Marketing Guide For Business

INTRODUCTION

The marking criteria set for this section of the report are:** See breakdown below
Aside from class contacts, face-to-face and email supports (to some), course materials supporting this section are: information on course outline (p. 6), marking guide (as check list), workshops #2&#4 (p.14), and the provided benchmark article, that is, Wright et al. (2004) on the course website.

METHODOLOGY*Achieved: 0.5 marks (Somewhat inadequate) / out of 3**
Provides sufficient information, making a replication of the study possible, including** See breakdown below
CriteriaComment on attemptMark
CriteriaComment on attemptMark
·        Sets the context and establishes that the selected area is importantContext is set sufficiently, but the text fails to assure that the selected area is important. However, this criterion is twofold and both needs to be satisfied for a mark (see the higlighted/underlined linker). This was explained in workshop1 mark
·        Assures reader that the researcher is familiar with key research in their area by providing a brief review of literatureUnfortunately readers are not assured that the researcher (you) is familiar with the relevant literature. Only one citation is never enough for that purpose. Text is, therefore, mostly unconvincing.0 marks
·        States the objective of the report clearly and brieflySome objective is attempted but it is either inappropriate due to either poor verb choice or a structural error (i.e., format).0 marks
·        Provides an outline of the structure of the report/review to comeNo structural outline of the report is provided at the end of the introduction section. Please pay more attention to the assignment instructions and workshop exercises to avoid losing mark/s in the future.0 marks

·        Location of data collection, sampling method and sample

Not competent, as multiple elements; those are, location (i.e., database/s), and/or sampling method (i.e., how the articles were selected), and/or sample (i.e., the number of articles selected) are missing. Please pay more attention to instructions.1 mark
·        Procedures followed to find, access, and select resources in chronological orderThe the procedural information on methodology provided here (e.g., filtering applied to initial search results) is not sufficient to replicate the study.0 marks
·        Data analysis methodUnfortunately, there is no information about what was done with the data after collection. The question “How was the data analysed?” is unanswered (e.g., frequency analysis, content analysis). These were explained in class/es.0 marks

* Aside from class contacts, face-to-face and email supports (to some), course materials supporting this section are: information on course outline (p. 6), marking guide (as check list), workshop #4 (p.14) and the provided benchmark article, that is, Wright et al. (2004) on the course website.

0.5 marks is awarded here.

RESULTS*Achieved: 0.5 marks (Somewhat inadequate) / out of 3**
Sufficiently reports findings of the study and briefly comments on them by** See breakdown below
CriteriaComment on attemptMark
·        Spotting trends, patterns or irregularities in dataThere is hardly an attempt to spot trends in data. To be able to spot trends/patterns, one must NOT look -at- data, but look -within- and -between- data. In the vast absence of such look, results are unprocessed data (at article level & at face value).0 marks
·        Grouping related data by their spotted behaviourThere is weak or no attempt to group data by either their methodology, or, theme, or geography, or choronology, or else. Please follow instructions and classes/workshops more attentively.1 mark
·        Providing a brief commentary that adds meaning to data to make it more understandable for the readerIncompetent or no attempt. To make the results, which is mostly technical for the average reader, a commentary that would add meaning to presented results is an indispensible part of writing the results. This is missing in assignment text here.0 marks

* Aside from class contacts, face-to-face and email supports (to some), course materials supporting this section are: information on course outline (p. 6),marking guide (as check list), workshop #4 (p.14) and the provided benchmark article, that is, Wright et al. (2004) on the course website. As part of self-learning, observing the results/findings section of Wright at al. (2004) was strongly recommended in class (e.g., for visually presenting data such as in frequency distribution tables).

