately presented but is rather too derivative and insufficiently analytical.

·        Demonstrates limited conceptual ability, levels of evaluation and demonstration of creative skills.

·        Demonstrates adherence to the referencing conventions appropriate to the subject and/or task.

Third Class Honours
30%-39% ·        Overall insufficient response to the assessment criteria.

·        A weak response, which, while addressing some elements of the task, contains significant gaps and inaccuracies.

·        Indicates an answer that shows only weakly developed elements of understanding and/or other skills appropriate to the task.

·        May contain weaknesses in the presentation that constitute a significant obstacle in communicating meaning to the assessor.

Fail
20%-29% ·        Overall insufficient response to the assessment criteria.

·        A poor response, which falls substantially short of achieving the learning outcomes.

·        Demonstrates little knowledge and/or other skills appropriate to the task.

·        Little evidence of argument and/or coherent use of material.

Fail
10%-19% ·        Overall insufficient response to the assessment criteria.

·        A very poor response demonstrating a few relevant facts.

·        Displays only isolated or no knowledge and/or other skills appropriate to the task.

·        Little adherence to the task.

Fail
0%-9% ·        Overall insufficient response to the assessment criteria.

·        Displays virtually no knowledge and/or other skills appropriate to the task.

·        Work is inappropriate to the assessment task given.

Fail