International Business Environment(2)

International Business Environment(2)
Order Description
The detailed requirements for this task are as follows:
Using data that you have collected form the relevant World Investment Reports compare, contrast and explain the significance of American and Chinese FDI in Africa since 2000.

Assessment brief number 7IB003 International Business Environment

Module leader: Mike Haynes email address: M.J.Haynes2@wlv.ac.uk
Academic Year: 2015 /2016 Semester 1
Module assessment detail (approved at validation as amended by module modification)
Module code & title 7IB001 (2)
Module Learning outcomes: Tick (?) if tested here
LO1 Evaluate the Institutions of the global economy
LO2 Analyse arguments about global economic trends and dynamics (?)
LO3 Interpret differing levels of global movements of goods and factors of production
LO4 Interpret and apply economic analysis to the role of international business organisations and their activities (?)
Assessment types Weightings (%)
Essay 50%

Assessment type, weighting and LOs tested by this assessment indicated in the shaded area above by a ?
Important requirements (Delete where appropriate, if other please provide detail)
Mode of Working: Individual
Presentation Format: Essay
Method of Submission: Paper Submission to MX student Office
Mark required to pass this coursework: 40%
Hand in date & time 18 January 2016

Date & method by which you will receive feedback 3 working weeks from lecturer

Resit/retrieval date NA

Assessment limits (in accordance with UWBS assessment tariff)
No more than: 3000 words maximum excluding bibliography and any appendices
Do clearly state your student number when submitting work but do not indicate your name. Always keep a copy of your work. Always keep a file of working papers (containing, for instance, working notes, copied journal article and early drafts of your work, etc.) that show the development of your work and the sources you have used. You may need to show this to tutor at some point so notes should be clear and written in English. This is an important requirement. There may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is so you may be asked to submit your file within 3 working days and possibly meet with your tutor to answer questions on your submission.

Explanation of submission requirements and further guidance

• Assessmentsare subject to a word limit to ensure consistency of approach across all modules. Your work should not exceed the limit indicated (excluding references and appendices). Do not feel that you have to “achieve” this word count in your work. What is important is that the work satisfies the stated learning outcomes which are articulated through the assessment criteria (see following page).
• Care is taken to ensure that work has been marked correctly. Checks are conducted by both a second lecturer and an independent expert from outside the University on batches of work.
• Your work will not be returned to you but you will receive detailed feedback explaining how your mark has been arrived at and how your work could have been improved upon.
• Always use the Harvard style referencing system. The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your studies and develop your academic skills including a guide to Harvard referencing http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
• Expensive or elaborate bindings and covers for submissions are not required in most instances. (Refer to guidelines however in the case of dissertations).
• The BusinessSchool has a policy of anonymous marking of individual assessments which applies to most modules. You should not identify yourself directly in the work you submit and you may need to use phrases such as “the author of this assignment ….”in the detail of your submission.
Avoid academic misconduct
Warning: Collusion, plagiarism and cheating are very serious offences that can result in a student being expelled from the University. The BusinessSchool has a policy of actively identifying students who engage in academic misconduct of this nature and routinely applying detection techniques including the use of sophisticated software packages.
• Avoid Collusion. The BusinessSchool encourages group working, however to avoid collusion always work on your own when completing individual assessments. Do not let fellow students have access to your work at any stage and do not be tempted to access the work of others. Refer to your module tutor if you do not understand or you need further guidance.
• Avoid Plagiarism. You must use available and relevant literature to demonstrate your knowledge of a subject, however to avoid plagiarism you must take great care to acknowledge it properly.Plagiarism is the act of stealing someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. This includes incorporating either unattributed direct quotation(s) or substantial paraphrasing from the work of another/others. For this reason it is important that you cite all the sources whose work you have drawn on and reference them fully in accordance with the Harvard referencing standard. (This includes citing any work that you may have submitted yourself previously). Extensive direct quotations in assessed work is ill advised because it represents a poor writing style, and it could lead to omission errors and a plagiarism offence could be committed accidentally.
• Avoid the temptation to “commission” work or to cheat in other ways. There are temptations on the internet for you to take “short cuts”. Do not be tempted to either commission work to be completed on your behalf or search for completed past academic work.
When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration that the submission is your own work, any material you have used has been acknowledged and referenced, you have not allowed another student to have access to your work, the work has not been submitted previously, etc.

