DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION

ENT203 DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION

Unit Code

Name of unit

ENT203

Disruptive Innovation

Unit description

This unit introduces students to a more considered investigation and analyses of the idea of disruption as it is used in theories and approaches to business innovation. Disruptive innovation, a term of defined by Clayton Christensen (1995), describes a product or service that creates a brand new market and value network that replaces an existing paradigm. Many leading industries and companies have become displaced over time by the disruption of new technologies and their value propositions, and theories of disruption now dominate discussions of innovation in business. This unit engages students in case studies of past, contemporary and future disruptors to introduce them to the key components of disruptive theory and disruptive business innovation.

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Administrative details

Associated higher education awards

Duration

Level

Unit Coordinator

Bachelor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation

One Semester
(14 weeks)

3

Dr Mahfuz Ashraf

E-mail: [email protected]

Lecturer

Mohammed Jahangir ALAM

E-mail: [email protected]

1.2 Core or elective unit

Core subject

Elective subject

Other (specify below)

1.3 Unit weighting

Unit credit points: Example: 10 credit points

Total course credit points: Example: 240 credit points

10

240

1.4 Student workload

Indicate below, the expected student workload per week for this unit:

No. timetabled hours per week

No. personal study hours per week

Total workload hours per week

3

7

10

1.5 Delivery Mode

Mode

Details

Face to face

On site study supported by secure access to the Learning Management System.

Full-time

Full-time study involves 4 units per semester.

Part-time

Part-time study involves 1 to 3 units per semester.

Other

1.6 Work- integrated learning activity

If the unit includes a work-integrated leaning component, provide details including the rationale, the specification and methods for assessing the learning outcomes, monitoring arrangements and whether the work integrated learning is required for professional accreditation. If necessary or preferred, you may provide this information in a separate document. Also, if available, upload copies or templates of the formal agreements with third parties for the work-integrated learning activity, using the ‘Attach evidence here’ function of the online form.

Not Applicable

1.7 Pre-requisites and Co-requisites

Are students required to have undertaken a prerequisite or co-requisite unit for this unit?

Yes No

1.8 Other resource requirements

Do students require access to specialist facilities and/or equipment for this unit (for example, special computer access, and physical education equipment)?

Yes No

SECTION 2: ACADEMIC DETAILS

2.1 Unit Learning Outcomes (ULO)

On successful completion of this unit students will be able to:

Critically review and discuss key theories and models of disruptive innovation in business contexts.

Describe and analyse the factors and conditions that lead to disruptive business innovations.

Identify industries/firms/organisations facing disruptive innovation dilemmas and exercise critical thinking and judgement in providing adaptive solutions.

Critically analyse exposure and response strategies for managing disruptive innovation within existing organisations.

2.2 Topics included in the unit

Week

Topic

Prescribed Reading

Assessment Timing

1

Defining Business Disruption and Innovation.

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Chapter 1.

Article: Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is Disruptive Innovation, Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44-53.

Introduction, pp. 1-12.

Downes, L. & Nunes, P. (2014).

Big Bang Disruption: Strategy in the Age of Devastating Innovation. Penguin Random House.

Link to Foundation Study:

Mazzarol, T., (2011). Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Readings and Case Studies. Tilde University Press.

Chapter 9 – Technology, technopreneurs and disruptive innovations

2

The Theory and consequences of Disruptive Innovation.

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Chapter 25.

Downes, & Nunes, P. (2014 ).

Chapter 1 – What is big bang disruption?

3

Business Model, Branding and disruptive innovation

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Chapter 12.

Sirlei de Almeida Pereira et al., (2015).

King, R., (2012).

4

Why Great Companies Fail.

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Chapter 8.

Christensen, C. M. (1997).

The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press; Boston, Massachusetts.

Chapter 1 – How can great firms fail? insights from the hard disk drive industry

Assessment 1

(Summary 1)

5

No Class

15th April, Good Friday, Public holiday.

