Recent Question/Assignment

Subject Title Economics for Managers
Subject Code ECO201A
Assessment Title Case Study (Group)
Graduate Capabilities 1. Personal expertise
4. Global citizenship
5. Skilled collaboration
Learning Outcome/s (found in the Subject Outline) a. Employ?microeconomic?models to consider fundamental economic choices for households and firms
b. Use economic models, diagrams and tables to analyse economic situations
c. Examine how government policy influences microeconomic choices and macroeconomic outcomes
d. Analyse?the economy?as a whole using?macroeconomic models
Assessment type (group or individual) Group
Weighting % 40%
Word count 1500 ± 10%
Due date Presentations Sunday 23:55 PM Week 9, followed by Peer evaluation
Report Sunday 23:55 PM Week 11, followed by Peer evaluation
Submission type Submit in Moodle, with Peer Evaluations
Format / Layout of Assessment Case study report
Assessment instructions The case study covers Topics 7 – 11, focusing on Macroeconomics and international trade.
Students are required to complete a
- Group presentation & its Peer Review (20% of final mark), each group of students must submit one copy of group presentation slides by Sunday 23:55 PM Week 9 and groups will be divided to present in Week 10 & Week 11;
- Group report & its Peer Review(1,500 words) (20% of final mark) submitted by 23:55 Sunday Week 11
Page 1 of 4
One of the following 2 options can be chosen:
1) Students form a group of 3 or 4, then choose a case study among the case studies from Harvard Business Publishing.
For the chosen case, students need to generate a group report and presentation that considers (amongst other things) o macroeconomic/international trade objectives and the indicators used to assess the performance of an economy
o the challenges to an economy’s growth through trade o how external sustainability affects an economy o the roles of macro policies in an economy o how macroeconomic indicators assess the effectiveness of business.
The report should heavily reference the case study.
2) Students form a group of 3 or 4 and choose any two countries (e.g. China/US., Malaysia/Australia) to research and analyse the following:
o macroeconomic policy/international trade (e.g. fiscal, monetary policies) of each country
o how these policies work in the chosen countries o the similarities and differences of these policies in the two countries and their effectiveness? o Is international trade between the two countries effective? What does effective mean?
The report should draw heavily on comparisons between the two countries.
Readings for the assessment Lecture slides and class activities/notes weeks 8 – 11 MOODLE
Resource readings on MOODLE
Grading Criteria / Rubric See below
Page 2 of 4
Assessment 3: Case Study – Presentation Marking Rubric?
Criteria? HD?
(85-100)? D?(75-84)? CR?(65-74)? PASS?
(50-64)? FAIL?(0-49)?
10% Early, prepared, confident, eye contact, dress code: impeccable. On time, prepared, confident, eye contact, dress code: very smart. On time, prepared, confident, eye contact, dress code: smart. On time, prepared, nervous, eye contact, dress code: ok. Late, unprepared, untidy
Delivery 40% Holds attention of entire audience with the use of direct eye contact, seldom looking at notes
Speaks with fluctuation in volume and inflection to maintain audience interest and emphasize key points Consistent use of direct eye contact with audience, with little or no use of notes. Speaks with higher than satisfactory variation of volume and inflection Displays some eye contact with audience, while reading occasionally from the notes. Speaks with satisfactory variation of volume and inflection Holds little eye contact with audience, as entire report is read from notes. Speaks in low volume and/or monotonous tone, which causes audience to disengage Looks disinterested, no eye contact, reads from notes.
Organisation and
Understanding of Research
40% Demonstrates full knowledge by answering all class questions with
explanations & elaboration.
Provides clear purpose and subject; pertinent examples, facts, and/or statistics; supports conclusions/ ideas with evidence. Is at ease with expected answers to all questions, without elaboration
Has clear purpose and subject; examples, facts, and/or statistics that support the subject; includes data or evidence that supports conclusions. Is comfortable with information and is able to answer questions
Attempts to define purpose and subject; provides examples, facts, and/or statistics, at an above satisfactory level. Has little grasp of information and is able to answer only rudimentary questions.
Does not clearly define subject and purpose; provides weak support of subject; gives insufficient support for ideas or conclusions Presentation shows no knowledge of topic Person is not prepared
10% Demonstrates strong enthusiasm about topic during entire presentation Significantly increases audience understanding & knowledge of topic. Shows enthusiastic feelings about topic Raises audience understanding & awareness of most points. Shows mixed feelings about the topic being presented Raises audience understanding & knowledge of the subject area. Shows little interest in topic presented Raises audience understanding and knowledge of some points. Disinterested in topic. Distracts audience while other team members present.
Overall Mark and Comments
Page 3 of 4
Assessment 3: Case Study – Report Marking Rubric?
Criteria? HD? (85-100)? D? (75-84)? CR? (65-74)? PASS? (50-64)? FAIL? (0-49)?
Report Structure
(25%)??? Exceptional structure, coherence, spelling, referencing and grammar. Report is logically organized. Academic conventions are adhered to.
Introduction is well-written and immediately engages the reader. Summary is very strong.
Conclusions summarise the main arguments and stresses their importance. Very good structure, coherence, spelling, referencing, and grammar. Paragraphs are wellconstructed.
Introduction creates interest and states the main position to be adopted. Conclusion is wellwritten and an effective summary. Good structure, and coherence. Little or no spelling, referencing, and grammatical errors. Paragraphs generally well organised.
Introduction adequately explains the background and contains limited detail on the main arguments to be presented. Conclusion includes the main arguments presented in the paper. Satisfactory structure, coherence, spelling, referencing, and grammar. Basic conventions are adhered to. Introduction touches on the structure of the paper but does not signpost the direction of the main arguments to follow. Conclusion recaps the general theme of the paper.
Academic conventions are not adhered to, report
contains numerous spelling and grammatical errors. Background details are unclear and illogically presented. Ineffective conclusion which does not adequately summarise the main features of the paper.
Critical Analysis
(50%)?? Well-argued and carefully constructed analysis demonstrating a clear understanding between theory and practice with a compelling argument. Demonstrates a credible and comprehensive argument that informs the reader through the use of relevant theory or best practice. Presents a logical and relevant argument, demonstrating a good understanding of the key issues, supported by a range of sources. A relevant and credible analysis in an appropriate structure and demonstrates an ability to identify potential strengths and weaknesses, and some connection to best practice. Report is largely narrative in style with insufficient or no critical reflection provided.
(25%)?? Identifies a wide range of exemplary examples that relate specifically to this case, clarifying its components and explaining its significance in a sophisticated manner. Identifies a range of good examples that are clearly relevant and presents a clear explanation of their connection to the case. Uses numerous examples to demonstrate understanding of the key issues and how they are relevant in this context. Uses up to 3 relevant examples to support key arguments, with
a basic explanation of significance. Has not used sufficiently relevant or credible examples to provide a coherent argument
Page 4 of 4