代写MKTG3501 Semester 2, 2024代做回归
- 首页 >> CSMKTG3501 Semester 2, 2024
Assessment 1 Guidelines – Theoretical & Practical Review
Weight: 30%
Submission: Word document (.docx is preferable)
Word limit: 1,500 words maximum (+/- 10%). Any content submitted beyond the limit is ineligible for marking. Referencing: APA (6th)
The aim of this assessment task is to develop your critical thinking skills, to use these to reflect upon your own learning of marketing strategy so far in this course and to identify areas for improvement. You are required to write a critical reflection on your experiential learning. Your goal is to connect your learning to application and personal development in order to expand your view of the marketing world.
Reflection is a valuable learning tool in the education environment, but also a very useful business tool. Imagine a leader who doesn’t reflect on performance, they are likely to make the same mistakes over and over. Therefore, a crucial component of reflection is improvement, identifying how you would do things differently with the insight you have now gained. This is what learning is all about. I encourage all students to peruse the links in the A1 folder about reflection practice as this will help you understand how to approach this task.
Content guidelines
These guidelines provide a comprehensive framework and align well to the marking criteria. There is no specific structure that learners must follow but you are encouraged to use headings to break up content and direct the reader. Additionally, the nature of the task will involve the use of personal pronouns and this is acceptable in this piece, although is less common in business writing. The word limit excludes the reference list (everything else including tables, figures, heading, captions, etc are included in the word count, no appendices are used in this task). As a written communication, a brief introduction and conclusion should be included.
To provide learners with a structured approach to this task, you are asked to reflect on specific elements, rather than a broad overview. As such, learners should ensure they address the specific topics following and should consult the marking criteria to see how this will be assessed:
The assessment is formed by 4 parts, as follows.
Firstly, students should examine theory on strategic manoeuvres, providing a theoretical synthesis, and identifying a specific consideration for marketing managers to be mindful of when developing marketing strategies.
Secondly, individuals should summarise the choice of strategic manoeuvres as related to goals set in Q2 of the simulation, with explanation supported by theory as to why these choices were made. Decisions should be supported by theoretical reasoning, as well as in relation to performance in the simulation. This should include a brief examination of how well/poorly these decisions work to create an effective strategy.
Thirdly, individuals should review implementation of strategy (up to and including Q4) and evaluate how well tactical choices have aligned to the overarching goals, and the results of this implementation. Be specific here – what choices align/do not align with set strategic objectives, what are the specific implications of this alignment, or lack of (simulation performance is useful evidence and theoretical rationalisation is essential).
Finally, considering your theoretical discussion and review of practice, individuals should identify a single problem/opportunity in the simulation and make a single top priority essential specific recommendation to address this for potential execution moving forward in the simulation, providing justification (bridging theory and practice) as to why this is necessary and details of how this will be executed. This should be a specific actionable choice in the simulation, with expected costs and outcomes. <Please do not recommend general approaches, such as conducting research or monitoring competitors, this should be a specific strategic choice executed in the game.>
Crucially, it is highlighted that this is a critical and informed reflection, not an opinion piece. Therefore, detailed examination in relation to marketing theory is essential. Students who solely describe personal opinions will fail. The task requires a diligent examination of experiential learning outcomes in relation to specific evidence and contemporary marketing literature. All discussions should be informed by evidence and theory, not personal opinion.
Format
• Line spacing 1.5
• font 11pt Arial
• Standard margins
• Use headings to break up content effectively
• References should be included for ALL works using APA style. There is no set number of references needed, rather relevance and quality of scholarly theory will inform viewpoints and evidence.
|
Criteria |
Exceptional |
Advanced |
Proficient |
Functional |
Unsatisfactory |
|
Marketing theory 25 marks |
Sophisticated and thorough synthesis of a range of highly relevant theory with expert identification and justification of top consideration. |
Thorough synthesis of a range of relevant theory with strong identification and justification of top consideration. |
Sound synthesis of a range of related theory with identification and some justification of top consideration. |
Broad review of related theory, although more descriptive and lacking analysis, particularly in identification and justification of top consideration. |
Irrelevant, inaccurate or inadequate review of theory, lacking analysis and insufficient identification and justification of top consideration. |
|
Strategic goals 20 marks |
Exceptionally clear description and explanation of strategic marketing goals, with strong theoretical substantiation. Expertly and precisely examining the nature of strategic choices. |
Clear explanation of strategic marketing goals, with theoretical substantiation and a sound examination of the nature of strategic choices. |
Explanation of strategic marketing goals, although descriptive at times and with sound examination of the nature of strategic choices. |
A description of strategic marketing goals and with broad/limited explanation of strategic choices. |
An unclear or vague description of strategic marketing goals and/or with limited/no examination of the nature of strategic choices. |
|
Implementation 20 marks |
Sophisticated and succinct reflection on the implementation of strategic goals in simulation, with expert evaluation of the tactical choices and outcomes, based on theory and evidence. |
A thorough and well detailed reflection on the implementation of strategic goals in simulation, with strong evaluation of the tactical choices and outcomes based on theory and evidence. |
A sound and partly detailed reflection on the implementation of strategic goals in simulation, with some evaluation of tactical choices and outcomes using some theory or evidence. |
A descriptive reflection on implementation of strategic goals in simulation, with broad evaluation of tactical choices and outcomes, briefly noting theory or evidence. |
An unclear or vague reflection on implementation of strategic goals in simulation, with inaccurate or insufficient evaluation of tactical choices and outcomes with insufficient theory and evidence. |
|
Recommendation 15 marks |
Expert application of reflective findings to identify problem/opportunity and confidently justify a specific and actionable recommendation, with precise detail of cost and expected result. |
Strong application of reflective findings to identify problem/opportunity and to strongly justify a recommendation, with depth of detail of costs and expected result. |
Broad problem/opportunity with a justified recommendation, including some detail, but with scope for more consideration of costs and expected results. |
A general problem/opportunity with a recommendation, with some, but limited, justification and with broad detail. |
Insufficient or inaccurate reflective findings, not sufficiently identifying problem/opportunity, with no/limited justification of recommendation, and with insufficient detail. |
|
Informed discussions 10 marks |
Use of high-quality literature throughout the reflection to support views and add depth to discussion, highlighting crucial themes of marketing. |
Use of quality literature throughout the reflection to support views and discuss relevant marketing themes. |
Use of literature to inform. views throughout but being descriptive at times. |
Some literature is discussed throughout but is largely descriptive. |
Insufficient (or no) use of literature to inform. discussions throughout, with inaccurate discussions or unsuitable sources. |
|
Writing organisation and mechanics (including style, spelling, grammar and referencing). 10 marks |
Extremely well organised and structured writing communicates meaning with absolute clarity and fluency, with no errors in grammar, spelling, word limits and referencing. |
Well organised and structured writing communicates meaning with clarity and fluency, with minimal errors in grammar, spelling, word limits and referencing. |
Partly organised and structured writing communicates meaning with some clarity and fluency, with errors in grammar, spelling, word limits and/or referencing. |
Partly organised and structured writing communicates meaning, with multiple errors in grammar, spelling, word limits and/or referencing. |
Not well-organised or structured making meaning difficult to follow. Poor use of language, grammar, spelling, word limits and referencing style. No evidence of proof reading. |