6

Social Networks and online technologies: Value and the Innovation Impetus

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Chapter 14.

Christensen, (1997). Chapter 2 – Value networks and the impetus to innovate

Assessment 1

(Summary 2)

7

The Adoption of Digital Concept:

Performance, Demand

and Digital Disruption.

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Chapter 20.

Christensen, (1997). Chapter 9 – Performance provided, market demand, and the product life cycle

8

Gurus of Disruption.

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Chapter 20.

Wooldridge, A. (2015). The Great Disruption: How Business is Coping with Turbulent Times. The Economist in association with Profile Books: New York.

Part 1 – The gurus of disruption

9

Disruptive Product Innovation Strategy and Forces of Disruption.

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Chapter 3.

Wooldridge, A. (2015).

Part 2 – Forces of disruption

10

Technology Transfer Means and Processes: Winners and Losers.

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Chapter 16.

Wooldridge, A. (2015).

Part 3 – Winners and losers

Assessment 2

(Critical Analysis)

11

Disruptive Product Strategy for Industry First Mover.

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Chapter 5.

Wooldridge, A. (2015).

Part 6 – The world of workers

12

Rethinking Mass Communication: Managing Technological Disruption.

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Chapter 19.

Christensen, (1997).

Chapter 10 – Managing disruptive technological change: A case study

Assessment 3

(Case Study Analysis)

13

Entropy & Revision

Downes, & Nunes, P. (2014 ).

Chapter 7 – Entropy

Christensen, (1997).

Chapter 11 – The dilemmas of innovation: a summary

14

No Final Examination

2.3 Assessment Tasks

Type

When assessed

Weighting

ULO cross reference

Assessment 1: Written Summaries x 2 (Individual)

Students are to prepare two written summaries critically reviewing:
a. business disruption theories in practice,
b. factors driving Australian business disruption.

(2 x 750 words each = 1500 words)

Weeks 4 (8th April) & 6 (22nd April)

40%

a & b

Assessment 2: Written Critical Analysis (Individual)

Students are to critically analyse an emerging technology and its likely disruption to an existing industry (1000 words).

Week 10 (20th May)

20%

b & c

Assessment 3: Case Study Analysis (Individual)

Students are to critically examine a leading, established real world organisation, make judgement on its risk of exposure to innovation disruption, and recommend strategies for minimising that risk (2000 words).

Week 12 (3rd June)

40%

a, b, c, & d

2.4 Assessment Brief

Assessment 1: Written Summaries x 2 (Individual)

Length: 750 words for each summary (750 words × 2 = 1500 words); Weighting: 40%

Due date: 1st written summary – Week 4 (8th April, Friday 4.00pm)

2nd written summary – Week 6 (22nd April, Friday 4.00pm)

Task description: You will prepare two written summaries critically reviewing:

Business disruption theories in practice (due Week 4) and;

Factors driving Australian business disruption (due Week 6)

Each summary has a 750-word limit and carries 20% weight (20%×2=40%).

Assessment criteria: You will be assessed on how you demonstrate a thorough understanding of the concepts and practices recently introduced in class, and the real-world impacts they have on Australian industry. Overall, you will be assessed on how critically you:

Review and discuss key theories and models of disruptive innovation in business contexts, and

Describe and analyse the factors and conditions that lead to disruptive business innovations.

Refer to marking rubric 1 (see Appendix) for further detail.

Assessment 2: Written Critical Analysis (Individual)

Length: 1000 words; Weighting: 20%

Due date: Week 10, 20th May Friday 4.00pm

Task description: You are to critically analyse an emerging technology and its likely disruption to an existing industry. Recommend a disruption response strategy for management within the existing industry, based on your exposure predictions.

