| B: Learning Outcomes |
| On successfully completing this module, students should be able to:
· Assess and evaluate the role of sustainability as applied to organizations. · Evaluate sustainability as applied to the functions, systems and reporting structure of organizations.
|
| C: Assessment Task | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Task 1: (As part of a team)
Working as part of a team, you are required to plan, prepare and deliver a 20 minute oral presentation. You must select and assemble your own group please. (ie A maximum of 5 team members and a minimum of 3 team members) Then, as a team please negotiate and agree on one topic only from the list further below, on which to base the content of your presentation. It is expected you will plan hold a sufficient number of team meetings to enable you plan, research and prepare well for your presentation. Further it is advised that you rehearse your presentation several times to maximize the opportunity for a high mark. (In the interests of fairness, the team will be awarded one mark only for the whole team’s performance. However, should it be obvious that any individual team member has not contributed equally, then that individual’s mark can be adjusted accordingly) As applicable to all assessed group work, it is very important that all members fully understand the task, and the requirements of the assignment brief. Each team member must contribute equally and appropriately. Task 2: (As an individual) You are required, in an individual capacity, to submit a 1000 word informal report that critically analyses and evaluates the process of working towards the delivery of your team’s presentation. Important Guidance: Within your report you should carefully consider what went well and what did not go well, with regard to the planning, preparation, rehearsal(s) and delivery of your presentation. This could include reference to your series of team meetings leading up to your presentation date. You should also briefly report on how your team reacted to questions at the end of your presentation.
Within your informal report, you are further required to “apply” theory, as appropriate, relating to team building (eg Belbin, Tuckman and so on) and conflict management (eg Kilmann- Thomas). Do consider including appendices. You should also include reference to the feedback you received from your tutors and peers after the delivery of your presentation. Further please reflect upon the content of your presentation, identifying anything you would change or add if you were to deliver the same presentation again. Note: You need to ensure, please, that you include a copy of any presentation slides or Handouts used for the delivery of your presentation along with the submission of your individual report. Select ONE of the following topics for your presentation content: 1.It is argued that ‘recycling, reusing, reducing and rethinking’ are key attributes of successful sustainable entrepreneurs. Evaluate and assess to what degree you consider this statement to be correct. 1. Discuss the activities and processes an enterprise can consider in an effort to convince its stakeholders that it behaves ethically and responsibly. 2. “Sustainable Entrepreneurship versus Sustainable Development and protecting future generations” – the debate! Critically analyse this debate and present your views! 3.Evaluate and present key issues relating to social costs and social benefits that entrepreneurs must consider. 4. “Price, quality, service levels and ‘green’ issues“. Please examine to what degree successful sustainable development requires a holistic approach from all functions (departments) operating within an enterprise. 5.Discuss what is meant by ‘stakeholder mapping’ and analyse why stakeholder care is an important aspect of successful sustainable entrepreneurship. Important please: There must be reference to real life enterprises. Also, you are required to make reference to appropriate concepts, tools and techniques that have been discussed and addressed within the content of this module, in addition to your own research. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| D: Specific Criteria/Guidance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. The tutor will provide an example of the required layout for your informal business report. 2. Note that an example of the mark/feedback sheet that will be used for your presentation is shown below. BU 6019 Sustainable Entrepreneurship Group Oral Presentation Assessment Criteria and Feedback Form
No |
| E: Key Resources |
|
You should refer to your PowerPoint slides, module seminar notes and handouts and refer to the module reading list in your student handbook. In addition, links to websites, journals and specific business case studies will support you further. You should also visit the library to seek further materials.
|
| F: Submission Guidance |
| · You must submit assessments in Microsoft Word, Microsoft PowerPoint or PDF format.
· The file must be no larger than 40MB. · Your writing is expected to conform to Standard English in terms of spelling, syntax and grammar. · You must include your Assessment Number (J Number) in the header or footer. · Include your word count at the end of the assignment or the front cover. · Set up your page for A4 paper in portrait style. · The font size must be a minimum of point 12 Calibri (or equivalent) for the body of the assessment and footnotes must be 2 points smaller. · Line spacing in the body of the assessment must be 1.5 lines. · Number the pages consecutively. · Students should submit work before 12 noon on the deadline date electronically via Moodle. Please follow the ‘Turnitin submission’ link on the module space and follow the on-screen instructions, paying particular attention to any specific instructions for each assignment. · You must submit your work with the following details written on the first page: – Title of your work – Module title and code – Module Leader and Seminar Tutor (if relevant) – Number of words – Your student assessment number (J Number)
Student work that does not have this information on will not be identifiable after marking has taken place and risks being recorded as a non-submission.
