Service Market

heba.malki

CRKC_5004_Unit__6_Final_Assessment___General_Assessment_Guide.docx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Service Market

CRKC 5004 – Services Marketing

University of Cumbria and Robert Kennedy College

Unit 6 Final Assessment & General Instructions – Please read very carefully

University of Cumbria, Services Marketing, Assessment

Unit	Type of Assessment	Weighting

1	No Assessment - Orientation
2	General Quiz	15%
3	Individual Forum Discussions	10%
4	Individual Forum Discussions	10%
5	General Quiz	15%
6	Final Assignment 1500 words Contributions from 2 Units (3 and 4)	50% (as above)

Table 1: Overview of Assessment for Organisational Behaviour

For the final assessment review the slides from Unit 6, Lecture 1 on Service Quality. Also refer to the textbook and you own personal research.

You should develop a short review of the GAPs Model of Service Quality. Consider an organisation you are familiar with and apply the model to that organisation. Make two explicit and supported recommendations for that organisation to improve its service quality.

Your paper should be a single MS Word document, report style, in portrait orientation, with the following structure: Cover Page*, Table of Contents, Body of the Report, Appendices. The Body of the Report should include sub-sections as necessary, starting with Introduction and ending with Recommendation, and the text should be supported, where appropriate, with relevant references. You are expected to undertake the analysis with a logical flow and structure.

You ae expected to research the question and offer multiple academic references. Do make sure you can access and use Emerald and EBSCO.

You should also insert (by copy and paste, or by using screen shots) your contribution to the two units (3 and 4) (these can be in landscape format if required). Three posts from each of Units 3 and 4 should be offered for assessment. The word limit for the body of the report is 1,500 words (with a 10% permitted excess).

The paper should have two parts:

Part One: Your 1500 word response with references to the question above.

Part Two: A record of your contribution from Units 3 and 4

Your paper (one file only, Word format) should be submitted to RKC’s OnlineCampus at the end of Unit 6 (see the syllabus for further details). Your report should not include any embedded files.

* The cover page should include the names of the institutions (UoC/RKC), the module name, title of the submission (Final Assessment), the date of submission, the number of words used in the paper, and your student number (not name).

The marking scheme for Part 1 is as follows:

Element	Weight
Presentation, Structure and Referencing	20
Content and Knowledge	35
Analysis	45
Total	100%

Your overall grade for the module will be based on the portfolio consisting of your performance in the unit Quiz (Units 2, 5) the Individual Contribution (Units 3,4) and Final Assessments, to which you will receive written feedback.

IMPORTANT: Failure to submit the final assessment will result in a fail grade. You must submit in order to pass the module.

Grading Matrix

	Exceptional (70-100%)	Exceeds expectations (60-69%)	Meets expectations (40-59%)	Improvement needed (30-39%)	Unsatisfactory (0-29%)
	- - - - - - - - - - - - Passing Grades - - - - - - - - - -		- - - Failing Grades - - -
Participates consistently (level of engagement)	Participation seeks and exploits every opportunity for interaction in the forum through prolific follow-on contributions. Student demonstrates leadership in the discussions.	Student’s presence demonstrates eagerness to participate and support collective learning. Student demonstrates leadership in the discussions.	Student engages with colleagues in various discussion threads on a regular basis and in a meaningful manner.	Only few largely ad hoc contributions are made. Contributions only minimally promote dialogue.	Participation does not comply with SA requirements. Dialogue is not enhanced, there is no or minimal contribution to the development of knowledge in the classroom.
Collaborates towards the collective generation of higher learning inferences	Contributes substantial viewpoints in discussions with the aim to explore meanings and identify hidden values.	Contributions advance discussions by challenging class with wellsubstantiated viewpoints.	Contributions are well positioned in the realm of unit’s theme and well integrated with ongoing discussions.	Contributions do not reinforce unit’s concepts and ideas and remain disconnected from ongoing discussions.	Initial contribution is poor and there are no follow on contributions.
Demonstrates a good understanding of knowledge and uses theory to inform arguments	Excellent understanding of subject. Contributions add new meaning in theoretical discoveries and help the class widen its horizons.	Very good understanding of subject. Theories that span module boundaries are used to offer insightful reflections.	Satisfactory understanding of subject. Contributions are built upon appropriate theoretical perspectives.	Understanding of basics of subject. Theory is only sporadically deployed, while not always used meaningfully.	Limited understanding of subject. No theory is used in initial and/or follow on contributions
Writing meets the standards of graduate studies (language clarity, organization, citing and referencing, etc.)	Excellent writing standards are demonstrated. Postings are written in clear, concise, technically correct English suitable for academic audiences. Harvard Referencing System is correctly applied.	Writing offers an academic reading where meanings are conveyed clearly and meaningfully. Harvard Referencing System is correctly applied.	Work unfolds coherently and smoothly using an organized approach i.e. sections are used, appropriate headings are chosen, etc. Harvard Referencing System is correctly applied.	Writing uses correct language but meanings are not conveyed clearly. Work should become more coherent. There are several mistakes in the application of Harvard Referencing System.	Writing is sloppy, disconnected and exhibits strong expression difficulties. Harvard Referencing System is used wrongly.