Assessment criteria: This task assesses your evaluation of a technology, your analysis of the exposure effects of the technology on your chosen industry (5%), and your recommendation (s) on how these may be realistically and effectively tackled (10%). Your writing is expected to be clear and well-evidenced with reliable sources (5%). Overall, you will be assessed on how critically you:

Describe and analyse the factors and conditions that lead to disruptive business innovations, and

Identify industries/firms/organisations facing disruptive innovation dilemmas and exercise critical thinking and judgment in providing adaptive solutions.

Refer to marking rubric 2 (see Appendix) for further detail.

Assessment 3: Case Study Analysis (Individual)

Length: 2000 words

Due date: Week 12, 3rd June Friday 4.00pm; Weighting: 40%

Task description: In this assessment, you are to critically examine a leading, established real-world organisation. In your examination, you should make a judgement on its risk of exposure to innovation disruption, and recommend strategies for minimising that risk.

Assessment criteria: This task assesses your evaluation of an established organisation, your judgement of its risk of exposure to innovation disruption (10%), and your suggested strategy (ies) to realistically and effectively minimise these risks (25%). Your writing is expected to be clear and well-evidenced with reliable sources (5%). Overall, you will be assessed on how meaningfully you:

Critically review and discuss key theories and models of disruptive innovation in business contexts,

Describe and analyse the factors and conditions that lead to disruptive business innovations,

Identify industries/firms/organizations facing disruptive innovation dilemmas and exercise critical thinking and judgement in providing adaptive solutions, and

Critically analyse exposure and response strategies for managing disruptive innovation within existing organizations.

Refer to marking rubric 3 (see Appendix) for further detail.

2.5 Prescribed and recommended reading

Prescribed Text

Ekekwe, N., & Islam, N. (2012). Disruptive Technologies, Innovation and Global Redesign: Emerging Implications. IGI Global, Hershey, USA. (Textbook 1)

Downes, L., & Nunes, P. (2014). Big Bang Disruption: Strategy in the Age of Devastating Innovation. Penguin Random House. (Textbook 2)

Christensen, C. (2013). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. (Textbook 3)

Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E., &McDonald, R. (2015). What is Disruptive Innovation, Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44-53.

Wooldridge, A. (2015). The Great Disruption: How Business is Coping with Turbulent Times. Allen & Unwin. (Textbook 4)

Sirlei de Almeida Pereira et al., (2015). Business Model as an Inducer of Disruptive Innovations: The Case of Gol AirlinesInternational Journal of Innovation, 3(2), pp.28–42.

King, R., (2012). Planning and managing disruptive business models for RFID-startups-The disruptor’s arrow of time. Communications in Mobile Computing, 1(1), pp.1–5.

Recommended Reading

Christensen, C.M., & Raynor, M.E. (2013). The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Harvard Business Review Press.

Jeff Dyer, Hal Gregersen, Clayton M. Christensen (2019). Innovator’s DNA, Updated, with a New Preface: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators. Harvard Business Review Press. ISBN1633697207, 9781633697201

2.6 Grade descriptions

Grades used in the evaluation of assessments

Grade Level /Quality of work

Code

Range

High Distinction (outstanding performance)

HD

85% and above

Distinction (very high level of performance)

D

75-84%

Credit (high level of performance)

C

65-74%

Pass (competent level of performance)

P

50-64%

Non-graded Pass

NGP

Fail (outright) (attempted all assessments but did not achieve 50%)

F

below 50%

Fail Non-Submission (did not attempt all assessments and did not achieve 50%)

FNS

below 50%

Withdraw with Failure

WF

Withdraw Without Failure

WO

Credit Granted

CPL

2.7 Academic Misconduct – plagiarism, collusion and cheating

Crown Institute of Higher Education upholds the principle that academic integrity relies on the application of honesty in all scholarly endeavour. Students of CIHE will conduct themselves in their academic studies honestly and ethically and are expected to carefully acknowledge the work of others in all their academic activities.

This policy describes academic misconduct to students1 and outlines CIHE’s response to instances of academic misconduct that are detected.

