BSM930 Coursework Assessment Answers

Assignment 001: Coursework

Task Details/Description:

This is an individual piece of assessment. Students are required to complete 2 out of 3 short answer questions.

Students will justify positions taken through strong argumentation, synthesis of knowledge and research work, and adequate citation support. In addition, the assignment requires students to use tools and frameworks discussed in class.

The purpose of this assignment is to apply core concepts discussed in class and thereby increase knowledge & understanding. To do well in the assignment students also have to demonstrate core entrepreneurial skills such as creativity and logical thinking.

Question 1: To what extent do you agree with the following statement?
‘Entrepreneurship is about creating new, profitable businesses to enhance wealth’. In answering you should;
a)Consider all of the issues that are raised in the statement.
b)Conclude with a position supported from your discussion.
c)Make reference wherever relevant to module learnings and wider reading.
(1500 words +/- 10%)
HARD STYLE REFERENCING ONLY ALLOWED

Hire Assignment Writers

Question 2: As part of the module you were introduced to the concepts of instrumental and legitimacy approaches to evaluating opportunities. Using your own examples, debate where each might be most relevant, comparing and contrasting each case.

In answering you should;
a)Outline your understanding of each concept in turn.
b)Clearly contextualise your debate.
c)Conclude with a position supported from your discussion.
d)Justify your positions by making reference to module learnings and wider reading
(1500 words +/- 10%)

Question 3: Corporate entrepreneurship was defined in the module as, “…the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals in association with an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate renewal or innovation with the organization (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999)”.
a)Debate the benefits of pursuing corporate entrepreneurship
b)Highlight the common issues faced by organisations in trying to do so.

In answering you should make reference wherever relevant to module learnings and wider reading.

MARK SCHEME

Content and Scholarship (40%) Quality of arguments presented (40%) Presentation (20%)
80% + As for a 1st, plus evidence of truly exceptional and relevant knowledge, understanding and independent scholarship. Potentially of publishable quality. As for a 1st , plus evidence of outstanding sophistication and/or originality As for a 1st , but typically with no errors, and outstanding readability and structure

70% -

80%

1st

Shows detailed, integrated knowledge and clear understanding of the relevant subject area.

Evidence of independent reading and thinking that consistently covers material and/or ideas beyond the lecture/seminar content, and uses a wide range of appropriate and independently researched sources.

Excellent argument construction overall, informed by coherent, compelling, and critical use of evidence that is appropriate to the assigned task.

Research and its implications are interpreted and applied appropriately, with clarity and insight.

The assignment is very well written overall.

Very good layout and structure.

Minimal or no spelling or grammatical errors.

Excellent attention to professional norms (e.g. referencing, use of academic tone/language).

Excellent consideration of theory,

principles, and methodologies

appropriate to the assigned task.

No referencing or citation error.

60% -

69%

2:1

Shows good or very good knowledge and understanding of the relevant subject area, with perhaps some minor misconception or ambiguity

Evidence of independent reading and thinking that covers material and/or ideas beyond the lecture/seminar content, and uses a fairly wide range of appropriate sources

Good or very good argument construction overall, informed by coherent, and somewhat compelling and/or critical use of evidence that is appropriate to the assigned task

Research and its implications are interpreted and applied appropriately and clearly

The assignment is well-written overall Good layout and structure

Occasional spelling or grammatical errors

Good attention to professional norms (e.g. referencing, use of academic tone/language).
Good consideration of theory, principles, and methodologies appropriate to the assigned task Minor citation/ referencing error.

50% -

59% PASS

 Shows reasonable knowledge and understanding of the relevant subject area, with occasional misconception or ambiguity that does not significantly undermine the overall content Reasonably good argument construction, occasionally informed by evidence that is appropriate to the assigned task

The assignment is well-written overall Good layout and structure.

Occasional spelling or grammatical errors.
Some evidence of appropriate reading and thinking that occasionally covers material and/or ideas beyond the lecture/seminar content, and uses an adequate range of appropriate sources Research and its implications are described only, with limited integration with, and application to, the overall argument

Good attention to professional norms (e.g. referencing, use of academic tone/language)

Regular, though minor, error in referencing and citation.

Satisfactory consideration of theory,

principles, and methodologies appropriate to the assigned task

40% -

49% FAIL

Shows some limited knowledge and a simple understanding of the relevant subject area, with occasional misconceptions or ambiguity that undermines the content in places.

Some limited evidence of appropriate reading and thinking that rarely or never covers either material or ideas beyond the lecture/seminar content, and uses a narrow range of appropriate sources

Some limited consideration of theory, principles, and methodologies appropriate to the assigned task which may be flawed.

Does not fully cover the requirements of the assignment, or does so but not sufficiently enough to pass.

 Research findings may be described, but with minimal attempt to form an argument that is relevant to the assigned task

The assignment is somewhat well written in some parts.

Layout and structure are satisfactory in some parts.

Frequent spelling or grammatical errors sufficient to impede understanding.

Some attention to professional norms (e.g. referencing, use of academic tone/language)

Regular citation and referencing error is apparent.

30% -

39% FAIL

As for 40-49%%, but with frequent major misconceptions and ambiguity regarding the lecture/seminar content

 Relevant research findings may be described, but with no attempt to form an argument that is relevant to the assigned task

The assignment is not well written overall.

Poor layout and structure Frequent 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 error is apparent.

1% –

29% FAIL

Virtually no evidence of knowledge or understanding of the relevant subject area. No consideration of theory, principles, and methodologies appropriate to the assigned task.

Contains frequent major misconceptions and ambiguity throughout An attempt has been made to complete the assignment, but clearly does not meet the learning outcomes

 No attempt to form an argument that is relevant to the assigned task, or to describe relevant research findings

The assignment is not well written overall.

Poor layout and structure Frequent 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 error is apparent.

0%

FAIL

 Does not attempt to complete the assignment, due to either non- submission or non-attendance. If submitted, no attempt to form a relevant argument or to describe relevant research findings If submitted, the assignment is incomprehensible

Related Link: Assignment Help