COURSEWORK ASSIGNMENT

Academic Year 2020/21

Module Code: BSM930

Module Name: Entrepreneurial Strategies

Module Leader: Jason Evans

Coursework Title: Assignment 001: Coursework

Task Details/Description:

This is an individual piece of assessment. Students are required to

complete 2 out of 3 short answer questions.

Students will justify positions taken through strong argumentation,

synthesis of knowledge and research work, and adequate citation support.
In addition, the assignment requires students to use tools and frameworks
discussed in class.

The purpose of this assignment is to apply core concepts discussed in

class and thereby increase knowledge & understanding. To do well in the
assignment students also have to demonstrate core entrepreneurial skills
such as creativity and logical thinking.

Question 1: ‘Entrepreneurship is about creating new, profitable

businesses to enhance wealth’. You should debate this statement and
form a clear, stated, final position.
In answering you should;
a) Consider all of the issues that are raised in the statement.
b) Conclude with a position supported from your discussion.
c) Make reference wherever relevant to module learnings and wider
reading.
(1500 words +/- 10%)
Question 2: Critically discuss the concepts of causation and effectuation in
the entrepreneurial process.
In answering you should;
a) Outline your understanding of each concept in turn.
b) Debate them in the context of your choice.
c) Conclude with a position supported form your discussion and your
stated context.
d) Make reference wherever relevant to module learnings and wider
reading
(1500 words +/- 10%)
Question 3: Corporate entrepreneurship was defined in the module as, “…
the process whereby an individual or a group of individuals in association
with an existing organization, create a new organization or instigate
renewal or innovation with the organization (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999)”.
a) Critically discuss corporate entrepreneurship.
b) Highlight the common issues faced by organisations in pursuing
corporate entrepreneurship.
c) Take a clear position on the role of corporate entrepreneurship for
organisations.
d) Make reference wherever relevant to module learnings and wider
reading
(1500 words +/- 10%)

Module Learning Outcomes Assessed:

1. Critique entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial skills in different
entrepreneurial contexts
2. Reflect on their entrepreneurial skills in order to analyse and draw
relevant inferences from empirical case studies of entrepreneurship.

Presentation Requirements:

Word Count: 3000 words (1500 x 2)

Font Size: Arial 12

Line Spacing: Double

Submission Date & Time:

TBC

Assessment Weighting for the Module:

100%

Assessment Criteria

See marking criteria appended below

Ethical Requirements

None

Essential Reading for Coursework Task

(if in addition to reading provided in the module outline):

None in addition to reading. However, there is an expectation that

students will demonstrate wider reading and personal leadership in
researching for the task (see marking grid).
 Content and Scholarship
(40%)
80% + As for a 1st, plus evidence of
truly exceptional and relevant
knowledge, understanding and
independent scholarship.
Potentially of publishable
quality.
70% - Shows detailed, integrated
80% knowledge and clear
understanding of the relevant
1st subject area.
Evidence of independent
reading and thinking that
consistently covers material
and/or ideas beyond the
lecture/seminar content, and
uses a wide range of
appropriate and independently
researched sources.
Excellent consideration of theory,
principles, and methodologies
appropriate to the assigned task.
60% - Shows good or very good
69% knowledge and understanding of
the relevant subject area, with
2:1 perhaps some minor
misconception or ambiguity
Evidence of independent reading
and thinking that covers material
and/or ideas beyond the
lecture/seminar content, and
uses a fairly wide range of
appropriate sources
Good consideration of
theory, principles, and
methodologies appropriate
to the assigned task
Quality of
arguments
presented (40%)
As for a 1st , plus
evidence of outstanding
sophistication and/or
originality
Excellent argument
construction overall,
informed by coherent,
compelling, and critical
use of evidence that is
appropriate to the
assigned task.
Research and its
implications are
interpreted and applied
appropriately, with clarity
and insight.
Good or very good
argument construction
overall, informed by
coherent, and somewhat
compelling and/or critical
use of evidence that is
appropriate to the
assigned task
Research and its
implications are
interpreted and applied
appropriately and clearly
Presentatio
n (20%)
As for a 1st , but typically
with no errors, and
outstanding readability and
structure
The assignment is very well
written overall.
Very good layout and structure.
Minimal or no spelling or
grammatical errors.
Excellent attention to
professional norms (e.g.
referencing, use of academic
tone/language).
No referencing or citation error.
The assignment is well-written
overall Good layout and
structure
Occasional spelling or
grammatical errors
Good attention to professional
norms (e.g. referencing, use of
academic tone/language).
Minor citation/ referencing error.
50% - Shows reasonable knowledge and
59 understanding of the relevant
subject area, with occasional
% misconception or ambiguity that
does not significantly undermine
PA the overall content
Reasonably good The assignment is well-written
argument construction, overall Good layout and
occasionally informed structure.
by evidence that is
appropriate to the Occasional spelling or
assigned task grammatical errors.

SS

Some evidence of appropriate Research and its Good attention to professional

reading and thinking that implications are norms (e.g. referencing, use of
occasionally covers material described only, with academic tone/language)
and/or ideas beyond the limited integration with,
lecture/seminar content, and uses and application to, the Regular, though minor,
an adequate range of appropriate overall argument error in referencing and
sources citation.
Satisfactory consideration of
theory,
principles, and
methodologies appropriate
to the assigned task
40% - Shows some limited knowledge Research findings may be The assignment is somewhat well
49% and a simple understanding of the described, but with minimal written in some parts.
FAIL relevant subject area, with attempt to form an
occasional misconceptions or
ambiguity that undermines the argument that is relevant to Layout and structure are
content in places. the assigned task satisfactory in some parts.

Some limited evidence of Frequent spelling or grammatical

appropriate reading and thinking errors sufficient to impede
that rarely or never covers either understanding.
material or ideas beyond the
lecture/seminar content, and uses Some attention to professional
a narrow range of appropriate
sources norms (e.g. referencing, use of
academic tone/language)
Some limited consideration of
theory, principles, and Regular citation and referencing
methodologies appropriate to the error is apparent.
assigned task which may be
flawed.

Does not fully cover the

requirements of the assignment,
or does so but not sufficiently
enough to pass.
30% - As for 40-49%%, but with frequent Relevant research findings The assignment is not well written
39% major misconceptions and
FAIL ambiguity regarding the
lecture/seminar content
1% – Virtually no evidence of
29% knowledge or understanding of
FAIL the relevant subject area. No
consideration of theory, principles,
and methodologies appropriate to describe relevant research Poor layout and structure
the assigned task.
Contains frequent major
misconceptions and ambiguity
throughout An attempt has been
made to complete the
assignment, but clearly does not
meet the learning outcomes
0% Does not attempt to complete the If submitted, no attempt to If submitted, the assignment is
assignment, due to either non-
FAIL submission or non-attendance.
may be described, but with overall.
no attempt to form an
argument that is relevant to Poor layout and structure
the assigned task Frequent spelling or grammatical
errors sufficient to impede
understanding.
Poor attention to academic norms
(e.g. referencing, use of academic
tone/language)
Significant citation and referencing
error is apparent.
No attempt to form an The assignment is not well written
argument that is relevant to overall.
the assigned task, or to
findings Frequent spelling or grammatical
errors sufficient to impede
understanding.
Poor attention to academic norms
(e.g. referencing, use of academic
tone/language).
Significant citation and referencing
error is apparent.
form a relevant argument or incomprehensible
to describe relevant
research findings