|
| G: Document Format |
|
· The font size must be a minimum of point 12 Calibri (or equivalent) · Line spacing in the body of the assessment must be 1.5 lines · Include the following details written on the first page: Title of your work Module title and code Your student assessment number (J Number). Do not write your name or your student number. Word count (Please note penalties for excess word count) Module Leader and Seminar Tutor (if relevant) · Number the pages consecutively |
| H: Academic Integrity and Penalties |
|
It is your responsibility to ensure that you are familiar with all of the information contained in this brief as failure to do this may impact on your achievement. Please refer to the various Assessment Guidance below for detailed information on: |
| I: Rubrics and Criteria |
| Module Title: | Sustainable Entrepreneurship | Level: 6 | ||||||
| Assessment Title: | Oral Presentation and Individual Report | Weighted: 25% & 25% 1000 words | ||||||
| Criteria and weighting | 90-100%
Highly Exceptional Work |
80 – 90%
Outstanding Work |
70 – 79%
Excellent Work |
60 – 69%
Very Good Quality Work |
50 – 59%
Good Quality Work |
40 – 49%
Acceptable work with some good aspects |
20 – 39%
Work does not satisfy assessment criteria |
0-19%
Work fails to meet the assessment criteria |
| Critical analysis of process leading to the group presentation(20) | All relevant theories/conceptual models accurately and extensively presented. Exceptional evidence and analysis of process leading to the delivery of the presentation | All relevant theories/conceptual models accurately and extensively presented. Excellent evidence and analysis of process leading to the delivery of the presentation | Virtually all relevant theories/conceptual models accurately and extensively presented. High level of evidence and analysis of process leading to the delivery of the presentation. | Most of the relevant theories/conceptual models accurately presented.
Good level of evidence and analysis of the process leading to the delivery of the presentation |
Much of the relevant theories/conceptual models accurately presented. Reasonable evidence and analysis of the process leading to the delivery of the presentation. | No major omissions or inaccuracies in the presented theories/conceptual models. Some level of evidence and analysis of the process leading to the delivery of the presentation | A number of deficiencies or omissions in theories/conceptual models. Evidence and analysis of the process leading to the delivery of the presentation is inadequate or wholly absent | Significant deficiencies or omissions in theories/conceptual models. Evidence and analysis of the process leading to the delivery of the presentation is wholly absent |
| Evidence of relevant research, wider reading and team work(20) | Exceptional grasp of theoretical/conceptual and practical elements. Outstanding interpretative and team working skills | Excellent grasp of theoretical/conceptual and practical elements. Excellent interpretative and team working skills | Very good grasp of theoretical/conceptual and practical elements. Very good interpretative and team working skills. | Good grasp of theoretical/conceptual and practical elements. Good interpretative and team working skills. | Adequate grasp of theoretical/conceptual and practical elements. Good interpretative and team working skills. | Some grasp of theoretical/conceptual and practical elements. Reasonable interpretative and team working skills. | Major deficiencies in theoretical/conceptual and practical elements. Poor or absent interpretative and team working skills. | Significant deficiencies in theoretical/conceptual and practical elements. Poor or absent interpretative and team working skills. |
| Use of appropriate illustrations and examples(10) | Exceptional and outstanding integration of cases and examples from industry to support and justify content. | Excellent integration of cases and examples from industry to support and justify content. | Very good integration of cases and examples from industry to support and justify content. | Good integration of cases and examples from industry to support and justify content. | Adequate integration of cases and examples from industry to support and justify content. | Some integration of cases and examples from industry to support and justify content. | Poor quality of integration of cases and examples from industry to support and justify content | No integration of cases and examples from industry to support and justify content |
| Group coordination planning and preparation(20) | Evidence of outstanding planning, preparation and coordination .
Work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions. |
Excellent evidence of planning, preparation and coordination.
Work is evidenced by extensive and detailed research |
Evidence of comprehensive planning, preparation and coordination.
Work is evidenced by specific and detailed research |
Good evidence of planning, preparation and coordination.
Work is evidenced by specific and relevant research.
|
Evidence of competent planning preparation and coordination.
Work is evidenced by some relevant research.
|
There is some evidence of planning, preparation and coordination.
Work is evidenced by an attempt to source research. |
Negligible evidence of planning, preparation and coordination. There is evidence of research.. | No evidence of planning, preparation and coordination.
Negligible evidence of research. |
| Level of effectiveness of communication and engagement(20) | Exceptional presentation with clarity and coherence, highly sophisticated expression and use of language.
work produced could hardly be bettered when produced under parallel conditions. Near perfect spelling, punctuation and syntax. |
Extremely well presented with accuracy and flair; Highly sophisticated, fluent and persuasive expression of ideas. Near perfect spelling, punctuation and syntax. | Very clear, fluent, sophisticated and confident presentation and expression; highly effective vocabulary and style. Near perfect spelling, punctuation and syntax. | Clear, fluent, confident presentation and expression; appropriate vocabulary and style. High standard of accuracy in spelling, punctuation and syntax. | Clearly presented and , coherent expression;
reasonable range of vocabulary and adequate style. Overall competence in spelling, punctuation and syntax, although there may be some errors. |
Expression, vocabulary and style reasonably clear but lack sophistication. Inaccuracies in spelling, punctuation and syntax do not usually interfere with meaning. | Expression of ideas insufficient to convey clear meaning inpresentation; inaccurate or unprofessional terminology. Many errors in spelling, punctuation and syntax. | Incoherent presentation and expression. Heavily inaccurate; inappropriate use of language. |
| Discussion and handling of Q&A(10) | Exceptional responses to questions with high level of confidence Also discussed extremely well in written work | Outstanding responses to questions with high level of confidence. Discussed extremely well within written work. | Excellent responses to questions with confidence.
Discussed well within written work. |
Very good responses to questions.
Discussed well within written work. |
Good responses to questions.
Discussed reasonably within written work |
Acceptable responses to questions.
Briefly discussed within written work |
Poor responses to questions.
No reference to responses within written work |
No attempt to respond to questions asked.
No effort to discuss Q&A in written work |
