BUS4087 Introduction to Entrepreneurship (T1) Assessment Brief Template 2026 | BCU

Module Title:  INTRODUCTION TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Module Code:  BUS4087

Assessment Type 

Coursework

Level

4

Weighting

100%

Word Count

2000

Submission Date

20^th of July 2026

Submission Time

3 pm

Module Leader

Sayed Abdul Majid Gilani

Time Limit (for in person or oral assessments)

N/A

Assessment Information 

You will be required to design a 2000-word Portfolio

(Please find further details about the assessment on Moodle Page: 

Course: BUS4087 Introduction to Entrepreneurship S3A 2025/6 | Moodle

Please note that the details will be released in Week 1 and supporting material will be shared during the semester.

Assessment Task (with genre/type) 

Your task is to prepare a 2000-word portfolio which includes the following:

1. Entrepreneurial Profile Analysis (600 words)

2. Self-Assessment: Your Entrepreneurial Profile (600 words)

3. Business Idea: Future-Oriented Enterprise (800 words)

Assessment Title 

Scenario-based 2000 Word Portfolio Design

Things to include:  

This assessment is based on the following Scenario: The Entrepreneurial Explorer Portfolio.

“You have been commissioned by the Young Entrepreneurs Council to produce a report that profiles the entrepreneurial development journey of an individual and reflects on your own potential as a future entrepreneur.”

And comprises three components as follows:

Component 1. Conduct an Entrepreneurial Profile Analysis (600 words). In this part, you are required to:

(a) Analyse one entrepreneur’s traits, behaviours, and external influences.

(b) Link their journey to 2–3 relevant theories or models on entrepreneurship.

Component 2. Conduct a Self-Assessment: Your Entrepreneurial Profile (600 words). In this part, you are required to:

(a) Reflect on your own entrepreneurial traits and compare them with your chosen entrepreneur.

(b) Identify strengths, weaknesses, and competencies for development.

Component 3. Develop a Business Idea: Future-Oriented Enterprise (800 words). In this part you are required to:

(a) Generate a business idea using an AI tool (ChatGPT is recommended, attach the prompt and the output).

(b) Develop the idea showing Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) alignment (for details see: https://sdgs.un.org/goals), unique value, target customer, and potential income streams.

Completion of this assessment will address the following learning outcomes: 

1

Define and evaluate the concept of entrepreneurship underpinned by current academic theory, concepts and models.

2

Explore the evolution of entrepreneurship on context of environmental changes by identifying different categories and the trends contributing to their creation.

3

Understand the differences between entrepreneurs and small business management

4

Explore and review what makes a good entrepreneur by understanding the traits and behaviours evidenced by case studies.

Marking Criteria 

Marking Rubric 

Criterion 1 

80-100% 

70-79% 

60-69% 

50-59% 

40-49% 

20-39% 

Fail 

0-19% 

Fail 

Addresses the assignment brief 

Does not address the assignment brief 

Structure, Organisation, and Communication of Ideas (30%)

Outstanding structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. 

Exceptionally well-organised and professional portfolio with a seamless, coherent structure.

Consistently polished layout, formatting, and presentation.

Outstanding clarity, eloquence, and compelling expression of ideas.

Excellent grammar, tone, and structural consistency throughout.

Introduction clearly states the main argument and contextualises the discussion.

Content is complete, relevant, and logically ordered to support the central argument.

Paragraphs flow smoothly, with transitions and conclusions that reinforce the main argument.

Conclusion effectively synthesises key points and aligns with the overall argument.

Excellent structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. 

Strong structure and logical development throughout.

Smooth transitions and clear progression across sections.

Very clear and fluent communication, with appropriate vocabulary and tone for an academic audience.

Introduction provides clear context and outlines the points developed in the main body.

Discussions are complete, relevant, and logically ordered to support the central argument.

Paragraphs are well-connected, with conclusions that link ideas across the text.

Conclusion synthesises the main points and reinforces the overall context and argument.

Very good structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. 

 Well-structured portfolio with clear task separation, effective use of headings, and coherent flow.

Logical development and smooth transitions across sections.

Clear, confident, and fluent communication, using appropriate vocabulary and tone for an academic audience.

Well-articulated and compelling ideas, with few language or grammatical issues.

Introduction clearly presents the main argument and provides relevant context for the body of the work.

Discussions are complete, relevant, and logically ordered to support the central argument.

Paragraphs flow naturally, with conclusions that link ideas and reinforce coherence.

Conclusion synthesises key points and connects back to the main argument, providing a strong sense of closure.

Good structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. 

 Adequate structure with basic logical flow across sections.

Formatting is inconsistent, affecting overall presentation.

