UK's No.1 Assignment Help, Trusted Since 2018
Get Expert-crafted assignments
Looking for Plagiarism-Free Answers for Your US, UK, Singapore, New Zealand, and Ireland College/University Assignments?
Talk to an Expert| Category | Assignment | Subject | Business |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | Aston University | Module Title | BEM101 Principles of International Business |
| Assessment Title | Group Presentation and Individual Essay |
|---|---|
| Academic Year | 2026 |
(How should I use this brief to help with my assessment?)
This brief gives you key information and guidance about your assessment. It’s the starting point for your work, and your module tutors will refer to it during assessment discussions. Read the brief carefully, along with any other materials your tutors provide, and use them to help you plan and complete your assessment.
| Module Code and Title | BEM101 Principles of International Business |
| Assessment Title | Group Presentation and Individual Essay |
| Assessment weighting |
|
| Submission Date and Time |
23 June 2026 (12:00 noon UK time)
29 June 2026 (12:00 noon UK time) |
| Word Count/Page Count/Length presentation/ Fixed Window Assessment Period (in hours/days) |
Task 1: Group presentation (10-15 mins) Task 2: Individual essay 2500 words (+/- 10%) |
| Ethical Approval requirement (Only if needed) | NA |
Assessment Mode (What do I need to produce at the end?)
a. Task 1: The student is required to work with other members of the group (5-6 students per group) to create a 10-15-minute presentation.
b. Task 2: The student is required to choose one question and write an individual essay of 2500 words (+/- 10%).
Task Description (What do I have to do for this assessment?)
Task 1: Group presentation
You are required to work with other members of your group (5-6 students per group) to create a 10-15-minute presentation to answer the following question:
After presenting, the group should respond to the audience’s questions. Each group member will be graded equally.
Please follow the steps to prepare group presentation:
Step 1
Choose one MNE from the list provided, or select another MNE of your interest as your case study:
Step 2
The presentation should follow this structure:
1. Company Overview
Briefly introduce the firm that you chose, including key markets, industry, and global presence.
2. Competitive Advantage Analysis
3. International Strategy Evaluation
Describe how the firm is adapting its international strategy in response to these shifting dynamics. Consider areas such as:
4. Critical Evaluation of Strategic Effectiveness
Task 2: Individual essay
Choose one of the following questions to write an essay:
The individual essay needs to follow this basic structure:
Additional requirement:
Submission Instructions (When and Where do I submit?)
a. Please submit your assessment via your module’s Assessment Area on Blackboard. Guidance on how to submit can be found below:
b. Specify instructions for Task 1:
c. Specify formatting instructions for Task 2:
Font: Times New Roman
Font Size: 12
Spacing: 1.5 spaced
d. For late submission of work and penalties and other assessment regulations, please refer to Assessment Regulations, Policies, and Guidelines.
e. If you are unable to submit your assignment, please visit Academic Support for further information on exceptional circumstances.
Link to Learning Outcomes (How does the assessment help you demonstrate the outcomes of this module?)
These tasks aim to achieve the following learning outcomes:
Purpose of Assessment (Why am I doing this? How does this link to my future role as a professional in the discipline? What knowledge, concepts or skills should I demonstrate? How might this link to (name of specific PSRB) )
The rationale behind these tasks is to create an opportunity to apply the knowledge and concepts
covered in the module in practical international business contexts. They allow you to demonstrate key professional skills, including critical thinking, research, analysis, and communication. It also provides an opportunity to engage with international business theories and practical insights, and to use them to analyse real-world examples. The tasks develop your ability to work both independently and collaboratively, and to present well-structured arguments. Overall, the assessments support your understanding of the factors shaping international business operations, the challenges and opportunities faced by multinational enterprises, and how firms compete in a complex global environment, while enabling you to apply knowledge and analytical skills to devise international business strategies.
When and where can I find my grades and feedback?
Staff will aim to return provisional marks for coursework assessments to students within 4 weeks of the submission deadline during term time.
Summative feedback and provisional grade will be released on [Date and time] via the Assessment Area on Blackboard.
Any grades that you see outside of My Aston Portal (MAP) should be thought of as provisional. Only final Exam Board-approved grades will appear in MAP. Feedback and provisional grades can be accessed in Blackboard for both Turnitin and Blackboard Assignments. [Select one of the following depending on your submission] - For Turnitin assignments, see our guide to accessing your Turnitin feedback. For all other types of assignments, use this Grades guide.
What further information and advice might help me to complete this task?
What will my work be marked against?
Please refer to the following assessment criteria for your reference.
