| Learning Outcomes |
|
This assessment task addresses the following learning outcomes from the module specification Knowledge and Understanding Outcomes
On completion of this module students will:
1. Critically understand the impact of the institutional environment on international business activities. 2. Comprehend the international trade and investment activities 3. Appreciate the importance of global shift and comprehend the changes in the international business environment. 4. Appreciate the role of emerging economies and emerging economy multinationals in the new world order
Ability Outcomes
On completion of this module students will be able to:
5. Identify and critically evaluate sources of academic material in relation to international business research.
|
| Assessment brief |
|
Essay Topic Brief Background: Multinational corporations regularly review the environment for their international business activities to understand and prepare for the risks and opportunities involved. In light of the recent US-China trade war…
1) You are asked by a USA multinational manufacturing company General motors to develop such an analysis in preparation for their subsidiary in People’s Republic of China in 2020. The new subsidiary will engagement in both international trade and investment activities.
Essay topic: identify and discuss two most important environmental factors for the above company’s new subsidiary in the host country. Essay Structure (word limit: 3000. Word limits for each sections below are for general guidance– you can go over or under, as long as the total word limit is respected) 1. Introduction (500 words) 2. Context: the US-China trade war – briefly introduce the trade war and demonstrate your understanding through evidence. (500 words) 3. Analysis. You need to discuss with support of both relevant theory and evidence. Your analysis must address the following two issues: a) why these two factors are highly relevant to the company in light of the trade war; b) how these factors may affect the company’s new subsidiary, and why. You do not give recommendations to the company as to what to do. (1500 words) 4. Conclusion: recap the above, and draw inference from your findings – what should we learn from it? (500 words) – Reference – Appendix
N.B. This is an essay, not an exam question. Therefore, we expect you to present the above in a coherent manner. Use appropriate linking texts between different sections to make it flow like an article.
Please see reading list below |
| You are advised to read and follow the following guidance:
|
|
Some articles to start with The core textbook and relevant chapters provide you with the theoretical and analytical framework; the list below provides you the initial readings on the US-China trade dispute. You need to do your own research on the company that you choose to apply the above to. BBC (2019, September 2). A quick guide to the US-China trade war. BBC. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45899310 Liu, T., & Woo, W. T. (2018). Understanding the US-China trade war. China Economic Journal, 11(3), 319-340. Wong, D. & Koty, A. (2019, September 5). The US-China Trade War: A Timeline. China Briefing. Retrieved from https://www.china-briefing.com/news/the-us-china-trade-war-a-timeline/ Gray, A. (2019, September 10). US retailers accelerate shift away from Chinese suppliers. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/67796b58-d0e0-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6 Weinland, D. (2019, September 8). China exports decline as US trade dispute takes toll. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/1c06fd56-d212-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77 Lockett, H. (2019, August 30). Renminbi completes biggest monthly fall in more than 25 years. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/ac42f33a-ca41-11e9-af46-b09e8bfe60c0
Guidance on developing your essay I suggest that you address the question in the following way: Stage 1 – broad reading To answer the essay question, you will need to read widely around the topic. You need to find and read academic articles, mainly academic journal articles, relevant to the essay question. A few references are given above to give you a direction, but this is not an exhaustive list. You need to do your own literature search and review. Stage 2 – selecting relevant material Having undertaken wide reading, you need to bring your ideas together. Try to make a list of the theories/concept/arguments you have identified and ensure that you understand them (this might mean doing some further work). What issues are interesting here – do all of the authors agree with one another? Stage 3 – organising the material you have identified into an argument This is a creative part which demonstrates that you can undertake ‘critical’ and ‘evaluative’ work. Your task is to convey that you have understood the available literature, bring in your own arguments and put them together in a meaningful and original manner (not copying other people). You need to think about the logical way of grouping different ideas and how you can best convey that. Stage 4 – drafting your essay Essays take a long time to construct and everybody goes about it in a different way. It is likely that you will have to draft it and edit it a number of times. The first attempt may look very rough. Stage 5 – polishing your essay Edit, edit, edit. Check that your introduction refers to the question. Make sure your references are presented in the right format. Does your essay have a conclusion? What makes your work original and interesting?