Communication is generally clear but lacks polish and fluency in places.

Some sections are underdeveloped or lack clarity.

Introduction is present and outlines the topic.

Discussions are relevant and mostly clear, with some logical progression.

Some paragraphs conclude with limited connections between ideas.

Conclusion is present and loosely ties back to the main body.

Satisfactory structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. 

Structure is evident but inconsistently applied, with poor flow between sections.

Some parts are organised, while others are unclear or disjointed.

Communication is basic; ideas are stated but lack clear elaboration.

Frequent grammar and language issues hinder clarity.

Introduction is present but superficial, offering limited context.

Discussions are mostly relevant but lack clarity and coherence in places.

Paragraphs may include conclusions, but links between ideas are weak or absent.

Conclusion is superficial and does not effectively synthesise the main points.

Poor structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. 

Poor structure with disorganised sections and weak or absent transitions.

Lacks headings or sub-headings, making the content difficult to navigate.

Hard to follow due to significant communication issues and incoherent ideas.

Ideas are underdeveloped and lack logical progression.

Frequent grammar and language errors throughout.

No appropriate introduction to frame the discussion.

Discussions are incomplete, and most points are difficult to follow.

No appropriate conclusion to summarise or connect the main ideas.

Very poor structure, organisation, and communication of ideas. 

Portfolio is missing or severely underdeveloped.

No logical structure or cohesion across tasks.

Communication is severely lacking; ideas are unintelligible.

Major spelling and grammar errors throughout.

No introduction to frame the content.

Discussions are irrelevant, incomplete, or missing.

No conclusion provided.

Marking Criteria 

Marking Rubric 

Criterion 2 

80-100% 

70-79% 

60-69% 

50-59% 

40-49% 

20-39% 

Fail 

0-19% 
Fail 

Addresses the assignment brief 

Does not address the assignment brief 

Knowledge and Understanding (30%) 

Outstanding demonstration of knowledge and understanding. 

Excellent integration of multiple entrepreneurship theories and models.

Strong conceptual application with depth of analysis.

Demonstrates extensive knowledge and insightful understanding of the subject area.

Effectively engages with key concepts and ideas throughout.

No misunderstandings or factual errors present.

Excellent demonstration of knowledge and understanding. 

Good integration of theory applied critically and insightfully.

Demonstrates substantial knowledge and a strong understanding of the subject area.

Shows thorough engagement with key concepts and ideas.

No misunderstandings or factual errors present.

Very good demonstration of knowledge and understanding. 

Good use of relevant theories and models, with sound integration of theory and practice.

Demonstrates a clear understanding of the subject area.

Shows basic knowledge and a purposeful attempt to engage with key concepts and ideas.

No misunderstandings or factual errors present.

Good demonstration of knowledge and understanding. 

Limited range of theories or models applied, with inconsistent or shallow integration.

Demonstrates only a basic understanding of the subject area.

Shows limited engagement with key concepts and ideas.

Minimal misunderstandings, but no factual errors.

Satisfactory demonstration of knowledge and understanding. 

Basic or inconsistent application of theories and frameworks.

Demonstrates a superficial understanding of the subject area.

Shows superficial knowledge and limited grasp of key concepts and ideas.

Contains minimal misunderstandings and some factual errors.

Poor demonstration of knowledge and understanding. Minimal or incorrect use of theories and frameworks.

Does not demonstrate an understanding of the subject area.

Shows insufficient knowledge of key concepts and ideas.

Contains multiple misunderstandings and factual errors.

Very poor demonstration of knowledge and understanding. 

No evidence of theories or frameworks used.

Assertions are unsupported and unsubstantiated.

Does not demonstrate any understanding of the subject area.

Marking Criteria 

Marking Rubric 

Criterion 3 

80-100% 

70-79% 

60-69% 

50-59% 

40-49% 

20-39% 

Fail 

0-19% 

Fail 

Addresses the assignment brief 

Does not address the assignment brief 

Application of Critical Thinking Principles (30%)

Outstanding application of critical thinking principles. 

Demonstrates sophisticated and constant critical thinking, with deep insights into entrepreneurship, trends, and environmental dynamics.

Highly evaluative, original, and academically engaging.

Effectively engages with key and wider reading; sources are explained, explored, evaluated, and interpreted.

Considers multiple viewpoints, identifying strengths and weaknesses to build a reasoned, balanced argument.

Draws informed, persuasive, and well-supported conclusions.

Excellent application of critical thinking principles. 

Strong and consistent critical engagement with material.

Reflective and contextually grounded analysis.

Engages with key and wider reading; sources are explained, explored, and evaluated to support academic discussion.

Considers different viewpoints and identifies strengths and weaknesses to build a coherent argument.

