SOCIAL MARKETING

MN6070

ASSIGNMENT 2: Individual assignment

Due in week 13 (Friday 12th January 2023, 3 pm).

Submission via Turnitin

Assessment 1: Written Assignment (Weighting: 60%) (up to 2000 words).

This assignment requires the students to identify a social marketing topic that (ideally) has been addressed in
two separate SM projects (in one or more countries) and report about the difference of approaches (at least
two approaches) and critically assess the reasons behind the difference and achieved outcomes. The students
will provide a list of recommendations for future workers on the selected topic.

In this assignment, the student should refer to the planning stages and contrast similarities and
differences between the approaches. The report will have 3 broad sections. The first section will
introduce the topic (give sources such as weblink), states why it was selected and introduces the
selected planning stages for the exercise (e.g. Fourali’s, NSMC’s or Hasting’s model), with
justification. In the main section the student will report on each step of the SM planning stages. In
the last section, the conclusion and recommendation, the student will comment on the general
picture of the addressed topic and provide recommendations about the way forward on how to
maximise the effectiveness of the approach.

The report will have a reference section and, if needed, an appendix (e.g. for extra details). The
total number of words, excluding references should not be more than 2000 words (with a maximum
of 10% extra). The purpose is quality not quantity.

Your arguments should be supported by concepts/models from the course and illustrating them

with examples. Critical reflections/evaluations (e.g. pros and cons analyses, ethical aspects etc.)

attract higher points.

1
Further Directions

 The report should be concise with minimum repetitions. It should be clearly organized
(intro, main part and conclusion).
 References to theory should be included, with definition of concepts, and fully Harvard
referenced in the list of references.
 The report should be up to 2000 words. All non-key, but helpful information (e.g. details of
models or research findings) should be put in an Appendix section with numbers and titles
and referred to in the text
 List of references and contents of appendices are not included in the word count.
 State the number of words for the report in the first page.

The marking criteria for this assignment are:

- Clear demonstration of use of social marketing concepts/theory.

- Good explanation of concepts/model used.

- Effective illustration of arguments with examples.

- Demonstration of reflection and critical analysis

- Coherent and logical structure and good use of language

- Appropriate Harvard referencing

This Assignment is weighted at 60%.