Below are some general points to observe:
· Work should be referenced in APA 6th style. The link below is to the library guidance on referencing and it is recommended you use these resources to ensure your references are in the correct format.
Read widely from textbooks, journals and authoritative commentaries in forming your views.
|
| Marking criteria |
|
1. Please refer to the assessment task-specific criteria in Appendix 1. These show you the issues that will guide your tutors in marking your work. You are encouraged to use these at all stages of preparing your work. Please remember that the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.
2. In addition to the assessment task-specific criteria, generic assessment criteria are attached in Appendix 1 & 2. |
Appendix
| Fail (0-34)
A superficial answer with only peripheral knowledge of core material and very little critical ability |
Refer
Some knowledge of core material but limited critical ability |
Pass
A coherent and logical answer which shows understanding of the basic principles |
Merit
A coherent answer that demonstrates critical evaluation |
Distinction
An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding knowledge of material and critical ability
|
|||||
| 0-9 | 10-19 | 20-34 | 35-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |
| Structure 20% | Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent. | Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent. | Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent. | Argument not fully
developed and may lack structure. |
The argument is developed
but may lack fluency.
|
Argument concise and
Explicit.
|
Coherent and compelling
argument which is well presented.
|
Coherent and compelling
argument which is very well presented.
|
Coherent and compelling
argument which is exceptionally well presented and persuasive. |
| Knowledge and understanding of Theory, Concepts and Methods 20% | Entirely lacking in evidence of knowledge and understanding.
|
Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts. | Knowledge of concepts falls short of prescribed range. Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts. | Display of knowledge is marginally insufficient. There is adequate knowledge of concepts within prescribed range but fails to adequately solve problems posed by assessment. | A systematic understanding of knowledge, demonstrating critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights. Critically evaluates current research and evaluates methodologies. | Approaching excellence in some areas with evidence of the potential to undertake research. Well-developed relevant argument, good degree of accuracy and technical competence. | Excellent display of knowledge. Demonstrates high levels of accuracy. Evidence of the potential to undertake research and analyse primary sources critically. | Insightful display of knowledge. Demonstrates excellent research potential and flexibility of thought. Possibly of publishable quality. | Striking and insightful display of knowledge of publishable quality. Demonstrates outstanding research potential, originality and independent thought. Ability to make informed judgements is evident. |
| Scholarship: Evidence of Reading and Research 20% | Lacking in evidence of academic research. | Minimal evidence of relevant academic research. | Limited evidence of relevant academic research. | Evidence of relevant academic research but omits important areas. | Evidence of relevant academic research covering the essential areas. | Evidence of relevant academic research covering more than essential areas and includes some critical appraisal of evidence. | Evidence of wide academic research covering more than essential areas and includes well developed critical appraisal of evidence. | Evidence of wide academic research covering more than essential areas and includes comprehensive critical appraisal of evidence. | Evidence of wide academic research covering more than essential areas and includes a very well articulated comprehensive critical appraisal of evidence. |
| Use of Evidence: Analysis & Evaluation 20% | Does not analyse or any analysis is irrelevant | Does not analyse or any analysis is irrelevant | Does not analyse but basic concepts are understood | Does not analyse but the potential for analysis is evident. Shows potential to develop arguments. | Demonstrates limited analysis with some development of argument and related evaluation (if applicable) | Demonstrates good ability to analyse and evaluate (if applicable) with arguments developed coherently | Demonstrates very good ability to analyse a range of topics/issues critically. Evaluation is well supported (if applicable). Arguments are well structured and logical. | Demonstrates excellent ability to analyse a range of topics/issues critically and demonstrates ability to question ‘received opinion’. Evaluation is well supported and provides convincing conclusions (if applicable). Arguments are well structured, complex and logical. | Demonstrates excellent ability to analyse a range of topics/issues critically and demonstrates ability to question ‘received opinion’. Evaluation is well supported and provides convincing conclusions (if applicable). Arguments are complex, lucid and persuasive. |
