20 – 39 Clear Fail Inadequate... Report format & poor paragraphing / signposting. Inappropriate writing style. Poorly presented&/or poor spelling &grammar.Must see CASE Inadequate...Use of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or inconsistencies. Must see CASE Inadequate...Lacksevidence of business application & insight. Some literature irrelevant to topic. Inadequate...Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge/calculations. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes. Inadequate...Lacking / inadequate level of discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation & /or reflection. Descriptive. Must see CASE

40-49 Marginal Fail Weak...Report format, limited or poor structure. Poorly presented figures. Muddled work with many spelling& / or grammatical errors. Weak...Use of Harvard referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied. Limited referencing within the text.Limited accuracy of in-text references compared to those in the final Reference list. Weak...Unsatisfactory evidence of business application & insight Work needs to show better links between practical application & theory. Weak...Limited content / knowledge/ calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question. Does not meet all the learning outcomes. Weak...Limited evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. More development & comment needed. May need to do more than describe.

50-54 Satisfactory Satisfactory...Basic report structure. Not always presented &written clearly &has grammatical & / or spelling errors. Satisfactory...Basic referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. Satisfactory...Business insight & application. Limited integration with literature/ data. Use of literature/data but limited in breadth OR depth. Satisfactory... Content / level of knowledge of the topic. Addresses part of the task. Some errors / omissions in content/ calculations. May benefit from further research. Satisfactory... Basic evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but some points superficially made so need further development.

55-59 Good Good...Clear presentation & report structure with well integrated sections & figures. Writing is mainly clear but some spelling &/ or grammatical errors. Good...Standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. Good... Business insight & application. Breadth, depth & integration of literature/data into work. Good...Grasp of the topic & some of its implications presented. Knowledge & understanding is demonstrated. Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations. Good... Level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but more ideas/points could be addressed /developed further.

60-69 Very Good Very good...Presentation & report structure with well-integrated sections & figures. Fluent academic writing style. Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes. Very good... Standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. Very good... Business insight & application. Breadth, depth & integration of literature/data into work. Very good... Level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Covers most relevant points & issues. Few errors / omissions in content/calculations. Very good... Level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection & a few ideas/points could benefit from further development &/or evaluation/comparison.

70-79 Excellent Excellent ... Presentation & report structure with well-integrated sections & figures. Articulate & fluent academic writing style. Only minor errors. Excellent...Standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. Excellent ... Business insight & application. Breadth, depth & integration of literature/data into work. Excellent ... Level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Evidence of appropriate reading. Covers all relevant points & issues. Excellent...Level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection clearly developing points in the appropriate way with thorough consideration of all possibilities.

/Marks / 5 Marks /5 Marks /20 Marks /35 Marks / 35 Marks Lecturer comments: 80-100 Outstanding Outstanding...Presentation & report structure with very well-integrated sections and figures. Articulate & fluent academic writing style. No grammatical / spelling errors. Outstanding...Standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system. Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. Outstanding...Business insight & application. Breadth, depth & integration of literature/data into work. Outstanding...Exploration of topic showing excellent knowledge & understanding through thorough & appropriate research. Impressive choice and range of appropriate content. Outstanding...Level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. Highly developed/focused work.

PGMarking Scheme for CW2 7BSP1205-0901(Data Analysis) Module Code:7BSP1205-0901 Business Research Methods Lecturers:Siegrid Beck/Andy GillettStudent ID: _________________________ ESSAY Presentation & structure Use & presentation of HBS Harvard Referencing Breadth / Depth / Integration of Literature Content/ Findings/Calculations Discussion /Analysis /Critical evaluation &/or Reflection Task details Follows report structure & keeps to word limit of 1000 words. Follows HBS Harvard style for in-text citation & Reference List Quality of referencing technique Integration & application of information: Use of relevant sources/justifications firmly linked to theory/RM literature Contentincluded:choice and presentation of suitable methods of analysis. Accurately calculated. Line of argument, development of discussion: link between charts/diagrams/figures and analysis/interpretation established, maintained and justified / scope and limitations considered

9.not sufficient focus on how to analyse the specific data set by providing a detailed, step by step approach (what exactly did you do to arrive at the themes that you identified?) 10. insufficient application of theoretical concepts to the specific task 11. insufficient use of data examples and, when examples were given, no reference to where in the data set the example was found What can be done? • Read RM textbooks and research articles in journals to further your knowledge and deepen your understanding of RM theory (qualitative data analysis) • Approach CASE to find out if there are workshops or materials available to practise applying theoretical concepts to specific situations

What can be done? • Read RM textbooks and research articles in journals to further your knowledge and deepen your understanding of RM theory (quantitative data analysis) • Approach CASE to find out if there are workshops or materials available to practise applying theoretical concepts to specific situations 7. inaccurate use of language in the commentary for the statistical analyses What can be done? • Attend any Academic English sessions regularly offered on any modules; seek individual AE advice from the AE tutors in CASE Particularly relevant for Part B: 8. too much general theory on qualitative data/inductive approach/ exploratory research

Generic feedback on CW2 After assessing both parts of CW2, the following areas were identified as frequent causes for some students not achieving high grades: Particularly relevant for Part A 1. the purpose of the task was not/ not clearly identified in the introduction 2. the report was not clearly structured overall and this caused confusion for the reader 3. visuals (graphs, diagrams, charts, tables) were not clearly labelled 4. there were issues with the layout and formatting of the document What can be done? • Read the brief carefully to identify the task • Enhance your report writing skills by booking a CASE workshop • Read business reports/ research reports and note their structure/follow it in future similar tasks 5. there was insufficient link/weak link to RM theory to justify the choice of diagrams/charts/tables 6. insufficient depth/detail/creativity in the analysis and interpretation of the data

• You should write between 750 and 1000 words for each part, as well as including any tables and charts you produced and your list of references. • For part A, you must also submit a pdf copy of the final SPSS output file with your StudyNet submission. You MUST submit this file with your report. Failure to do so will incur a 10 percent penalty. • Competent use of appropriate Research Methods vocabulary is expected. • You should make good use of credible published sources and refer to any sources you make use of – textbooks, manuals etc.

heck the attachment files here all the details are their for assignment and you should also need to send the SPSS document file and that should be in "jss.sav" file pls go through all the attachment files.Further information: • You must attempt both parts of the assignment. • Parts A and B are weighted equally (50:50). • Write two separate reports but submit them as one file named appropriately. • The hand in date is: - 10:00 on Monday, 8 (electronic copy via StudyNet and hard copy). • Hand in a hard copy of your report to the coursework submission point on Ground Floor of M Block. Also submit an electronic version of your report PLUS the SPSS Output File via StudyNet.Make sure you name your files appropriately – “BRM-student number-CW2”.