Types of academic misconduct

Academic misconduct involves cheating, collusion, plagiarism or any other conduct that deliberately or inadvertently claims ownership of an idea or concept without acknowledging the source of the information. This includes any form of activity that negates the academic integrity of the student or another student and/or their work.

Plagiarism occurs when students fail to acknowledge that the ideas of others are being used. Specifically, it occurs when:

other people’s work and/or ideas are paraphrased and presented without a reference;

other students’ work is copied or partly copied;

other people’s designs, codes or images are presented as the student’s own work;

phrases and passages are used verbatim without quotation marks and/or without a reference to the author or source;

lecture notes are reproduced without due acknowledgement.

Cheating occurs when a student seeks to obtain an unfair advantage in an examination or in other written or practical work required to be submitted or completed for assessment.

Collusion (unauthorised collaboration) involves working with others without permission to produce work which is then presented as work completed independently by the student. Collusion is a form of plagiarism. Students should not knowingly allow their work to be copied.

Students should be familiar with the Student Academic Integrity and Honesty Policy available on the CIHE website.

2.8 Submission of assessment items

Students are required to submit assessment items at the time and date specified in this Unit Learning Guide. Assessment items submitted after the due date will be subject to a penalty unless the student has been given prior approval in writing for an extension of time to submit that item.

Penalties for late submission

An assessment item submitted after the assessment due date, without an approved extension or without approved mitigating circumstance, will be penalised. The standard penalty is the reduction of the mark allocated to the assessment item by 10% of the total mark applicable for the assessment item, for each day or part day that the item is late (a ‘day’ for this purpose is defined as any day on which campus administration is open). Assessment items submitted more than ten days after the assessment due date are awarded zero marks.

Special consideration

Students whose ability to submit or attend an assessment item is affected by sickness, misadventure or other circumstances beyond their control, may be eligible for special consideration. No consideration is given when the condition or event is unrelated to the student’s performance in a component of the assessment, or when it is considered not to be serious.

Students must apply in writing to the Course Coordinator for special consideration within three days of the due date of the assessment item or exam.

Reasonable adjustment

Students with a disability may request reasonable adjustment to an assessment task to accommodate their disability. Adjustments to assessment must take into account the special characteristics of the student. Any adjustments made must be ‘reasonable’ so that they do not impose an unjustifiable hardship upon CIHE.

A request for reasonable adjustment is made by the student in writing to the Lecturer for the unit of study affected.

Results

Students will be notified of their results via the student management system and by email.

The aggregated mark for the unit of study will be moderated. Moderation may result, in some cases, in a variation of the final grade awarded to a student for the unit which is inconsistent with the individual marks awarded to the student for individual assessment items.

Resubmission

Where a student has completed all assessment tasks and marginally fails a unit of study (i.e. has achieved a score of 46-49%) the Course Coordinator may recommend that the student be offered the option of completing additional assessable work which, if completed at the prescribed standard, will result in the student passing the unit. The grade awarded after the additional assessment is finalised is limited to P or F. If the student does not take up the opportunity to complete additional assessment work the grade remains as an F.

Students should be familiar with the Student Assessment Policy on the CIHE website.

SECTION 3: CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT

Rationale for how assessment tests the achievement of the different learning outcomes

Assessment 1, with its focus on business disruption theories in practice and factors driving Australian business disruption requires students to critically review and discuss key theories and models of disruptive innovation and to describe and analyse the factors and conditions that lead to disruptive business innovations, ensuring ULOs a. & b.

Assessment 2In this assessment students must do two things: 1. critically analyse an emerging technology and its likely disruption on an existing industry and 2. recommend a disruption response strategy based on their exposure predictions. In that it requires students to describe and analyse the factors and conditions that lead to disruptive business innovations and to exercise critical thinking and judgement developing solutions it ensures ULOs b. & c.