| Referencing 10% | No reference | Reference wholly inappropriate to the task | Reference generally inappropriate to the task | Reference does not meet expectations of the task | Shows sufficient awareness of required reference | Demonstrates good referencing practice | Demonstrates consistently good referencing | Well-referenced, meets academic norm with minor flaws | Well-referenced, meets academic norm with virtually no apparent flaws |
| Presentation 10% | Length requirements may not be observed. Does not follow academic conventions. Language errors impact on intelligibility. | Length requirements may not be observed. Does not follow academic conventions. Language errors impact on intelligibility. | Length requirements may not be observed. Does not follow academic conventions. Language errors impact on intelligibility | Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Minor errors in language. | Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Possibly very minor errors in language. | Good standard of presentation. Length requirement met and academic conventions followed. | Very good standards of presentation. | Professional standards of presentation. | Highest professional standards of presentation. |
PGT Generic Assessment Criteria
| Fail (0-34)
A superficial answer with only peripheral knowledge of core material and very little critical ability |
Refer
Some knowledge of core material but limited critical ability |
Pass
A coherent and logical answer which shows understanding of the basic principles |
Merit
A coherent answer that demonstrates critical evaluation |
Distinction
An exceptional answer that reflects outstanding knowledge of material and critical ability
|
|||||
| 0-9 | 10-19 | 20-34 | 35-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |
| Knowledge | Entirely lacking in evidence of knowledge and understanding.
|
Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts. | Knowledge of concepts falls short of prescribed range. Typically only able to deal with terminology, basic facts and concepts. | Display of knowledge is marginally insufficient. There is adequate knowledge of concepts within prescribed range but fails to adequately solve problems posed by assessment. | A systematic understanding of knowledge, demonstrating critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights. Critically evaluates current research and evaluates methodologies. | Approaching excellence in some areas with evidence of the potential to undertake research. Well-developed relevant argument, good degree of accuracy and technical competence. | Excellent display of knowledge. Demonstrates high levels of accuracy. Evidence of the potential to undertake research and analyse primary sources critically. | Insightful display of knowledge. Demonstrates excellent research potential and flexibility of thought. Possibly of publishable quality. | Striking and insightful display of knowledge of publishable quality. Demonstrates outstanding research potential, originality and independent thought. Ability to make informed judgements is evident. |
| Presentation | Length requirements may not be observed. Does not follow academic conventions. Language errors impact on intelligibility. | Length requirements may not be observed. Does not follow academic conventions. Language errors impact on intelligibility. | Length requirements may not be observed. Does not follow academic conventions. Language errors impact on intelligibility | Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Minor errors in language. | Length requirement met and academic conventions mostly followed. Possibly very minor errors in language. | Good standard of presentation. Length requirement met and academic conventions followed. | Very good standards of presentation. | Professional standards of presentation. | Highest professional standards of presentation. |
| Understanding | Limited insight into the problem or topic. | Limited insight into the problem or topic. | Limited insight into the problem or topic. | Some insight into the problem or topic. | Practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline. | Independent, critical evaluation of
full range of theories with some evidence of originality. |
Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis. | Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis leading to new insights. | Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis leading to new and profound insights. |
| Selection and Coverage | Some irrelevant and/or out of date
sources. |
Some irrelevant and/or out of date
Sources. |
Some irrelevant and/or out of date
Sources. |
Limited sources. | Comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to own research or advanced scholarship. | Complex work and
concepts presented with key texts used effectively. |
Full range of sources
used selectively to support argument.
|
Full range of sources
used selectively to support and enhance argument. |
Full range of sources
used selectively and skilfully to support and enhance argument. |
| Structure | Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent. | Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent. | Argument not developed and may be confused and incoherent. | Argument not fully
developed and may lack structure. |
The argument is developed
but may lack fluency.
|
Argument concise and
Explicit.
|
Coherent and compelling
argument which is well presented.
|
Coherent and compelling
argument which is very well presented.