2
 Grading Scheme for Assignment 1 for MN6070, Spring 2021
Note: As MN6070 is a level 6 (year 3) module we will be focusing on level 6 criteria (right-
hand side section)
General Level 3/4
o Acquisition of broad
knowledge
o Evaluate information
o Use information to
plan, develop and
problem solve
70-100 Very good
(A) Demonstration of very
good comprehension of
the task with evidence of
analysis, synthesis,
evaluation and critical
appraisal
Use of a wide variety of
appropriate sources
Transformation of
knowledge
Independent thinking and
development of ideas
Ability to communication
very clearly and effectively
Very good evidence of
preparation
Very good organisation,
structure and presentation
of work – minimal errors
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity). No
errors in reference list or
citations.
60-69 Very good
(B) Demonstration of very
good comprehension of
the task with evidence of
analysis, synthesis,
evaluation
Use of a wide variety of
Level 5
o Generate ideas
through analysing
concepts
o Demonstrate a
command of
specialised skills
o Formulate responses
to well defined and
abstract levels
o Analyse and evaluate
information
Excellent
Advanced scholarship
Goes beyond the material
provided
Excellent link to research
Excellent analysis,
synthesis, evaluation and
critical appraisal
Excellent evidence of
preparation
Comprehensive and
critical understanding of
the topic
Excellent ability to
communicate clearly and
effectively
Excellent organisation,
structure and presentation
of work
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity). No
errors in reference list or
citations.
Very good
Demonstration of very
good comprehension of
the task with evidence of
analysis, synthesis,
evaluation
Use of a wide variety of
FOCUS ON THIS COLUMN
Level 6
o Critically review,
consolidate and
extend a body of
knowledge using
specialised skills
o Critically evaluate
concepts and evidence
from a range of
sources
o Transfer and apply
skills and exercise
significant judgement
in a range of situations
Excellent – Outstanding
(for use at far end of
range)
Outstanding
understanding, exploration
and insight
Strong evidence of
originality and
development of own ideas
Develop a highly complex
argument
Outstanding ability to
communicate topics
clearly and concisely
Advanced organisation,
structure and presentation
of work
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity). No
errors in reference list or
citations.
References well utilised
and critiqued
Very Good
Advanced scholarship
Goes beyond the material
provided
Very good link to research
Very good analysis,
synthesis, evaluation and
3
 appropriate sources
Transformation of
knowledge
Independent thinking and
development of ideas
Ability to communication
clearly and effectively
Very good evidence of
preparation
Very good organisation,
structure and presentation
of work – minimal errors
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity).
Minimal or no errors in
reference list or citations.
50-59 Adequate - Satisfactory
(C) Some analysis but limited
Some insight and
exploration of ideas
Sound conclusions
No significant inaccuracies
or omissions
Some analysis, evaluation
or synthesis of information
Lacking clarity at times
Some evidence of
preparation
Referencing is sound.
Mostly appropriate
sources. Numerous errors
or inconsistencies
40-49 All learning outcomes
(D) met
Competent (practical)
May be incomplete in
knowledge (some errors
or omissions)
Insufficient analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Limited application of
theories/knowledge
An awareness of
appropriate
principles/theories/techniq
ues
Irrelevance to the task at
times
appropriate sources
Transformation of
knowledge
Independent thinking and
development of ideas
Ability to communication
clearly and effectively
Very good evidence of
preparation
Very good organisation,
structure and presentation
of work – minimal errors
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity).
Minimal or no errors in
reference list or citations.
Adequate - Satisfactory
Some evidence of thinking
independently to develop
own ideas
Evaluation of relevant
theories or literature
Reasonable ability to
communicate clearly and
effectively
Report information in a
structured way
Use of an appropriate
format
Quite comprehensive
knowledge
Satisfactory evidence of
preparation
Satisfactory referencing,
appropriate sources.
Numerous but minor
errors in references
All learning outcomes
met
Competent (practical)
May be incomplete in
knowledge (some errors
or omissions)
Weak or no analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Some application of
theories/knowledge
An awareness of
appropriate
principles/theories/techniq
ues
Irrelevance to the task at
times
critical appraisal
Very good evidence of
preparation
Comprehensive and
critical understanding of
the topic
Very good ability to
communicate clearly and
effectively
Very good organisation,
structure and presentation
of work
Good references,
appropriate sources
(quality and quantity). No
errors in reference list or
citations.
Adequate- Satisfactory
Evidence of thinking
independently to develop
own ideas
Evaluation of relevant
theories or literature
Ability to communicate
clearly and effectively
Report information in a
structured way
Use of an appropriate
format
Reasonably Accurate,
quite comprehensive
knowledge
Satisfactory evidence of
preparation
Coherent and well
presented – minor errors
Satisfactory referencing,
appropriate sources.
Minor errors in references
All learning outcomes
met
Competent (practical)
May be incomplete in
knowledge (some errors
or omissions)
Weak or no analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Some application of
theories/knowledge
An awareness of
appropriate
principles/theories/techniq
ues
Irrelevance to the task at
times
4
 Disorganised work with
weak standard of
presentation
Numerous aberrations
from the requirements of
the task
Referencing is attempted
although may be
inconsistent, many errors,
weak sources
Condone Learning outcomes not
d Pass met
30-39 Little relevant knowledge
(F1) Lacking structure
Numerous errors in
structure and form
Limited understanding of
concepts/theories
No appropriate analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Significant
inaccuracies/omissions
Not competent
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so very
weak with errors
Under 30 Little engagement with the
(F2) task
No basic understanding of
the subject matter
Poor communication
(written or verbal)
Lacking or no structure
Significant errors in
structure and form
Many significant
inaccuracies/omissions –
very little correct
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so very
weak with many significant
errors
(0%) No submission
Nothing of relevance in
the work submitted
Disorganised work with
weak standard of
presentation
Aberrations from the
requirements of the task
Referencing is attempted
although may be
inconsistent, many errors,
weak sources
Learning outcomes not
met
Little relevant knowledge
Lacking structure
Numerous errors in
structure and form
Limited understanding of
concepts/theories
No appropriate analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Significant
inaccuracies/omissions
Not competent
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so very
weak with errors
Little engagement with the
task
No basic understanding of
the subject matter
Poor communication
(written or verbal)
Lacking or no structure
Significant errors in
structure and form
Many significant
inaccuracies/omissions –
very little correct
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so very
weak with many significant
errors
No submission
Nothing of relevance in
the work submitted
Disorganised work with
weak standard of
presentation
Aberrations from the
requirements of the task
Referencing is attempted
although may be
inconsistent, many errors,
weak sources
Learning outcomes not
met
Little relevant knowledge
Lacking structure
Numerous errors in
structure and form
Limited understanding of
concepts/theories
No appropriate analysis,
evaluation or synthesis
Significant
inaccuracies/omissions
Not competent
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so very
weak with errors
Little engagement with the
task
No basic understanding of
the subject matter
Poor communication
(written or verbal)
Lacking or no structure
Significant errors in
structure and form
Many significant
inaccuracies/omissions –
very little correct
Little or no attempt to use
references and if so very
weak with many significant
errors
No submission
Nothing of relevance in
the work submitted