Draws informed and well-supported conclusions.

Very good application of critical thinking principles. 

Demonstrates analytical thinking with some insightful points.

Shows a clear understanding of the evolution of entrepreneurship and external influences.

Consistent critical thinking, though depth may vary.

Engages with key reading; sources are explained and used to support appropriate academic discussion.

Considers different viewpoints and identifies basic strengths and weaknesses.

Draws relevant conclusions.

Good application of critical thinking principles. 

Basic analysis of entrepreneurship trends or evolution, with limited critical insight.

Some evidence of consistent critical thinking, though it lacks depth.

Adequate but limited engagement with reading.

Sources are mostly described, with some attempt to explain or apply them.

Attempts to identify strengths and weaknesses, but inconsistently.

Makes an adequate but underdeveloped attempt to draw conclusions.

Satisfactory application of critical thinking principles. 

Some analysis present, but work is largely descriptive with minimal engagement with trends or environmental shifts.

Limited evidence of critical thinking; mostly descriptive.

Some evidence of reading, but limited in scope or relevance.

Sources are described without explanation or integration into argument.

Minimal attempt to identify strengths and weaknesses.

Attempts to draw conclusions, but they are vague or unsupported.

Poor application of critical thinking principles. 

Limited or no attempt at analysis or evaluation; lacks insight and depth.

Highly repetitive and predominantly descriptive.

Inadequate evidence of reading or academic engagement.

Content relies mainly on personal opinions rather than scholarly sources.

No meaningful attempt to identify strengths and weaknesses.

Inadequate or missing attempt to draw conclusions.

Very poor application of critical thinking principles. 

 No evidence of critical thinking or reflection; content is purely descriptive, off-topic, or fragmented.

Ideas are presented as bullet points with no coherent development.

No evidence of academic reading or engagement with sources.

Content is limited to unsupported student opinions.

No attempt to identify strengths or weaknesses.

No conclusions drawn.

Marking Criteria 

Marking Rubric 

Criterion 4 

80-100% 

70-79% 

60-69% 

50-59% 

40-49% 

20-39% 

Fail 

0-19% 

Fail 

Referencing and Citing of Sources to Support Work (10%) 

Outstanding referencing and citing of sources to support work. 

Sources are cited. 

Reference list provided. 

Paraphrasing demonstrates accuracy of understanding the reading and integrated within the discussion. 

Quotations used effectively and in an insightful way. 

Engages both the key authors and the specific sources from the module reading list to develop and construct persuasive academic discussion. 

Wider and deeper reading is evident. 

All sources have a citation, a reference list item, and is fully accurate using the BCU Harvard referencing system. 

Excellent referencing and citing of sources to support work. 

Sources are cited. 

Reference list provided. 

Paraphrasing demonstrates accuracy of understanding the reading. 

Quotations used and explored. 

Engages both key authors and some of the module reading list to develop and construct academic discussion. 

Wider reading beyond the module reading list is evident. 

All sources have a citation and a reference list item. 

Few inaccuracies when using the BCU Harvard referencing system.  

Very good referencing and citing of sources to support work. 

Sources are cited. 

Reference list provided. 

Paraphrasing demonstrates accuracy of understanding the reading. 

Quotations used and explained. 

Key authors cited and referenced. 

Engages with the module reading list with some wider reading. 

All sources have a citation and a reference list item. 

Few inaccuracies when using the BCU Harvard referencing system. 

Good referencing and citing of sources to support work. 

Sources are cited. 

Reference list provided. 

Paraphrasing demonstrates understanding of reading. 

Quotations used appropriately. 

Key authors cited and referenced. 

Engages with module reading list. 

Some variety in sources used. 

Majority sources have a citation and a reference list item. 

Few inaccuracies when using the BCU Harvard referencing system. 

Satisfactory referencing and citing of sources to support work. 

Sources are cited. 

Reference list provided. 

Work relies heavily on using quotations superficially. 

Attempts at paraphrasing. 

Few key authors cited or referenced. 

Little engagement with module reading list. 

Moderate use of inappropriate sources. 

Little variety in sources used. 

Some sources are missing a citation or a reference list item. 

Few inaccuracies when using the BCU Harvard referencing system. 

Poor referencing and citing of sources to support work. 

Limited sources are cited. 

A limited reference list provided. 

Quotations used out of context. 

No paraphrasing. 

No key authors cited or referenced. 

No engagement with module reading list. 

Use of inappropriate sources – all websites. 

Many sources are missing a citation or a reference list item. 

Inaccurate use of the BCU Harvard referencing system. 

Very poor referencing and citing of sources to support work. 

No sources are cited. 

No reference list provided.