Dissertation Grading Form Student Name Shaonan Yao Programme MA IBM First Marker / Supervisor Lan Nguyen Provisional

Mark (in %) 63 Agreed Mark (in % and on the 20-point scale) Student Number M00328523 Submission Date th 12 October Second Marker

Provisional Mark (in %)

The assessment criteria for the Dissertation embraces six areas of the work which are differently weighted as follows: Area 1: Research Objectives (10% of Total Marks) Area 2: Literature Review and Conceptual Framework (25% of Total Marks) Area 3: Methodology (20% of Total Marks) Area 4: Findings and Analysis (20% of Total Marks) Area 5: Conclusions and Recommendations (15% of Total Marks) Area 6: Language and Presentation (10% of Total Marks) The minimum requirement to pass the dissertation is to achieve a pass in all six areas.

General Comments including how mark agreed

Research Objectives. (10%): Research subject valid and relevant to the programme; Clear statement of the research aims and objectives, with a comprehensive, persuasive and justified rationale

(70%+ Distinction) (mark between: 7 and 10)

Research subject valid and relevant to the programme; Clear statement of the research aims and objectives, with an appropriate and justified rationale Research subject valid and relevant to the programme; Statement of the research aims and objectives reasonably clear, but some shortcomings in clarity of purpose Rationale included, but somewhat lacking in clarity, relevance and justification Subject is largely invalid with little or no relevance; No identifiable statement of the research problem/question and associated objectives; No rationale, or one which is inappropriate/irrelevant; Markers Additional Comments Research subject valid and relevant to the programme; No identifiable statement of the research problem/question and associated objectives; No rationale, or one which is inappropriate/irrelevant;

(60-69% Merit) (mark between: 6 and 6.9)

(40-59% Pass) (mark between: 4 and 5.9)

(Below 40% Fail) (mark between: 0 and 3.9)

Mark proposed

Literature Review and Conceptual Framework (25%): Evidence of a comprehensive knowledge and full critical review of the literature relevant to the study; Development of a coherent, and fully justified conceptual framework to underpin the research undertaken; Clear links to aims and objectives; Up to date, with a strong emphasis towards journal material; Citation and referencing entirely accurate and consistent, using the Harvard method. Evidence of a sound knowledge and critical review of the literature relevant to the study; Development of a clear, appropriate and justified conceptual framework to base the research upon; Clear links to aims and objectives; Up to date, with a strong emphasis towards journal material; Citation and referencing entirely accurate and consistent, using the Harvard method. Evidence of a satisfactory knowledge and limited critical review of the relevant literature, but with obvious gaps and omissions; Development of an appropriate conceptual framework, but which is not clearly stated and/or complete and justified; Links to aims and objectives; Adequate reading, concentrates mainly on text; Citation and referencing generally accurate but with omissions and inconsistent. No convincing evidence of an understanding of the literature, with a very limited selection of relevant sources and no critical comment; No development of an appropriate conceptual framework for the research. Limited/no link to aims and objectives; Limited reading, not enough relevancy; Poor, inconsistent citation and referencing Markers Additional Comments Citation and referencing accurate and consistent, using the Harvard method. Adequate reading, concentrates mainly on data No convincing evidence of an understanding of the literature, with a very limited selection of relevant sources and no critical comment; (70%+ Distinction) (mark between: 17.5 and 25)

(60-69% Merit) (mark between: 15 and 17.4)

(40-59% Pass) (mark between: 10 and 14.9)

(Below 40% Fail) (mark between: 0 and 9.9)

Mark proposed

11

Methodology. (20%): Highly relevant and appropriate methodology with clear links to aims and objectives; Clear justification, with supporting and referenced evidence, of methodology adopted indicating a full understanding of its values and recognises the limitations of the methods adopted; Implementation of data collection methods highly appropriate and relevant Relevant and appropriate methodology with clear links to aims and objectives Clear justification, with supporting and referenced evidence, of methodology adopted indicating a full understanding of its values and limitations. Implementation of data collection methods highly appropriate and relevant Suitable methodology with links to aims and objectives Justification of methodology present, but some shortcomings in supporting and referenced evidence, of methodology adopted An attempt made to show understanding of its values and limitations. Appropriate implementation of data collection methods but lacking in clarity Inappropriate and irrelevant methodology presented No evidence of any real understanding of the methodological foundations of the work. Markers Additional Comments Relevant and appropriate methodology with clear links to aims and objectives, lacks of justification. Mark proposed (70%+ Distinction) (mark between: 14 and 20)

