Looking for Plagiarism-Free Answers for Your US, UK, Singapore, New Zealand, and Ireland College/University Assignments?
Talk to an Expert| Category | Assignment | Subject | Marketing |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) | Module Title | 44-710481 International Marketing Strategy |
|
Module Leaders: Dr Ellen Bennett, Dr Tony Lynn and Dr Emily Moorlock |
Level: 7 |
|
|
Module Name: Dissertation |
Module Code: 44-710481-AF |
|
|
Assessment Type (e.g. portfolio/presentation etc.): Self-Recorded Presentation |
Module Credits: 60 |
|
|
Individual/Group: Individual |
Weighting: 20% |
Wordcount or equivalent: 6 minutes |
|
Final submission date and time: please see assessment schedule on module Blackboard site |
Online submission: Yes |
Format: Powerpoint (presentation) and Microsoft Word (ethics form) |
|
Assessed Module Learning Outcomes 1. Develop clear and appropriate research objectives that address a contemporary disciplinary issue. 2. Review and critically appraise relevant disciplinary literature in relation to the dissertation topic. 3. Develop, justify and apply an appropriate research approach and design for the project,considering both its limitations and compliance with the required research ethics process. |
||
For Task One, you will record a 6-minute presentation that summarises the progress you have made on your dissertation to date. This presentation helps you clarify your project direction, check feasibility with your supervisor and receive early feedback before you begin full data collection and analysis.
In the presentation we are looking for you to:
In your presentation, you might include:
You should provide a critical evaluation of the key themes emerging that are emerging from your review of the literature so far.
This might include:
You should explain:
This should be on one slide in a table showing a week-by-week overview up to the deadline of what you will be doing and when to ensure you submit on time.
This slide should include an overview of how you have used AI, using the University’s AI Transparency Scale (AITS). You must include a statement of how you have used AI, including all prompts used.
You can use AI on this task to support you with an outline structure and to prompt thinking. For your dissertation AI tools should not be used for concept development. This is a core part of the learning on the module, and the use of AI in this manner will undermine your development and the integrity of your work. You cannot take any content directly from AI to generate content for slides. Submitting AI-generated text as your own is considered academic misconduct.
1.I confirm that no AI tools were used in the preparation or completion of this assessment. This submission aligns with AITS 1 of the Artificial Intelligence Transparency Scale (AITS). or
2.I used AI at AITS 2 (AI for Shaping) of the Artificial Intelligence Transparency Scale (AITS). I acknowledge the use of AI to....
5. Additional Documents to Upload
To pass the assignment you must complete and upload the ethics form and all associated materials with your recorded presentation.
| Assessment Marking Criteria | Distinction | Merit | Pass | Fail | Fail | Fail | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exceptional 96 |
High 89 |
Mid8 1 |
Low 74 |
High 68 |
Mid 65 |
Low 62 |
High 58 |
Mid 55 |
Low 52 |
Borderline 45 |
Mid 35 |
Low 25 |
Zero 0 |
|
| A clear and appropriate research focus is identified (LO1) | Excellent and insightful articulation of the research focus. The focus is exceptionally well-justified, tightly aligned with the research aim, objectives and/or research question(s) and context. | A clear and well articulated research focus. The focus is well justified and aligned with the research aim, objectives and/or research question(s) and context. | A research focus is identified and is generally relevant to the topic area though it is broad or underdeveloped. | No or limited clarity on project focus, with no clear aim, objectives and/or research question(s). The focus is overly broad, contradictory or inappropriate. | Work not submitted, work of no merit, penalty in some misconduct cases. | |||||||||
| Critically appraisal and evaluation of relevant literature (LO2) | Exceptional breadth and depth of engagement with the literature, with a critical appraisal and strong synthesis of the relevant literature. | Good appraisal and evaluation of relevant literature. Engagement with wider reading and an appropriate level of critical evaluation of the literature drawn on. | Satisfactory appraisal and evaluation of relevant literature. Reasonable engagement with wider reading. Literature review lacks critical evaluation. | Little evidence of reading and engagement with relevant literature. Lack of wider reading. | ||||||||||
