Merit

50-59%

Good/Satisfactory

Has achieved intended learning outcomes as evidenced by the following features. Satisfactory subject knowledge; a fair level of critical analysis and evaluation; the work is generally sound but tends towards the factual or derivative, and there may be minimal evidence of original thinking or originality; adequately researched; a sound standard of presentation; ideas fairly clear and coherent; some significant errors and misunderstandings, possibly shown by conceptual gaps or limited use of appropriate techniques; relevant generic skills are generally at a satisfactory level; referencing is generally accurate; some weakness in style or presentation.

Satisfactory overall – a clear pass

a

40-49%

Unsatisfactory

Has narrowly failed to achieve intended learning outcomes as evidenced by the following features. Satisfactory subject knowledge to some extent; some sound aspects but some of the following weaknesses are evident: factual errors; conceptual gaps; inadequate critical analysis and evaluation; little evidence of originality; not well researched – limited use of appropriate techniques; presentation does not meet the standard required; ideas unclear and/or incoherent; some significant errors and misunderstandings; relevant generic skills unsatisfactory to some extent; referencing may be inadequate.

Work is unsatisfactory but shows potential for achieving learning outcomes if feedback is addressed – Marginal fail

Marginal Fail

5-39%

Very Poor

Has failed to achieve intended learning outcomes in several critical respects. Will have some or all of the following features to varying extent: inadequate subject knowledge; factual errors; conceptual gaps; minimal/no awareness of relevant issues and theory; limited/no use of appropriate techniques; standard of presentation unacceptable; ideas confused and/or incoherent – work lacks sound development; a poor critical analysis and evaluation; no evidence of originality; inadequately researched; some serious misunderstandings and errors; quality of relevant generic skills does not meet the requirements of the task. A clear fail well short of the pass standard

Fail

13

1-4%
NS	Non-submission No work has been submitted
Z	Academic offence notation Applies to proven instances of academic offence

(HAND IN DATES)

Students should submit their Coursework in W11, by latest Monday 09:00 (Swiss Time). The electronic copy has to be submitted as one document including cover page and reference list

through the respective link on UoD (the University of Derby online system).

Late submissions are evaluated in line with the UoD policy.

Online support for e-submission can be found at http://www.derby.ac.uk/esub

(RETURN OF MARKED WORK)

Feedback will be provided via UoD by the end of the term.

(READING LIST)

Brookes, M., and Altinay, L., (2015). Entrepreneurship in Hospitality and Tourism: a Global Perspective. Goodfellow Publisher Limited.

Burns, P., (2012). Corporate Entrepreneurship: Innovation and Strategy in

Large Organizations, Palgrave Macmillan.

Drucker, P., (2014). Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Routledge.Enz, C. A., (2009). Hospitality Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. John Wiley and Sons.

Kuratko, D. F., (2016). Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, and Practice. Cengage Learning.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2014). Value Proposition Design: How to Create Products and Services Customers Want. John Wiley & Sons.

14