Assessment Brief 2024/2025
Assignment Information
|
Course Code
|
MGT4019_1A
|
|
Course Title
|
Entrepreneurial Ventures: Management and Growth
|
|
Course Coordinator
|
|
|
Weighting
|
30%
|
|
Question release date
|
Monday, 28 October 2024
|
|
Submission date:
|
Monday, 06 January 2025, 12pm
|
|
Grades and Feedback to be released on:
|
Monday, 27 January 2025
|
|
Presentation duration
|
1000 (+/- 10%) Refer to word limit policy
|
|
Action to betaken if time limit is exceeded
|
Any words of over 1000 +10% will be disregarded
|
1. QUESTION/ DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY
Question
The idea behind this task is to give each student the opportunity to reflect on their individual learning from engaging in the EVMG consultancy project.
Further details
Some useful generic guidelines for the assignment.
Use of headings is useful to break up the report
Use a reflective structure or framework such as Gibbs.
While this is not prescriptive, you might consider and address some or all of the following learning points in your submissions:
• How has your understanding of business development and growth changed over the period of the class?
• Has your understanding of business or entrepreneurship changed since you have been working with a real company?
• What skills and knowledge have you enhanced or developed since taking this module?
• What do you think you would differently if you were to undertake this consultancy project again?
• How might you apply your learning from this module in the future?
• Has this experience altered your career aspirations?
• What are your thoughts on team working and your specific role within the team?
• Did working for a real client change the way you think about entrepreneurs?
Intended Learning Outcomes being assessed
6. Reflect on their ability to self-manage and to work collaboratively with others to deliver the project.
2. ASSESSMENT RUBRIC/ CRITERIA
A holistic rubric provides a list of assessment criteria together with broad description of the characteristics that would be expected for each level of performance.
|
Marking Criteria
|
Does Not Meet Expectation
|
Satisfactory
|
Exemplary
|
|
Presentation
-Written in first person
-Absence of typographical and grammatical errors
-legibility and flow of text
|
Difficult to read showing little evidence of care to spot typos or grammatical errors.
|
Easy to read and evidence of thought and care when planning the submission.
|
Very well laid out and presented with clear evidence of care and attention to avoid
typos and
grammatical errors. Engaging to read.
|
|
Content/ Material
-Structure -Content
-Quantity of Refection -Level of individuality -self-critical analysis
|
Blames other team members for
problems and faults. Fails to take
ownership for
decisions and
strategy for team
decisions. More of a report than a self-
reflection
|
Some evidence of a personal development plan with a good level
of self- critical analysis.
Consequences for
actions are articulated.
|
Excellent structure and compelling
A clear development plan to improve future performance. Self-
analysis is personally insightful.
|
|
Honesty/Integrity
-Self-critical analysis
-Truthful representation of the process
|
Focuses only on
personal strengths or weaknesses. Very
superficial and
loaded with generality
|
Clear acceptance of faults and mistakes
made during group
activities. Recognition of lessons learned.
|
First class, honest,
self- reflection that answers the
questions, what
lessons did I
learn? and what will I do differently in the future?
|
*Please note that this is rubric is intended to inform. the marking process and not be a definitive
guide to any final mark which is, in essence, based on the judgement of the marker