Assessment 2: Group Case Analysis
| Assessment 2: Group case analysis | 30% (10% oral presentation + 20% written report | Week 9 | 2000 words (equivalent) + 15 mins presentation |
Description/Task
(30%): Written Report and Group Presentation
- Due: Week 9.
- Task: Students work in group of 3-4 to analyse, evaluate communication strategies of a chosen company from the suggested list below (You can choose your own company, please seek for
lecture’s advice beforehand):
- EVENT CINEMA https://www.eventcinemas.com.au/
- COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA https://www.commbank.com.au/
- THE ICONIC https://www.theiconic.com.au/
- JB HI-FI https://www.jbhifi.com.au/
- ALLIANZ https://www.allianz.com.au/
The assessment will include TWO parts:
- Part 1 – Written report (20%):
- Students write a business report of 2000 words to present, analyze, discuss, and evaluate communication strategy of the chosen company. In detailed, justify the role of technology in promoting its name and maintaining customer services. Please find the structure of a business report in Appendix 1
- Students are required to submit ONE GROUP REPORT only.
- Part 2 – Oral presentation (15%):
- Students are required to record a video presenting their part in group presentation with a visible image and clear audio
- Students are encouraged to be creative in the delivery method.
Business report structure
Refer to Appendix 1
Marking rubric
Refer to Appendix 2
Referencing
Your group’s report is required to consist at least 10 additional readings. Be aware of following strictly Harvard style format in both in-text reference and reference list.
Plagiarism
Use your own words to present your work. You are allowed to reach up to 10% of similarity. Assignments that reach up to 25% will be considered by lecturer. Assignments that have more than 50% of similarity will be
immediately marked “F” score and reported to the institution for misconduct behaviour.
Feedback
Marks and feedback with comments will be provided to students within 2 weeks after submission. A rubric will be provided with the questions providing marking criteria. This will be used to mark and provide feedback to students.
Note: For all the requirements of submissions and integrity policies you must refer to the unit study guide provided. Please check on MyPIA Moodle site.
Appendix 1
== End of Assessment brief===
BUSINESS REPORT STRUCTURE
| Section | Content |
| Title page | Title of the report Group number: students’ full name and student ID number Unit name Date |
| Executive summary | A short summary of the whole report (should not be longer more than one page) summarising: purposescope of the investigationmajor findingsanalysis, conclusions and recommendations |
| Table of contents | Portrait of all sections appeared in the report including all levels of headings within the report. |
| Introduction | Overview of: Background informationOverall purpose and key objectivesTopic/ problem and its scopeOutlineDefinition of terms |
| Findings and discussion | The main part of the report presenting: Related theoretical frameworkFindings: The most significant findingsDiscussion: the relation between findings and relevant theories, factors that may influence the results, etc. |
| Conclusion | A summary and evaluation of the report’s findings, may also mention the limitations of the report. |
| Recommendations | Suggested actions based on the report findings (what needs to be done, who needs to do, how, where or when it needs to be done). |
| Appendix (if any) | Optional material containing specialised information that may have been too detailed or lengthy to put in the body of the report. |
| References | The list of all additional resources such as books, articles, journals, websites, etc. which are used in the report. |
Appendix 2
Marking rubric for Assessment 2 – Group Presentation (10%)
| Category | Excellent (8.5-10 points) | Very good (7.5-8.4 points) | Good (6.5-7.4 points) | Satisfactory (5.0-6.4 points) | Not Satisfactory (<5.0) |
| Presentation (5%) | Excellent presentation of content with prominent key pointsCreative use of visual arts (images, videos, charts, etc.) in supporting for delivering content. | Very good presentation of content with clear key pointsVery good use of visual arts (images, videos, charts, etc.) in supporting for delivering content. | Clear presentation of content and key wordsGood use of visual arts (images, videos, charts, etc.) in supporting for delivering content | Visible presentation of content and key wordsSatisfactory use of visual arts (images, videos, charts, etc.) in supporting for delivering content | – Unacceptable poor presentation of content and key words. |
| Content/ Organization (5%) | Excellent, logical and relevant argument demonstrating all relevant issues and concepts.Argument is strongly supported by relevant and specific examples.Excellent connection and cohesion within parts of group presentation | Very good, logical and relevant argument demonstrating all relevant issues and concepts.Argument is well supported by relevant and specific examples.Strong connection and cohesion within parts of group presentation | Good relevant argument highlighting relevant issues and concepts.Argument is supported by relevant and specific examples.Logical connection and cohesion within parts of group presentation | Solid argument.Examples included but require improvement.Stable connection and cohesion within parts of groups presentation | Basic or underdeveloped argument. No connection between parts of group presentation. |