|
Coherent and compelling
argument which is exceptionally well presented and persuasive. |
| Depth of Reflection | Response demonstrates a lack of reflection on, or personalisation of, the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the course materials to date. Viewpoints and interpretations are missing, inappropriate, and/or unsupported. Examples, when applicable, are not provided. | Response demonstrates a lack of reflection on, or personalisation of, the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the course materials to date. Viewpoints and interpretations are missing, inappropriate, and/or unsupported. Examples, when applicable, are not provided. | Response demonstrates a lack of reflection on, or personalisation of, the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the course materials to date. Viewpoints and interpretations are missing, inappropriate, and/or unsupported. Examples, when applicable, are not provided. | Response demonstrates a minimal reflection on, and personalisation of, the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the course materials to date. Viewpoints and interpretations are unsupported or supported with flawed arguments. Examples, when applicable, are not provided or are irrelevant to the assignment. | Response demonstrates reflection on, and personalisation of, the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the course materials to date. Viewpoints and interpretations are generally supported. Some relevant examples, when applicable, are provided. | Response demonstrates a general reflection on, and personalisation of, the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented in the course materials to date. Viewpoints and interpretations are supported. Appropriate examples are provided, as applicable | In-depth reflection on, and personalisation of, the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented. Extensive evidence of analysis through questioning and challenging of assumptions leading to transformation of personal insight. Well supported by clear, detailed examples as applicable. | In-depth reflection on, and insightful personalisation of, the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented. Extensive evidence of analysis through questioning and challenging of assumptions leading to significant transformation of personal insight. Well supported by clear, detailed examples as applicable. | Profound reflection on, and personalisation of, the theories, concepts, and/or strategies presented. Extensive evidence of analysis through questioning and challenging of assumptions leading to profound transformation of personal insight. Exceptionally well supported by clear, detailed examples as applicable. |
| Scholarship | Lacking in evidence of academic research. | Minimal evidence of relevant academic research. | Limited evidence of relevant academic research. | Evidence of relevant academic research but omits important areas. | Evidence of relevant academic research covering the essential areas. | Evidence of relevant academic research covering more than essential areas and includes some critical appraisal of evidence. | Evidence of wide academic research covering more than essential areas and includes well developed critical appraisal of evidence. | Evidence of wide academic research covering more than essential areas and includes comprehensive critical appraisal of evidence. | Evidence of wide academic research covering more than essential areas and includes a very well articulated comprehensive critical appraisal of evidence. |
| Innovation | Lacking evidence of innovative solutions. | Lacking evidence of innovative solutions. | Lacking evidence of feasible innovative solutions. | Minimal evidence of innovative solutions. | Evidence of innovative solutions. | Evidence of innovative solutions which demonstrate assessment of the situation and effectiveness of the solutions. | Extensive evidence of innovative solutions which demonstrate an assessment of the situation and the effectiveness of solutions. | Extensive evidence of innovative solutions which demonstrate an assessment of the situation and critical evaluation of the effectiveness of solutions. | Extensive evidence of innovative solutions which demonstrate a full assessment of the situation and extensive critical evaluation of the effectiveness of solutions. |
| Personal perspective | No evidence of any attempt or consideration of a personal perspective. | Attempts to express a personal perspective lack any relevance. | Attempts to express a personal perspective are only loosely relevant. | Personal perspective is expressed and has some relevance. | Personal perspective expressed is clearly relevant and some justification is provided. | Personal perspective expressed is clearly relevant and justified with critical reasoning. | Personal perspective expressed is clearly relevant and justified with critical reasoning which provides clear assumptions and strength of position in relation to others. | Significant personal perspective expressed is clearly relevant and justified with critical reasoning which provides clear assumptions and strength of position in relation to others. | Profound and insightful personal perspective expressed is clearly relevant and justified with critical reasoning which provides clear assumptions and strength of position in relation to others. |
