|
|
Report (50%)
|
|
GRADE
|
Examination of the management/ development of different types of innovation and contributory and constraining factors to innovation
|
Identification of the different types of innovation and innovation processes
|
Use of Harvard referencing and relevant academic sources and presentation
|
|
A
|
Significant ability to identify and select 2 original Ps and construct comparisons through excellent synthesis and critical interpretation of appropriate evidence.
Exceptional assessment of the chosen 2Ps and how innovation, in these 2 examples, is developed and applied, analysing strategic factors which both contribute and constrain them.
|
Authoritative grasp of disciplinary concepts.
Exceptional examination of innovation and the different types of innovation (4P’s) and beyond, e.g. (10Ps) and innovation processes, e.g. technology push, open innovation.
|
Goes well beyond what is taught in reading/researching to inform learning.
Structured and correct use of the report template. Correct Harvard referencing/citing is followed in all cases for all sources throughout. There are no unsupported assertions.
Accomplished communication style and expression of ideas with accurate spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
There is evidence of thorough research, and the report has clearly been underpinned by relevant, credible and up-to-date literature throughout.
|
|
B
|
Logical demonstration of the identification and selection of 2 original Ps and construction of comparisons through synthesis and critical interpretation of appropriate evidence.
Very good assessment of the chosen
2Ps and how innovation, in these 2 examples, is developed and applied, analysing strategic factors which both contribute and constrain them.
|
Ability to demonstrate well the disciplinary concepts.
Very good examination of innovation and the different types of innovation (4P’s) and beyond, e.g. (10Ps) and innovation processes, e.g. technology push, open innovation.
|
Evidence of insight in selection and use of material to go beyond what is taught.
The report template is correctly used. Correct Harvard referencing/citing is followed in most cases for all sources but there may be some minor errors in formatting. There may be a couple of unsupported assertions.
Very proficient communication of ideas with accurate spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
There is evidence of very good research, and the report has mostly been underpinned by relevant, credible and up-to-date literature throughout.
|
|
C
|
Logical demonstration of the identification and selection of 2 Ps and construction of comparisons through synthesis and interpretation of appropriate evidence with possible weaknesses in evidence.
Good assessment of the chosen
2Ps and how innovation, in these 2 examples, is developed and applied, analysing strategic factors which both contribute and constrain them although further work is required.
|
Ability to demonstrate relevant disciplinary concepts.
Good examination of the different types of innovation (4P’s) and innovation processes but some further consideration is required.
|
Good breadth of understanding of taught content and set reading/ references.
Report framework used and is generally clear and correct. Correct Harvard referencing/citing is followed in some cases for all sources but there may be some errors in formatting. There may be a few unsupported assertions.
Confident effective communication of ideas with accurate spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
There is evidence of some research, and the report has somewhat been underpinned by relevant literature, but some sources may be outdated or from unreliable sources.
|
|
D
|
Logical demonstration of the identification and selection of 2 Ps and some construction of comparisons with supporting evidence but with some gaps.
Adequate assessment of the chosen
2Ps and how innovation, in these 2 examples, is developed and applied, analysing strategic factors which both contribute and constrain them, with some gaps in evidence.
|
Some relevant disciplinary concepts are provided but fairly descriptive.
Adequate examination of the different types of innovation (4P’s) and innovation processes albeit descriptive.
|
Relies on adequate selection of set materials/standard readings and references.
Report format used with some errors. Adequate attention to formatting of references and citations and Harvard format may not always be correctly applied. There may be several unsupported assertions.
Communicates ideas effectively with mostly accurate spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
The report has been underpinned by an adequate selection of high-quality and relevant literature but is mostly supported by unreliable web-based sources.
|
|
E
|
Inadequate and poor demonstration of the identification and selection of 2 Ps and some construction of comparisons with numerous weaknesses/gaps.
Inadequate assessment of the chosen
2Ps and how innovation, in these 2 examples, is developed and applied, analysing strategic factors which both contribute and constrain them with numerous gaps/weaknesses in evidence. Critically analyse the different types of innovation and innovation processes in SMEs.
|
Somewhat relevant disciplinary concepts are provided but descriptive.
Inadequate examination of the different types of innovation (4P’s) and innovation processes albeit very descriptive.
|
Relies on inadequate selection of set materials/standard readings and references.
Major errors in the report template. Inadequate attention to formatting of references and citations and Harvard format may not be correctly applied. There are numerous unsupported assertions. Critically analyse the different types of innovation and innovation processes in SMEs.
Communication is inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise problematic in conveying understanding, with errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
The report has been underpinned by an inadequate selection of high-quality and relevant literature but is mostly supported by unreliable web-based sources.
|
|
F
|
A weak and poorly constructed demonstration of the identification and selection of 2 Ps and some construction of comparisons which is largely unsubstantiated.
Poor assessment of the chosen
2Ps and how innovation, in these 2 examples, is developed and applied, analysing strategic factors which both contribute and constrain them. There are numerous gaps/weaknesses and any evidence is largely unsubstantiated.
|
Little evidence of ability to apply disciplinary conceptual understanding.
Poor examination of the different types of innovation (4P’s) and innovation processes.
|
Limited evidence of use of set materials/relevant academic sources and references.
No application of the report template. Poor attention to formatting of references and citations and Harvard format may not be correctly applied. Most assertions are unsupported.
Communication is inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise problematic in conveying understanding, with errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
There is limited evidence of use of relevant and credible literature being used to underpin the report. The report somewhat relies on unreliable web-based sources and/or most assertions are unsupported.
|
|
G
|
A very poor demonstration of the identification and selection of 2 Ps and some construction of comparisons which is unsubstantiated.
A very poor assessment of the chosen
2Ps and how innovation, in these 2 examples, is developed and applied, analysing strategic factors which both contribute and constrain them. Little explanation and unsubstantiated.
|
Very limited disciplinary conceptual understanding evidenced.
Very poor examination of the different types of innovation (4P’s) and innovation processes.
|
Very little evidence of set materials/ relevant academic sources and references.
No application of the report template. Very poor attention to formatting of references and citations. Harvard format has not been correctly applied.
Very poor communication indicating incoherence, with many errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
There is very little evidence of use of relevant and credible literature being used to underpin the report. The report solely relies on unreliable web-based sources and/or most assertions are unsupported.
|
|
H / NS
|
No argument/ explanation.
No assessment of the chosen
2Ps and how innovation, in these 2 examples, is developed and applied, analysing strategic factors which both contribute and constrain them.
|
No disciplinary conceptual understanding evidenced.
No examination of the different types of innovation (4P’s) and innovation processes.
|
No evidence of set materials/ relevant academic sources and references.
No Harvard citing/referencing. There is no evidence of research.
Non-submission or seriously inadequate communication, spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
The report template has not been used and is not in an accessible format.
|