Group Presentation:
| Criteria | <40% (Fail) | 40–49% (Fail) | 50–59% (Pass) | 60–69% (Merit) | 70–79% (Distinction) | 80% + (Distinction) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issue Identification and Contextual Understanding (20%) | Issue irrelevant or missing. No clear understanding of MNE(s) or business environment. Context absent or incorrect. | Unclear or inappropriate issue selection. Weak understanding of the MNE(s) and limited or inaccurate international context. | Issue is somewhat relevant; understanding of the MNE(s) and global context is basic and lacks depth or clarity. | Issue is clearly defined; good understanding of the MNE(s) and global context. Logical relevance to international business. | Well-justified issue and strong contextual framing. Clear insight into the international environment and relevance to business strategy. | Excellent identification of issue with strategic insight. Deep contextual understanding and clear linkage to global competitive environment. |
| Critical Analysis and Evaluation (40%) | Analysis is absent, purely descriptive, or irrelevant. Very limited or no use of sources to support arguments. Findings or evidence are poorly communicated or absent/disconnected from the issue. No evaluation of strategy; presentation is a summary rather than analysis. | Limited analysis, with content largely descriptive and lacking depth. Sources are weak, poorly integrated, or minimally used. Attempts at evaluation are vague or unclear, with little connection between evidence and conclusions. Analytical points are stated but not explained or justified. | Some evidence of analysis, but superficial or uneven across the presentation. Sources are used but lack quality, balance, or proper integration. Evaluation is basic, with limited critical questioning of the firm’s strategy or international context. Conclusions are presented but not strongly linked to evidence or theory. | Clear and structured analysis of trends and strategy, supported by relevant evidence. Evaluation considers strengths and weaknesses of the MNE’s approach, with some critical questioning. Sources are credible and integrated, though not always consistently. Findings are explained clearly, showing logical links between analysis, evidence, and conclusions. | Strong, coherent analysis that demonstrates depth of understanding. Evaluation is well-developed, showing balance (strengths and weaknesses) and awareness of alternative perspectives. Evidence is well-chosen, varied, and consistently integrated to support analysis. Theoretical frameworks are applied effectively to interpret findings. | Sophisticated, original analysis with deep insight into the MNE’s international strategy. Evaluation is nuanced, highly critical, and demonstrates strategic understanding of global dynamics. Evidence is rich, diverse, and seamlessly integrated, showing excellent research quality. Findings are communicated with clarity and precision, showing strong synthesis of theory, evidence, and practice. |
| Recommendations (20%) | No recommendations or entirely irrelevant. | Recommendations are vague, unrealistic, or unsupported. Little relevance to analysis or business context. | Recommendations are simple and lack realism or depth. Limited justification provided. | Recommendations are reasonable, relevant, and supported by analysis. Feasibility considered. | Recommendations are well-developed, practical, and justified. Thoughtful and aligned with strategic evaluation. | Highly strategic and innovative recommendations. Strongly justified and grounded in deep analysis. Practical and impactful. |
| Presentation Delivery (15%) | The presenter is largely inaudible and hesitant. Little or no evidence of planning or rehearsal. Presentation is poorly timed, significantly under or over the limit. The presentation did not keep to time. | The presenter is sometimes audible but lacks fluency and confidence. Planning or rehearsal is limited. Time management is poor. | The presenter communicates adequately, is mostly audible and somewhat fluent. Some evidence of planning and rehearsal. Time management is acceptable but could be improved. | Presenter is confident, audible, and delivers the presentation fluently. A clear level of planning and rehearsal is evident. Presentation keeps to time. | The presenter is confident and highly fluent, with good audience engagement. Presentation is well-paced and clearly benefits from thorough planning and rehearsal. Keeps to time effectively. | The The presenter is exceptionally confident, engaging, and delivers with style and enthusiasm. Presentation is perfectly timed and demonstrates a very high level of planning, rehearsal, and audience connection. |
| Q&A and Audience Interaction (5%) | Cannot answer audience questions; shows no understanding or willingness to engage. | Answers are incorrect, off-topic, or absent; unable to clarify points when challenged. | Provides some correct answers but with limited detail or confidence; struggles under follow-up questions. | Answers most questions accurately with relevant examples; occasional uncertainty but generally competent. | Handles questions with confidence and clarity, providing evidence-based responses and linking answers to presentation content. | Demonstrates exceptional mastery in Q&A, answering with depth, clarity, and strategic insight; responses enhance audience understanding. |
Individual Essay
| Criteria | 80% + (Distinction) | 70%-79% (Distinction) | 60%-69% (Merit) | 50%-59% (Pass) | 40%-49% (Fail) | <40% (Fail) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content and Scholarship (40%) | Shows a deep and critical understanding of the material taught and discussed as well as key concepts, theories, and debates, with evidence of original insight and independent scholarship. Integrates a wide range of high-quality academic and professional sources, showing an ability to synthesise complex information and contribute new perspectives to the field. Demonstrates professional standards and can potentially contribute to academic or practical discourse. | Shows excellent knowledge and a clear understanding of the relevant subject area. Evidence of independent reading and thinking that consistently covers the material taught and discussed, and uses a wide range of appropriate and high-quality sources. Shows excellent understanding and critical engagement with theories, concepts, and debates that are highly relevant to the question. | Shows good knowledge and a clear understanding of the relevant subject area, with perhaps some minor misconceptions or ambiguity. Evidence of independent reading and thinking that covers the material taught and discussed, and uses a fairly wide range of appropriate