| An appropriate and justified research approach, with consideration of the limitations of the research approach and design (LO3) | The research approach is highly appropriate, precisely articulated and critically justified, demonstrating advanced understanding of the methodological and philosophical underpinnings shaping the project. The design and analytical strategy are well-constructed, rigorous and tightly integrated with the research focus. Limitations are exceptionally insightful and critically reflected on, with consideration of their impact on the project. | The research approach is clearly articulated, well-aligned with the aims and logically explained with a coherent and well-reasoned rationale for the chosen approach and design. Methodological choices reflect a good understanding of relevant philosophical assumptions, with limitations identified and discussed with appropriate depth. | The research approach is appropriate and broadly aligned with the research focus. Limited justification for the approach. The design is generally suitable but may be under-developed. Some acknowledgement of the limitations though this tends to be superficial or generic. | The research approach is absent, inappropriate or poorly articulated, with little or no justification. The methodology lacks coherence or alignment with the research focus, limitations are unacknowledged or misunderstood and the philosophical or methodological assumptions are unclear or missing. | ||||||||||
| The presentation slides are well structured, professionally presented and follow the brief appropriately, with points communicated clearly, and demonstration of strong postgraduate writing skills, including appropriate use of APA referencing and supporting evidence. | The slides are exceptionally well designed, highly professional and align exceptionally well with the brief. The written content on the slides demonstrates advanced postgraduate quality. Precise APA referencing and well-selected supporting evidence that is integrated seamlessly. | The slides are well-structured, professional, contain a good balance of information and clearly align with the brief requirements. Points are communicated clearly and coherently. The writing style is strong and appropriate for postgraduate level. APA referencing is accurately followed and relevant supporting evidence is consistently drawn on. | Reasonable adherence to the recommended structure, with the presentation being easy to follow. Some engagement with wider reading. Reasonable adherence to APA referencing. Some errors in grammar and spelling. | The slides are poorly structured, unprofessional or do not follow the brief. Points are unclear, disorganised and/or difficult to follow. The writing quality is weak and not at a postgraduate level, with inaccurate, inconsistent or missing APA referencing and insufficient supporting evidence. | ||||||||||
| The recorded component of the presentation adds to the content of the slides and demonstrates clear understanding of the project. | The recording adds significant value to the slides through clear, insightful and well-integrated explanation. Strong understanding of the project is articulated and delivery is engaging, deepening and enriching the content of the slides. | The recording adds clear and relevant elaboration to the slides, enhancing the audience's understanding. It demonstrates a good grasp of the project with coherent explanations and confident communication. | The recording provides basic additional explanation to the slides and shows an adequate understanding of the project. Some points lack depth and/or clarity, but overall is understandable. | The recorded component is missing, unclear or does not add meaningful content beyond the slides. Limited or inaccurate understanding of the project, with explanations that are confusing, incomplete or poorly delivered. | ||||||||||
| Compliance with research ethics (LO3) | Pass – ethics form submitted as appendix | Fail (task) – no ethics form submitted Note: if no ethics form is submitted as an attached document you will not receive a pass mark for the module. |
||||||||||||
Deadline Near for 44-710481-AF Dissertation Task One: Self-Recorded Presentation? We Are Here to Help!
Get Urgent Help NowNeed assistance with your dissertation project? Our trusted Dissertation Writing Services help students complete high-quality academic work with confidence. From topic selection to Task One: Self-Recorded Presentation, we provide comprehensive Online Assignment Help tailored to Level 7 requirements. Students can also benefit from our Get Free List of Dissertation Examples For Students, offering useful examples for better understanding and learning. With expert guidance, plagiarism-free content, and timely support, you can strengthen your research skills and achieve better academic outcomes.
No hidden fees · Instant response · 100% confidential
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