0.5 marks is awarded here

CONCLUSION*Achieved: 1 mark (Somewhat satisfactory) / out of 4**
The marking criteria set for this section of the report are:** See breakdown below

CriteriaComment on attemptMark
·        Makes a reference to the objective of the report and provides a summary of the most important finding(s)There is no attempt to either remind readers of the objective, or summarize key findings, or both. Please pay more attention to instructions.workshops (i.e., #4) and use marking guide as a checklist before submitting your work, as suggested.0 marks
·        Identifies limitations that restricted the validity and generalizability of the research conductedNo limitations to the present research conducted in this A1 is mentioned here. Please pay more attention to instructions and workshops.0 marks
·        Highlights implications (i.e., events, situations and/or actions likely to happen as a result of this research)No implication is stated. The question “What is likely to happen as a result of this research?” is left unanswered.0 marks
·        Provides case-specific suggestion(s)There is an attempt to state suggestions, but these are hardly case/task-specific (e.g., research on apple, suggestions on maple). Please pay more attention to the assignment instructions and workshop exercises to avoid losing mark/s in the future.1 mark

* Aside from class contacts, face-to-face and email supports (to some), course materials supporting this section are: information on course outline (p. 6), marking guide (as check list), workshop#4 (p.14), and the provided benchmark article, that is, Wright et al. (2004) on the course website.

REFERENCES*Achieved: 2 marks (Good) / out of 3**
The marking criteria set for this section of the report are:** See breakdown below
CriteriaComment on attemptMark
·        Uses at least 10 academic journal articlesThe reference list includes a minimum of 10 scholarly journal articles.1 mark
·        In the correct APA format both in-/end-textGood, but not great. There are numerous errors in the formatting of entries to the reference list. The formatting of in-text citations, in comparison, are relatively better.1 mark out of 2

* Course activities and materials supporting this section are: workshop #1 (ref. p.14 of course outline), a session with Auckland Campus library manager in W3, a special note particularly on resources to be used on p.8 of the course outline, and various sources on the course website, including the ‘Guide to APA Referencing for Whitireia Students’.

QUALITY OF COMMUNICATION*Achieved: 0.5 marks (Somewhat inadequate) / out of 3**
The marking criteria set for this section of the report is:** See breakdown below

CriteriaComment on attemptMark
·        Clear and organized presentation that facilitates reading with correct word choices and sentence structures, paragraphing, grammar and transitions btw. sectionsUnfortunately, the text contains many communication-related errors (e.g., grammar, paragraphing, sentence structuring, word choices) that block reader’s understanding and ability to see connections between presented ideas/arguments.1 mark

* This assessment criterion requires a reasonable reflection of academic language skills the learners have declared/evidenced as they had acquired on enrolment. Course activities and materials supporting this criterion are: workshops#1, #2 and #4 (ref. p.14 of course outline), the documents in the “Get better at scientific writing” folder in the self-study materials section on the course website, tips on writing good research reports by examples in the “Recommended Resources” listed on p.3 of course outline (also see A1 note on p.5).

0.5 marks is awarded here

DATA COLLECTION/RECORDING SHEET*Achieved: 3 marks (Good) / out of 4**
The marking criteria set for this section of the report is:** See breakdown below

CriteriaComment on attemptMark
·        For all examined articles, each of the four sections on the data collection sheet is properly and accurately filled with raw dataGood, but not great work. Data related to each of the four sections on the form (i.e., article descriptives, methodology, resuls, conclusion) are partially recorded. Some rows are still blank. If no data, then NA should be noted, as explained in class.3 marks
The article details (at the top of the form) in the APA format are provided mostly correctly.

* This assessment criterion requires the proper using of the data-collection/recording sheet, which is provided on the course website. The filling of this sheet was practiced in class in the workshop #4.

SUMMARY*Achieved: 1 mark (Somewhat satisfactory) / out of 4**
The marking criteria set for this section of the report is:** See breakdown below

CriteriaComment on attemptMark
·        A summary (300-350 words) of an article from the ‘Reading List’ that concisely and sufficiently provides substance reflecting comprehension of main points and an evaluation within research practice, and lists the resource in the correct APA (end-text) formatChoose an item.Choose an item.

* This assessment criterion was reminded in class while examining/marking a past student’s assignment in the workshop #4 (there, the student’s assignment was missing Task 2, that is, summary of an article from the course Reading List).

The summary is difficult to understand. Some of the sentences are hanging (incomplete) and the grammar mistakes are many. Therefore, it is difficult to understand the summary. Moreover, the author’s surname is not given, just an initial, hence it is difficult to validate that a known source from the reading list is used.Order Now

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

1 Step 1
GET INSTANT ASSIGNMENT HELP BY PHD EXPERTS FROM UNITED KINGDOM
keyboard_arrow_leftPrevious
Nextkeyboard_arrow_right