(60-69% Merit) (mark between: 12 and 13.9)

(40-59% Pass Second) (mark between: 8 and 11.9)

(Below 40% Fail) (mark between: 0 and 7.9)

10

Findings and Analysis (20%): Clear presentation of fully justified findings with extensive evidence of the validity and reliability of findings present; Clear and extensive evidence of a high level of analysis using appropriate technique, and in line with the aims and objectives; Exceptional and critical appraisal of issues arising from findings. Clear presentation of fully justified findings with evidence of the validity and reliability of findings present; Clear evidence of a high level of analysis using appropriate technique, and in line with the aims and objectives; Very good and critical appraisal of issues arising from findings. Presentation of findings with evidence and justification of the validity and reliability of findings present; Evidence of a sound and satisfactory level of analysis using appropriate technique; Analysis of issues present. Little or no evidence and justification of validity and reliability of findings present; Presentation of some findings, but which are inaccurate, incomplete, and/or illogical. Little or no evidence of appropriate analysis; Markers Additional Comments Presentation of findings with evidence and justification of the validity and reliability of findings present, in line with the aims and objectives. Good effort at presenting SWOT analysis and the famous brand case stury (70%+ Distinction) (mark between: 14 and 20)

(60-69% Merit) (mark between: 12 and 13.9))

(40-59% Pass) (mark between: 8 and 11.9)

(Below 40% Fail) (mark between: 0 and 7.9)

Mark proposed

12

Conclusions and Recommendations (15%): Excellent, clear and logical conclusions, based upon the research evidence, which demonstrate the ability to critically evaluate the research results; Demonstrate clear linkage to aims and objectives Critique of accuracy of recommendations, and of contribution of research to knowledge and/or practice Clear and logical conclusions, based upon the research evidence, which demonstrate the ability to critically evaluate the research results; Demonstrate clear linkage to aims and objectives Critique of accuracy of recommendations, and of contribution of research to knowledge and/or practice Clear and logical conclusions, based upon the research evidence, which demonstrate the ability to critically evaluate the research results; Demonstrate linkage to aims and objectives Critique of accuracy of recommendations, and of contribution of research to knowledge and/or practice Presentation of some conclusions, but which are either inaccurate, incomplete, and/or illogical. Little or no evidence of the ability to critically evaluate the work undertaken Markers Additional Comments Presentation of some conclusions, recommendation, limitations, based upon the research evidence Little or no evidence of the ability to critically evaluate the work undertaken (70%+ First Class) (mark between:10.5 and 15)

(60-69% Merit) (mark between: 9 and 10.4)

(40-59% Pass) (mark between: 6 and 8.9)

(Below 40% Fail) (mark between: 0 and 5.9) Mark proposed

Language and Presentation (10%): Conforms to all the required specifications and has an excellent layout in terms of structure and logical argument; Clear and correct use of English characterised by a very clear and logical style of expression, with no imprecise and/or incorrect statements; Outstanding presentation. Conforms to all the required specifications and has a very good layout in terms of structure and logical argument; Clear and correct use of English characterised by a clear style of expression, with few imprecise and/or incorrect statements; Good presentation. Conforms to all major specifications and has generally good layout in terms of structure and logical argument; Reasonably clear and correct use of English characterised by generally clear expression, with relatively few imprecise and/or incorrect statements; Presentation is tidy. Does not conform to the required specifications and has generally unacceptable layout in terms of structure and logical argument; Generally poor use of English characterised by numerous errors, unclear, incorrect and/or illogical statements; Presentation inadequate, with numerous deficiencies. Markers Additional Comments Some typos and grammatical mistakes. Good attempts. The quality of writing and arguments see a significant improvement from first drafts til final. Well-done. (70%+ Distinction) (mark between: 7 and 10)

(60-69% Merit) (mark between: 6 and 6.9)

(40-59% Pass) (mark between: 4 and 5.9)

(Below 40% Fail) (mark between: 0 and 3.9)

Mark proposed