![[SOLVED] BUS001 Coursework Assignment 80 Individual Essay Python](https://assignmentchef.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/downloadzip.jpg)
BUS001 Coursework Assignment: 80% Individual Essay
Due date: TBD
Submission: QMPLUS Turnitin
Please follow submission instructions and guidelines
Word Count: 1500-up to 2000 words (references excluded)
QMUL SBM policy allows for students to submit a word count 5% above the word count or 5% below the required word count.
Be mindful that exceeding well beyond the word count does not equal to better work! It is good academic discipline to stay within the required word count.
References: As an academic assessment, you are required to use appropriate
resources. You must include academic resources, which also entail module readings.
You may also provide supporting evidence from reputable reports (e.g.,
Government websites, Case studies, News Reports, i.e., The
Guardian). Websites like mindtools.com, Wikipedia, etc., will not be acceptable sources for this assignment.
Please use Harvard Referencing Style.
AI-Assistance: You may use AI to draft text and refine your work, i.e., proofreading,
grammar, etc. Your final submission should show how you have developed and refined these ideas. You must critically evaluate and modify any AI-generated content you use.
Tips: You are expected to submit individual independent work.
Please construct an academic essay using appropriate language, style, structure, and referencing.
*Essay Task: Consider the key components of Business Environment analysis (as discussed
in the module) and the effect of globalization on an organization’s strategy.
Describe and discuss how external environmental factors influence the internal business environment. Explain your answer using two or more PESTLE factors from the PESTLE framework. Reflect on globalization’s benefits and challenges and identify at least one challenge or benefit to the internal business environment.
|
Marked assignments exhibit the following features |
80-100 High 1st |
70-79.9 1st |
60-69.9 2:1 |
50-59.9 2:2 |
45-49.9 3rd |
40-44.9 Lower 3rd, pass |
0-39 Fail |
|
Quality of information & Conclusions |
Argument structure very clear and strong, high level of rigour in inference. Focused exclusively on explanation / evaluation |
Argument structure very clear and strong. Focused exclusively on explanation / evaluation |
Argument structure clear and strong Principally explanatory / evaluative |
Argument structure either clear or strong but not both Largely descriptive |
Argument structure lacking in clarity and / or strength Mainly descriptive |
Argument poorly structured. Purely descriptive |
No clear argument Purely descriptive, perhaps vague even in description |
|
Critical Thinking |
Exceptional analysis, synthesis and critique |
Excellent analysis, synthesis and critique |
Very good analysis, synthesis and critique |
Good analysis, synthesis and critique |
Weak analysis, synthesis and critique |
Poor analysis, synthesis and critique |
Very poor analysis, synthesis and critique |
|
Structure |
Very strongly, clearly logically structured, headings grounded in clear principles of inference from evidence to conclusion |
Strongly, clearly logically structured, headings grounded in clear principles of inference from evidence to conclusion |
Competently structured, headings grounded in some principles of inference from evidence to conclusion |
Adequately structured, with headings bearing some relationship with logic of argument |
Weaknesses in structuring and/or in subheadings |
Serious weaknesses in organisation and structure of the essay |
No clear organisation or structure to the essay |
|
Referencing |
Broad number of sources drawn from. Good use of in-text citations and referencing listed in Harvard style |
Broad number of sources drawn from. Good use of in-text citations and referencing listed in Harvard style |
Good number of sources drawn from and referenced. |
Good number of sources drawn from and referenced. |
Some citations but inadequate referencing |
Few sources drawn from but not properly cited |
Poor sources/ no referencing |
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.