Assessment Brief/ Task

The detailed requirements for this task are as follows:
Using data that you have collected form the relevant World Investment Reports compare, contrast and explain the significance of American and Chinese FDI in Africa since 2000.
The following information is important when:
• Preparing for your assessment
• Checking your work before you submit it
• Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.

Assessment Criteria
The module Learning Outcomes tested by this assessment task are indicated on page 1. The precise criteria against which your work will be marked are as follows:

1. Obtain and assess relevant data on of American and China FDI in poor countries from the WIR and changes over time.

2. Identify and apply theoretical concepts and frameworks for assessing and comparing foreign investment and to why those controlling American and Chinese find some countries and sectors attractive.

3. Consider the issues of economic rationality and political influence in FDI patterns.

4. Demonstrate clarity of writing, a good structure, coherence and appropriate referencing

Level 7 Performance Descriptors
Indicator % Work will often demonstrate some of the following features
Distinction 90-100 An outstanding piece of work, aspects of which are of a standard which could be considered for future publication in a professional journal. The work demonstrates engagement in a focussed academic debate which presents a range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied and outlines a totally justified position. There is evidence of mature synthesis of theoretical exemplars, underpinning principles and practical interpretation. No obvious errors in referencing and/or grammar and syntax.
Distinction 80-89 This work is of an excellent standard and demonstrates engagement in an academic debate which presents clear evidence of a considered understanding of the issues. The work challenges current theory and displays a range of examples of contestability. There is a critical analysis of theoretical models and/or current practice, which demonstrates a synthesis of current theoretical issues. Very few errors in referencing and/or grammar and syntax.
Distinction 70-79 There is evidence of analysis and critique of concepts, models of key authors, rival theories, and major debates together with some evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the complexity of the context and the impinging external factors; it takes cognisance of differing perspectives and interpretations and recognises dilemmas. Ideas are presented ins succinct manner and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows an ability to critique the underlying assumptions upon which current views are based and to challenge received opinion. Few errors in referencing and/or grammar and syntax.
Merit 60-69
The work demonstrates a capacity to express views based on sound argument and solid evidence in an articulate and concise way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgment of theories and issues. There is evidence of effective engagement in a critical dialogue relating to professional practice, a clearly presented overview of an area of concern, and a comparative review of key authors, rival theories and major debates. The work demonstrates a willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesise theoretical perspectives and practical application within a given professional context. Some small repeated errors in grammar or syntax. Possibly failure to apply Harvard referencing standard correctly in places.
Pass 50-59
The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors and major debates are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses issues, but is not strong on presenting synthesis or evaluations. The work is mainly descriptive, but has achieved all the learning outcomes. Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate.
Fail 40-49
Whilst some of the characteristics of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not address each of the outcomes for the specified assessment task. There may be little evidence of an ability to apply the principles of the module to a wider context. The work may be an overly descriptive account demonstrating only minimal interpretation, and very limited evidence of analysis, synthesis or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered. There is evidence of sufficient grasp of the module’s learning outcomes to suggest that the participant will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
Fail 30-39 The work has failed to address the learning outcomes of the assessment and there are fundamental misconceptions about the basis of the module. The work is mainly descriptive with too few references to appropriate literature and little evidence of independent thought. There are faults in the application of Harvard referencing system and/or faulty grammar and syntax.
Fail 20-29 This work shows little or no understanding of relevant theories and concepts. There is little reference to appropriate literature and no evidence of independent thought. Overall the work is unduly descriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the essential issues.
Fail 10-19 This work is not coherent and shows severe faults in referencing and/or grammar and syntax. It includes unsubstantiated statements or assertions. It is unstructured and extremely badly presented. It is totally descriptive and lacks any attempt at analysis.
Fail 0-9 No real attempt to address the assessment brief or learning outcomes
Note: The postgraduate pass rate is 50%.
To help you further:
• Refer to the WOLF topic for contact details of your module leader/tutor, tutorial inputs, recommended reading and other sources, etc. Resit details will also appear on WOLF.
• The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic skills http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx

find the cost of your paper