| Delivery (5%) | Exceptional presentation skills including verbal and non-verbal languages with a professional manner.Making and maintaining eye contact, using gestures, adjusting voice to keep audience interest and emphasize key points Excellent coordination and communication between team members | Very good presentation skills including verbal and non-verbal languages with a professional manner.Very good use of direct eye contact, gesture, appropriate variation of volume to keep audience interest and emphasize key points.Very Good coordination and communication between team members | Good presentation skills including verbal and non-verbal languages with a developing professional manner.Consistent use of direct eye contact, gesture, appropriate variation of volume to keep audience interestGood coordination and communication between team members | Acceptable presentation skills including verbal and non-verbal languages. Lack professionalism and engaging contentMinimal display eye contact with audience, while reading mostly from the notesUneven volume with little or no variationSome coordination and communication between team members | Lacks professionalism and engaging contentNo eye contact with audience, as entire report is read from notesLow volume and/ or monotonous tone, which causes audience to disengageLimited coordination and communication between team members |
Marking rubric for Assessment 2 – Group Report (20%)
| Category | Excellent (8.5-10 points) | Very good (7.5-8.4 points) | Good (6.5-7.4 points) | Satisfactory (5.0-6.4 points) | Not Satisfactory (<5.0) |
| Application of Theoretical concepts (5%) | Draws from the literature beyond the readings to support justifications.Accurately engages with the range and breath of the concepts, theories and practical applications of knowledge. | Draws from the literature beyond the readings to support justifications.Evidence of precise engagement with the concepts and theories pertinent to the concepts, theories and practical applications of knowledge.Very few and minor errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. | Assignment well informed by the readings and goes beyond key texts.Makes connections between the concepts, predominant ideas and practical applications relevant to knowledge networking.May include some minor errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. | Draws from course readings.Descriptive narrative with some discussion using ideas and principles introduced in the module.Is abreast of the main relevant connections and practical applications in knowledge | Does not describe or apply ethical theory or concepts as assigned, or is mostly inaccurate or irrelevant |
| Comprehensiveness of covered issues (10%) | Demonstrates competent analysis using ideas and principles beyond those introduced in the modules.Excellent, logical and relevant argument highlighting all relevant issues and concepts. – Argument is strongly supported by relevant and specific examples. | Evidence of analysis using ideas and principles introduced in the module.Very good, logical and relevant argument highlighting all relevant issues and concepts.Argument is well supported by relevant and specific examples. | Evidence of analysis using ideas and principles introduced in the module.Good relevant argument highlighting relevant issues and concepts.Argument is supported by relevant and specific examples. | Evidence of analysis using ideas and principles introduced in the module.Solid argument. Examples included but require improvement | Basic or underdeveloped argument. |
| Writing and referencing (5%) | Argument flows, writing, referencing and online attribution are free from error, demonstrating an outstanding level of research undertaken.Sequence and structure are logical and easy to follow, excellent overall organisationExcellent grammar and spelling. | Argument flows, writes with clarity.Good overall organization.Use of scholarly conventions reflects a high level of research undertaken.Few errors in online attribution and referencing. | Use of scholarly conventions reflects a sound level of research undertaken.Structured well enough to make sense, could be better organised and more tightly focused.Infrequent errors and minor omissions in online attribution and referencing. | Use of scholarly conventions reflects an adequate level of research undertaken.Mostly coherent organisation; may have some sections where it is difficult to follow reasoning. Could be more clearly and logically organizedSome grammar and spelling errors. May have errors in online attribution and/or omissions in reference list. | Use of scholarly conventions reflects the level of research undertaken which was minimal.Lacks coherent organisation and structure.Poor spelling and grammar.Many errors and omissions in attribution and r |