Learning

Coursework Marking Criteria The coursework for MN20546 will be marked to standards following the generic marking scheme for undergraduate assessments at Level 2/3 (see Section 8 of the university’s Assessment Handbook, appended to this document). Basic Criteria Reports receiving marks of 60 or above will generally meet all of the following criteria: Problem Identification

– Clearly identifies an organization and product for the consulting report – Identifies a marketing problem where consumer research can be relevant – Justifies problem, based on qualitative data and/or secondary data – Identifies a hypothesis, based on qualitative data and/or consumer psychology research

o Hypothesis should be about consumers’ psychology (how consumers think, feel, or behave)

Psychological Analysis

– Uses research literature effectively to argue for why hypothesis is plausible – Psychological concepts are explained correctly and applied logically to the product – Explains methodology in terms of how it tests hypothesis – Explains results in terms of how they bear on hypothesis – Depicts results clearly (e.g., using a figure or table) – Describes any important limitations on interpreting the results

Recommendations

– Uses results (as they relate to hypothesis) to justify one or more key recommendations – Clearly explains recommendation(s), possibly using further psychology or marketing

literature to elaborate – Makes clear why the recommendations are aligned with the firm’s goals (e.g., increasing

sales) and any important limitations are at least briefly discussed Overall

– Tells a clear and coherent story, with the report flowing logically – Clearly and concisely expresses arguments – Is written presentably and professionally, with minimal technical jargon

Exceptional Criteria Reports marked at 70 or above meet the above criteria, while going beyond these requirements in some way. For example, such reports might meet some (not necessarily all) of the following:

– Shows an effort to think “outside the box” – Relies substantively on material not covered directly in class – Makes particularly creative or non-obvious (albeit plausible) recommendations – Includes novel psychological theorizing (going beyond what is already known)

School of Management Assessment Handbook 2017/18 (Version 1.1) Page 23 of 48

0-19 Fail. A failure even to approach the learning outcomes for the unit or the set assessment criteria. Significant portions of the assessment either not present or not comprehensible as an answer to the question set. (marks in this range are outside the condonable range and a successful retrieval is required before credit can be awarded)

Level 2/3 (units starting with MN2 or MN3) Convenors should provide students with a copy of the relevant School of Management Generic Marking Scheme at the time that assessment is set.

80-100 First class performance plus. Outstanding performance that fulfils and exceeds designated learning outcomes

The level of reasoning and research or critical approach to research is highly professional and potentially publishable. Demonstrates a high degree of originality in the argument and execution. Strong evidence of understanding and critique of complex ideas from reading published research in the field. Excellent, highly readable expression.

70-79 First class performance. Excellent performance relative to designated learning outcomes

Excellent understanding of the theories presented on the unit and critical approach to research findings in the subject area. Examples are drawn from the student’s own investigation or conception and are intelligently used. Demonstrates a good understanding of central ideas in the discipline from wide reading of published research in the field. Shows the capacity to sustain a sound argument through to conclusions clearly informed by research in the subject area or discipline. Very good expression.

60-69 Good Pass. Very good performance relative to designated learning outcomes

Shows good understanding of the theoretical content and of its application. Where examples are used, these are derived from the student’s own investigation rather than simply being transferred from class material. The argument and/or presentation of different points of view are clear and well-constructed in relation to the question set. Shows a broad awareness of emerging ideas from recent research in the subject area drawn from reading outside lectures. Only minor flaws in expression.

50-59 Pass. Good performance relative to designated learning outcomes

Demonstrates an understanding of the content of the unit, but may lack some understanding of the more sophisticated theory. Arguments or points of view are presented but understanding of their background or principles may be more limited than for marks in the higher categories. Limited engagement with emerging ideas in the subject area or discipline and limited evidence of reading outside lectures. Some use examples drawn from the student’s own reading. Expression needs attention.

40-49 Low Pass. Satisfactory performance in designed learning outcomes

Demonstrates an understanding of the content of the unit, but does not extend investigation or analysis beyond material presented in lectures. Expression needs serious attention.

School of Management Assessment Handbook 2017/18 (Version 1.1) Page 24 of 48

35-39 Borderline Fail.

The student has not yet shown an adequate grasp of the subject, possibly with some serious misconceptions in the theory or failure to apply it in an appropriate way. (marks in this range are potentially condonable – i.e., depending on the student’s overall profile of marks, it is possible for credit to be awarded without the need for a successful retrieval to be undertaken)

20-34 Fail.

A failure to meet the assessment criteria for the piece of work, either through consistently poor execution, comprehensive misunderstanding of the unit’s content or a failure to address the question set. (marks in this range are outside the condonable range and a successful retrieval is required before credit can be awarded)

0-19 Fail. A failure even to approach the learning outcomes for the unit or the set assessment criteria. Significant portions of the assessment either not present or not comprehensible as an answer to the question set. (marks in this range are outside the condonable range and a successful retrieval is required before credit can be awarded)