and quality sources. Shows good understanding and critical engagement with theories, concepts, and debates that are mostly relevant to the question. | Shows basic knowledge and a relatively clear understanding of the relevant subject area, with occasional misconceptions or ambiguities that do not significantly undermine the overall content. Some evidence of appropriate reading and thinking that covers the material taught and discussed, and uses some appropriate sources. Shows basic understanding and limited critical engagement with theories, concepts, and debates that are relevant to the question. | Shows some limited knowledge and a simple understanding of the relevant subject area, with many misconceptions or ambiguity that undermines the content in places. Limited evidence of appropriate reading and thinking that covers the material taught and discussed, and uses a narrow range of appropriate sources. Shows limited understanding of theories, concepts, and debates relevant to the question, and lacks critical engagement. Does not fully cover the requirements of the assignment, or does so, but not sufficiently to pass. | Shows no evidence or very limited knowledge or understanding of the relevant subject area. No or very limited evidence of appropriate reading and thinking that covers the material taught and discussed, and uses very limited or no appropriate sources. Shows minimal understanding of relevant theories, concepts, and debates, with little or no critical engagement or application to the question. Contains frequent major misconceptions and ambiguity; an attempt has been made to complete the assignment, but it clearly does not meet the learning outcomes. |
| Quality of arguments presented (40%) | Exhibits outstanding sophistication, originality, and analytical depth in argumentation. The discussion is highly persuasive and logically structured, underpinned by rigorous critical evaluation of evidence. Conclusions and recommendations are highly insightful, practical, and demonstrate advanced strategic thinking, often offering novel approaches to the subject matter. | Excellent argument construction overall, informed by coherent, compelling, and the use of evidence that is appropriate and relevant to the arguments. Critical analysis is well-presented, demonstrating strong analytical ability. Research is thoroughly referenced and applied with clear and insightful interpretation. The implications are critically examined and well-integrated. Conclusions and recommendations are well-developed, practical, and justified. | Good argument construction overall, with generally coherent and relevant use of evidence. Critical analysis is largely presented, demonstrating good analytical ability. Research is referenced and applied appropriately. Most of the implications are critically examined and well-integrated. A few points lack critical insight or depth. Conclusions and recommendations are reasonable, relevant, and supported by analysis. | Basic argument construction; evidence is used, but is uneven, largely descriptive, or only partially relevant. Critical analysis is limited, demonstrating basic analytical ability. Research is referenced and applied with some relevance, but interpretation is limited or uneven. Some of the implications are acknowledged but not fully explored or critically examined. Conclusions and recommendations are relatively simple and lack realism or depth. | Weak argument construction; relevant evidence is minimally used or inconsistently applied. Critical analysis is very limited, demonstrating little analytical ability. Research use is limited or inconsistently applied. Interpretation of findings and their implications is very limited and superficial. Conclusions and recommendations are vague, unrealistic, or unsupported. | Poor or fragmented argument; little or no use of relevant evidence, and minimal or no critical analysis. Research is poorly understood, misinterpreted, or inappropriately applied. There is little awareness of implications, and the work lacks clarity, critical analysis, and relevance. No conclusions and recommendations are entirely irrelevant. |
| Presentation (20%) | Written expression is clear and precise, reflecting a professional standard of academic communication. The structure is highly effective, allowing complex ideas to be presented with clarity and flow. The work has no errors in spelling and grammar. Demonstrates exemplary adherence to academic conventions (referencing, citation style, tone, and presentation), with all sources acknowledged accurately and consistently. | The writing is very well written overall. Very good layout and structure. Minimal or no spelling and grammatical errors. Excellent attention to professional norms (e.g., referencing, use of academic tone/language). No referencing or citation error. | The writing is well-written overall. Good layout and structure in most of the parts. Few spelling or grammatical errors. Good attention to professional norms (e.g., referencing, use of academic tone/language). Minor citation/referencing error. | The writing is generally clear. Basic layout and structure, and some parts lack consistency and coherence. Some spelling or grammatical errors. Some attention to professional norms (e.g., referencing, use of academic tone/language). Regular, though minor, errors in referencing and citation. | The writing, layout, and structure are uneven, with issues in clarity, coherence, or organisation that affect the overall presentation. Frequent spelling or grammatical errors sufficient to impede understanding. Limited attention to professional norms (e.g., referencing, use of academic tone/language). Regular citation and referencing errors are apparent. | The assignment is not well written overall. Poor layout and structure. Persistent spelling or grammatical errors sufficient to impede understanding. Poor attention to academic norms (e.g., referencing, use of academic tone/language). Significant citation and referencing errors are apparent. |
Buy Custom Answer Of BEM101 Principles of International Business Assignment
Order Non Plagiarized AssignmentDo you need support with your BEM101 Principles of International Business Assignment? Our easy and friendly International Business Assignment Help is here to guide you through every topic. You can use our clear assignment examples and Samples to understand how to structure your work and improve your learning. With reliable Assignment Help UK, you get simple explanations, helpful tips, and study guidance to boost your confidence. Make your assignment journey stress-free—learn better, understand more, and move forward with success!
Hire Assignment Helper Today!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
