Assessment 3: Case Study Analysis
COMM1100 – 2024 Term 3
In this assessment you will apply the tools and concepts you have learned and developed in the first half of the course to analyse a business case. Tutorial activities in Weeks 1-7 provided an opportunity for you to practice the skills needed to complete this assignment.
The case and questions will be released at 4:00pm (AEDT) on Friday, 11 October 2024
The assessment is due at 4:00pm (AEDT) on Friday, 25 October 2024
Expected Length: Expected Length: Approximately 1,200 words, +/-10% (i.e., please aim for your submission to be between 1,080 and 1,320 words). The word count includes all tables, graphs, and figures, but does not include your reference list and in-text citations.
Every 200 words in excess of the upper limit will reduce your overall assessment mark by 1.
Font: Please use Arial, Calibri, Times New Roman or Robotofont, 12 point. Some other fonts are not easy for the markers to download.
Format: No cover page. Please do not copy the questions into your response.
Referencing style.:Harvard. You are expected to provide in-text citations and a reference list. (Law references follow a citation system called the Australian Guide to Legal Citation 4th edition and not the Harvard referencing style. However, for the purposes of this assessment, Harvard referencing is acceptable. Guidelines for referencing AI software are provided below)
Weighting: 25%
Submit your assessment via the Turnitin links on Moodle (under the Assessment 3 tab). Acceptable file formats: Your submission must be saved as a Word document.
Save your file as [Your Name] [Your zID] Case Study Analysis COMM1100
Detailed submission instructions
You can find all resources and submission links you need to complete and submit your assessment under the ‘Assessment 3: Case Study Analysis’ tab in Moodle.
Before opening the Case Study Brief and Detailed Instructions, you are expected to open and
read theStudent Declarationregarding academic integrity.
If you used generative AI at any stage in the planning, research and/or writing of your assessment, you must submit a supplementary document (explained below) via the (IF YOU USED AI)Turnitin submission link: Document explaining the use of AI.
All students must complete theUse of Generative AI questionnairebefore submitting your answers. Your submission link will not become active until you have completed this.
Submit your assessment document using the (EVERYONE)Turnitin submission link: Case Study Analysis submission link (Answers).
Assessment3:cases udyna ysis suo mission Link(nsw ers)
Submission of incorrect/unreadable documents
It is your responsibility to check your assessment submission. The COMM1100 team is NOT responsible for checking that you have submitted the correct document.
Submitting an irrelevant document will result in a mark of 0. Submitting the correct document after the submission date will attract late penalties.
Policy on the use of generative AI
Use of generative AI software is allowed (but not required) for this assessment. Any output of generative AI software that is used within your assessment must be attributed with full referencing. You may use the University recommended Microsoft Copilotor any other
Generative AI platform. of your choice. Please note the use of Grammarly or any translation tools will also require the submission of a document explaining the use of AI in your work.
Possible acceptable uses of generative AI software include improving the writing and argumentative style. of your analysis or using AI assisted translation software to translate a first draft written in another language into English.
You will be assessed based on the content of the document that you submit. The outputs of AI tools are not always accurate, appropriate, or properly referenced. By using generative AI software, you are assuming the responsibility of moderating and critically evaluating the outputs from the AI tools you use before submitting your assessment. Including inaccurate, inappropriate, or falsely/incorrectly referenced content may result in a failing grade based on the marking rubric.
As generative AI and other tools make it increasingly easy to generate and distribute convincing but false or misleading information, the importance of using and critically evaluating credible sources is more important than ever. This is reflected in the marking criteria for this assessment. Generative AI software is a potentially powerful tool when used appropriately, but it is not necessarily a credible source of information.
Consequences of Failure to Acknowledge AI Use
If the outputs of generative AI software are not appropriately attributed in your submission, your marker will determine whether the omission is significant. If so, you may be asked to explain your understanding of your submission. If you are unable to satisfactorily demonstrate your understanding of your submission, you may be referred to the UNSW Conduct & Integrity Office for investigation for academic misconduct and possible penalties.
Required documentation
If you choose to use generative AI software at any stage of the planning, research and writing of your assessment, you must submit a separate document, which contains the following:
1. A short description of how you used generative AI software for this assessment. This should include a description of what prompts/inputs you used (e.g., questions, text from your original first draft, etc.) and how you evaluated, moderated, and incorporated the output into your final submission.
2. A complete transcript. of your interactions with all generative AI tools that you used. This should include the full “conversation” between you and the software from beginning to end. If you have used translation software, this should include your original non-English draft.
This document will not be marked. It serves two purposes. First, it is meant to be a reflective exercise for you to consider whether you have used generative AI tools in an appropriate and effective way. Second, it will be a reference that your marker can consult for additional context when evaluating your submission against the marking criteria – for example, if there are any questions regarding your attribution of AI tools, your referencing of source material, or how you have applied course concepts.
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.