MAR042-2 Data and Research Methods for Business Assignment 1 Brief | UG | AY25-26

 70%+

(1st Class)

60-69%

(2:1)

50-59%

(2:2)

40-49%

(3^rd Class)

Threshold Standard

30-39%

(Fail)

0-29%

(Fail)

1

Knowledge

40%

Broad and critically evaluative knowledge of relevant theories and concepts. In-depth and accurate understanding.

Very clear and appropriate focus. Very insightful discussion and original, inspirational thinking.

You have clearly identified the main argument of the article and commented on the appropriateness of the research methods chosen. You have developed your paper by focusing on some important aspects of the article’s design and argument and you have shown good understanding.

You are able to identify and explain a philosophical stance governing the research chosen by you.

Broad knowledge of relevant theories and concepts.  Thoughtful and accurate understanding.

Clear and appropriate focus. Thoughtful discussion that shows independent thinking.

You have clearly identified the main argument of the article and commented on the appropriateness of the research methods chosen. You have developed your paper by focusing on some important aspects of the article’s design and argument and you have shown good understanding.

Fairly broad knowledge of relevant theories and concepts. Mostly accurate understanding.

Quite clear focus but sometimes strays from the topic. Logical and coherent discussion of concepts and issues, but limited originality.

Your paper demonstrates some understanding of the article and some clear grasp of research methodology. You have perhaps had some difficulties in understanding it fully and your analysis may be more descriptive and lack precision. You will have adopted a ‘questioning sceptic’ approach but you may not have entirely demonstrated how to evaluate the validity of the article’s arguments.

Piecemeal knowledge of relevant theories and concepts. Some noticeable misunderstandings and/or inaccuracies.

Rather confused focus that quite often strays from the topic. Limited discussion of concepts and issues.

Your paper makes some good points and shows some understanding of the article and of research methods but also some misunderstandings and lack of clarity. You may have relied on reproducing large ‘chunks of the article text. Your overall conclusions may be hard to follow in places and the paper might be more of a collection of observations than a well-structured argument.

Basic and limited knowledge of relevant theories and concepts. Muddy or lost focus. 

Clear and appropriate focus. Descriptive discussion that shows no independent thinking.

You have missed some important aspects, and you have not shown understanding of the task.

Not relevant and very limited knowledge of relevant theories and concepts. Lost focus, often talking about aspects loosely connected to the subject. 

Descriptive discussion that shows no independent thinking.

You have missed some important aspects, and you have not shown understanding of the task.

2

Analysis

40%

Comprehensive analysis of a range of related concepts and ideas. Evidence based argument demonstrating an excellent understanding of theory and/or practice. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief supported by citations from an extensive range of appropriate up to date third party sources, research and relevant literature.

Good analysis of related concepts and ideas. Appropriate evidence-based argument demonstrating good understanding of theory and/or practice. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief reinforced by citations from an appropriate and broad range of third-party sources, research and relevant literature.

Satisfactory analysis of some appropriate concepts. Some evidence-based argument demonstrated which draws on theory and/or practice. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief reinforced by citations from an appropriate, but limited, range of third-party sources, research and relevant literature.

Limited analysis. Lacks enough evidence-based argument. Limited reference to theory and/or practice or used inappropriately. Statements of ‘fact’ and personal belief insufficiently reinforced by citations from appropriate third-party sources, research and relevant literature.

Analysis and presentation of findings are inappropriate or very basic and undermine the validity of the findings. Findings not related to aim and objectives. Insufficient detail and justification of choices.

Paper lacks analysis and presentation of findings.  No measures to ensure validity of findings.

3

Presentation

10%

The discussion presented is produced in strict conformity with the guidelines contained in the assignment brief. The text is wide-ranging, the style mature, the approach measured, the presentation reader friendly.

The overall presentation of the discussion is articulate, lucid, structurally sensible and mature in expression. The references are organised conscientiously and comprehensively.

Though the discussion presented is generally systematic, there are improvements that the student should have implemented, for example, over-long and discursive paragraphs or too short and fragmented paragraphs which render some pages not reader friendly.

Though the discussion presented is reasonably systematic, there are improvements that the student should have implemented, for example, over-long and discursive sections/paragraphs or too short and fragmented sections/paragraphs which render some pages not reader friendly. There is scope for the work to be better organised.

The overall presentation of the discussion is rather messy; some elements of structure are undeveloped in expression or missing. The references are limited.

The overall presentation of the discussion is inarticulate, no structure used and undeveloped in expression. The references are omitted.

4

Persuasion

10%

Very advanced and persuasive arguments based on a firm foundation from the question through to the conclusions constructed.

Advanced and persuasive arguments based on a firm foundation from the question through to the conclusions constructed.

Precise and persuasive arguments based on a firm foundation from the question through to the conclusions constructed.

Reasonable and academically sound language and formatting.

Poor standards of literacy, presentation, and structure. Large sections of paper missing. Poor use of external sources and referencing.

Extremely poor standards of literacy, presentation, and no structure. Much of the required content is missing. References and source attribution largely absent.