Assessment 3, as a case study analysis, requires students to critically examine a leading, established real world organisation and make judgement on its risk of exposure to innovation disruption. They are further required to recommend strategies for minimising risk for that organisation. Because it requires such comprehensive critical application of the content of this unit it will assess to see that students can critically review and discuss key theories and models of disruptive innovation, describe and analyse the factors and conditions that lead to disruptive business innovations and that they can identify organisations facing disruptive innovation dilemmas, exercising critical thinking and judgement in providing adaptive solutions and engage with exposure and response strategies. This will ensure ULOs a. b. c. & d. have been demonstrated.

Course learning outcomes (CLO)

On completion of the course the student should be able to:

Unit learning outcomes (ULO)

On Completion of the unit the student should be able to:

Assessment

CLO1 Apply knowledge of the concepts and theories of entrepreneurship and innovation.

Critically review and discuss key theories and models of disruptive innovation in business contexts.

1, 2, 3

CLO4 Apply knowledge of industrial, commercial and financial principles to inform and drive successful entrepreneurial activities.

Describe and analyse the factors and conditions that lead to disruptive business innovations.

1, 2, 3

CLO2 Source, distil and interpret information in order to analyse business ventures.

CLO3 Identify and develop business innovations using critical analytical skills and problem solving strategies.

CLO5 Communicate and negotiate clearly to achieve interpersonal and commercial outcomes.

Identify industries/firms/organisations facing disruptive innovation dilemmas and exercise critical thinking and judgement in providing adaptive solutions.

2, 3

CLO2 Source, distil and interpret information in order to analyse business ventures.

CLO3 Identify and develop business innovations using critical analytical skills and problem solving strategies.

CLO5 Communicate and negotiate clearly to achieve interpersonal and commercial outcomes.

Critically analyse exposure and response strategies for managing disruptive innovation within existing organisations.

2, 3

Appendix: Marking Rubric

Marking Rubric 1: Written Summaries (Individual) – Assessment 1

ULOs

Criteria (total 100%)

High Distinction

Distinction

Credit

Pass

Fail

a

Introduction (25%)

Introduction well articulates with the topic. The aim addresses the theory & concepts conveyed in the introduction.

Introduction clearly and succinctly articulates with the topic. The aim addresses the theory & concepts conveyed in the introduction.

Introduction clearly conveys the topic, the importance of the topic and articulates well-aligned aims.

Introduction has problems such as:

topic does not clearly explain the theory or concepts.

Aims are not aligned well.

Introduction is missed; aim and specific theory or concept is not included.

b

Content with evidence (25%)

Content is relevant to the theory/concept, indicated original thinking.

Content concisely written with excellent demonstration (e.g. examples) of terminology.

Clear demonstration of wider reading and inclusion of additional extensive reliable evidence beyond the minimum; correct referencing.

Content is relevant to the theory/concept indicates original thinking weaved into the essay with claims well supported with appropriate and consistent referencing.

.

Content is mostly relevant to the theory/concept and concisely written with demonstration of terminology.

Some evidence of wider reading and inclusion of additional reliable evidence beyond the minimum; correct referencing.

Adequate relevant content with original thinking; relatively concisely written; adequate use of terminology.

Minimum number of reliable evidence used; good attempt at correct referencing.

Little relevant content; limited concise writing; limited use of terminology.

Shows some coherence but ideas are vague with little evidence of original thinking.

Critical thinking (25%)

Excellent understanding demonstrated; outstanding critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept and extensive analysis with examples.