| Self-development planning | No evidence that self-development has been considered. | Self-development mentioned but no evidence of any planning. | Self-development mentioned and some evidence of planning. | Some evidence of self-development planning and enacting. | Some evidence of self-development planning, enacting and reviewing. | Much evidence of self-development planning, enacting and reviewing. | Extensive self-development programme developed, enacted and reviewed. | Extensive and innovative self-development programme developed, enacted and reviewed with evidence of reflexivity. | Extensive and innovative self-development programme developed, enacted and reviewed with extensive evidence of reflexivity. |
| Autonomy | No evidence of any autonomous action considered or taken. | Evidence of autonomous action considered but not implemented. | Evidence of autonomous action uncritically or superficially implemented. | Evidence of some relevant autonomous action. | Demonstrates ability to implement tasks autonomously. | Clearly demonstrates ability to implement tasks autonomously. | Demonstrates ability to use initiative, implement tasks autonomously and sustain actions to a conclusion. | Demonstrates ability to use initiative, develop creative solutions, implement tasks autonomously and sustain actions to a conclusion across different contexts. | Demonstrates ability, to use initiative, develop creative solutions, implement tasks autonomously and sustain actions to a conclusion across a wide range of contexts. |
| Oral Communication (monologue)
Inc organisation, supporting material and delivery |
Barely comprehensible and
no connection to context. |
Completely inadequate,
significant lack of clarity, inconsistent and indifferent to context. |
Barely organised,
significant lack of clarity, inconsistent and minimal connection to context. |
Poorly organised, lacking some clarity, little tailoring to context. Some significant
inadequacies, weak expression with some systematic errors . |
Acceptably organised,
generally clear, some tailoring to context. Some flaws in expression, some systematic errors of expression. Generally engages audience. |
Well organised and
clear, appropriately tailored to context. Fluent expression with articulate delivery. Generally engages audience. |
Very well organised and very persuasive,
effectively tailored to context. Lively, articulate, persuasive delivery. Engages audience throughout. |
Extremely well organised,
very effectively tailored to context. Very lively, eloquent, extremely persuasive delivery. Engages audience throughout. |
Exceptionally well organised, highly
persuasive, sophisticated, superbly tailored to context. Exceptionally lively and, highly eloquent . Engages audience throughout. |
| Teamwork and oral communication
(dialogue) |
No evidence of
teamwork or engagement with views or learning of others. |
Minimal teamwork,
conflicts evident, negative engagement with difference. |
Marginal teamwork, conflicts
unaddressed, little engagement with difference. |
Little teamwork or
effort to collaborate effectively, symptoms of lack of mutual respect. |
Worked together much of the time,
engagement less than optimal, some unresolved conflict but mostly respectful with evidence of listening. |
Cohesive team, all
members active most of the time, exercising mutual respect and evidence of effective dialogue most of the time. Any conflict resolved. |
Excellent cohesion,
all members active, high levels of mutual respect and evidence of effective dialogue most of the time. Any conflict resolved early. |
Exceptionally
cohesive team, all members active, high levels of mutual respect and evidence of effective dialogue throughout. Any conflict resolved early. |
Exceptionally
cohesive team, all members consistently active, mutually respectful and evidence of effective dialogue throughout. Team resolves conflict early and demonstrates learning from experience. |
| Ethics, sustainability and responsibility
(subject area) |
Not considered or no relevance. | Consideration at a superficial level with minimal relevance to subject. | Considered with relevant solutions identified but no detail relevant to the subject. | Considered with relevant solutions identified but little detail relevant to the subject. | Considered with relevant solutions identified and adequate detail relevant to the subject. | Wide consideration, relevant solutions identified and appropriate detail relevant to the subject. | Full consideration of implications for subject with range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for subject with extensive range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for subject with full range of solutions discussed in detail. |
| Ethics, sustainability & Responsibility
(professional practice) |
Not considered or no relevance. | Consideration at a superficial level with minimal relevance shown to professional practice. | Considered with relevant solutions identified but no detail relevant to professional practice. | Considered with relevant solutions identified but little detail relevant to professional practice. | Considered with relevant solutions identified and adequate detail relevant to professional practice. | Wide consideration, relevant solutions identified and appropriate detail relevant to professional practice. | Full consideration of implications for professional practice with range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for professional practice with extensive range of solutions discussed in detail. | Full consideration of implications for professional practice with full range of solutions discussed in detail. |
| 0-9 | 10-19 | 20-34 | 35-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70-79 | 80-89 | 90-100 | |