Excellent understanding demonstrated good critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

Good understanding demonstrated; good critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

Adequate understanding demonstrated; some critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

Limited understanding demonstrated; limited critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

Language (25%)

Uses a wide range of vocabulary and grammatical structures with full flexibility and accuracy

Rare minor errors occur only as ‘slips’

Uses a wide range of vocabulary and grammatical structures to convey precise meanings

The majority of sentences are error-free

Uses a sufficient range of vocabulary and complex sentence forms to allow some precision

May produce occasional errors in word choice, spelling, word formation, grammar and punctuation

Uses an adequate range of vocabulary and a mix of simple and complex sentence forms for the task

Makes some errors in spelling, word formation, grammar and punctuation but they do not impede communication

Uses a limited range of vocabulary and grammatical structures which are minimally adequate for the task

May make noticeable errors in spelling, word formation, grammar and punctuation that may cause some difficulty for the reader

Marking Rubric 2: Written Critical Analysis (Individual) – Assessment 2

ULOs

Criteria (total 100%)

High Distinction

Distinction

Credit

Pass

Fail

b

Introduction (20%)

Introduction well articulates with the topic. The aim addresses the theory & concepts conveyed in the introduction.

Introduction clearly and succinctly articulates with the topic. The aim addresses the theory & concepts conveyed in the introduction.

Introduction clearly conveys the topic, the importance of the topic and articulates well-aligned aims.

Introduction has problems such as:

topic does not clearly explain the theory or concepts.

Aims are not aligned well.

Introduction is missed; aim and specific theory or concept is not included.

c

Content with evidence (20%)

Content is relevant to the theory/concept, indicated original thinking.

Content concisely written with excellent demonstration (e.g. examples) of terminology.

Clear demonstration of wider reading and inclusion of additional extensive reliable evidence beyond the minimum; correct referencing.

Content is relevant to the theory/concept indicates original thinking weaved into the essay with claims well supported with appropriate and consistent referencing.

Content is mostly relevant to the theory/concept and concisely written with demonstration of terminology.

Some evidence of wider reading and inclusion of additional reliable evidence beyond the minimum; correct referencing.

Adequate relevant content with original thinking; relatively concisely written; adequate use of terminology.

Minimum number of reliable evidence used; good attempt at correct referencing.

Little relevant content; limited concise writing; limited use of terminology.

Shows some coherence but ideas are vague with little evidence of original thinking.

Analysis Sequencing (20%)

Analyses and support are provided in a logical order that makes it easy and interesting to follow the author’s train of thought. There is a clear logical flow of ideas between the nature of a technology strategy or strategies addressing disruption.

Analyses and support are provided in a logical order that makes it easy and interesting to follow the author’s train of thought. There is a minimum logical flow of ideas between the nature of a technology strategy or strategies addressing disruption.

Analyses and support are provided in a fairly logical order that makes it reasonably easy to follow the author’s train of thought.

A few of the support details or analyses are not in an expected or logical order, distracting the reader and making the essay seem a little confusing.

Many of the support details or analyses are not in an expected or logical order, distracting the reader and making the essay seem very confusing.

Critical thinking (20%)

Excellent understanding demonstrated; outstanding critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept and extensive analysis with examples.

Excellent understanding demonstrated good critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

Good understanding demonstrated; good critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

Adequate understanding demonstrated; some critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

Limited understanding demonstrated; limited critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

Language (20%)

Uses a wide range of vocabulary and grammatical structures with full flexibility and accuracy

Rare minor errors occur only as ‘slips’

Uses a wide range of vocabulary and grammatical structures to convey precise meanings

The majority of sentences are error-free

Uses a sufficient range of vocabulary and complex sentence forms to allow some precision

May produce occasional errors in word choice, spelling, word formation, grammar and punctuation

Uses an adequate range of vocabulary and a mix of simple and complex sentence forms for the task

Makes some errors in spelling, word formation, grammar and punctuation but they do not impede communication

Uses a limited range of vocabulary and grammatical structures which are minimally adequate for the task

May make noticeable errors in spelling, word formation, grammar and punctuation that may cause some difficulty for the reader

Marking Rubric 3: Case Study Analysis (Individual) – Assessment 3

ULOs

Criteria

(Total 100%)

High Distinction

Distinction

Credit

Pass

Fail

a, b

Understanding (10%)

Excellent understanding demonstrated about theories and practices, inter-relationship between a real-world organization’s features and strategies against risk of disruption, extensive strategic discussion.

Good understanding demonstrated about theories and practices, inter-relationship between a real-world organization’s features and strategies against risk of disruption; good strategic discussion.

Conceptual understanding is clear and well-documented. Inter-relationship between a real-world organization’s features and strategies against risk of disruption is included.

Adequate understanding demonstrated about theories and practices, inter-relationship between a real-world organization’s features and strategies against risk of disruption.

Limited understanding demonstrated about theories and practices, inter-relationship between a real-world organization’s features and strategies against risk of disruption.

c

Content with evidence (20%)

Content is relevant, indicated original thinking.

Content concisely written with excellent demonstration (e.g. examples) of terminology.

Clear demonstration of wider reading and inclusion of additional extensive reliable evidence beyond the minimum; correct referencing.

Content indicates original thinking weaved into the essay with claims well supported with appropriate and consistent referencing.

Content is mostly relevant and concisely written with demonstration of terminology.

Some evidence of wider reading and inclusion of additional reliable evidence beyond the minimum; correct referencing.

Adequate relevant content with original thinking; relatively concisely written; adequate use of terminology.

Minimum number of reliable evidence used; good attempt at correct referencing.

Little relevant content; limited concise writing; limited use of terminology.

Shows some coherence but ideas are vague with little evidence of original thinking.

d

Critical analysis

(20%)

Excellent understanding demonstrated; outstanding critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept and extensive analysis with examples.

Excellent understanding demonstrated good critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

Good understanding demonstrated; good critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

Adequate understanding demonstrated; some critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

Limited understanding demonstrated; limited critical thinking about the topic and theory/concept.

b, c, d

Analysis Sequencing (20%)

Analyses and support are provided in a logical order that makes it easy and interesting to follow the author’s train of thought. There is a clear logical flow of ideas between the organization strategies addressing disruption.

Analyses and support are provided in a logical order that makes it easy and interesting to follow the author’s train of thought. There is a minimum logical flow of ideas between the organization strategies addressing disruption.

Analyses and support are provided in a fairly logical order that makes it reasonably easy to follow the author’s train of thought.

A few of the support details or analyses are not in an expected or logical order, distracting the reader and making the essay seem a little confusing.

Many of the support details or analyses are not in an expected or logical order, distracting the reader and making the essay seem very confusing.

Research (10%)

Provided a highly coherent argument and a sophisticated explanation of the value of research approach.

Utilised a range of literature which is expertly integrated into your discussion.

Provided a coherent and well-argued explanation of the value of research approach and the value of the method you used.

Arguments are well supported by a good range of the relevant literature.

Provided a reasonable argument for the value of a research approach and for the method you used.

Draws on an adequate range of literature which is well integrated to support key points.

Work would have been strengthened by providing a more coherent argument for the value of research approach and for the method.

Work would also benefit by using more course literature to support key points.

Did not provide either a clear argument for the use of research approach or argument for the method used. Work does not provide sufficient evidence of integrating the literature to support key points.

Language (20%)

Uses a wide range of vocabulary and grammatical structures with full flexibility and accuracy.

Rare minor errors occur only as ‘slips’.

Uses a wide range of vocabulary and grammatical structures to convey precise meanings.

The majority of sentences are error-free.

Uses a sufficient range of vocabulary and complex sentence forms to allow some precision.

May produce occasional errors in word choice, spelling, word formation, grammar and punctuation.

Uses an adequate range of vocabulary and a mix of simple and complex sentence forms for the task.

Makes some errors in spelling, word formation, grammar and punctuation but they do not impede communication.

Uses a limited range of vocabulary and grammatical structures which are minimally adequate for the task.

May make noticeable errors in spelling, word formation, grammar and punctuation that may cause some difficulty for the reader.

1Academic integrity in relation to CIHE’s staff is contained in the Academic Freedom, Integrity and Free Intellectual Enquiry Policy