Assessment

The total course grade consists of

  • 10%   Pre-course exercise (working paper, video introductions)

  • 10%  In-class exercises and class activities

  • 70%  Project work and presentations (gallery walk, final presentation, concept paper)

  • 10%  Post-work exercise (reflection essay, team self evaluation, video analysis)

Please note that there will be a sanction for late submissions. The sanction will be 10% of the points awarded for that assignment.


Grading rubric

Working paper 1.0 (10%) / team

5 = excellent
Demonstrates thorough understanding of the project brief, context and industry playfield. Working paper focuses on all elements of the assigned task. Uses relevant, credible and compelling content and resources for background research and benchmarking, conveying the team’s understanding of the topic. Working paper takes into consideration both global and local opportunities and restrictions. Consistent use of language and stylistic choices.

3 = good
Demonstrates adequate consideration towards understanding the project brief. Uses appropriate and relevant content and resources for background research and benchmarking. The use of language has few errors.

1 = poor
Demonstrates minimal attention towards understanding the project brief. Attempts to use resources for background research and benchmarking. The use of language has significant errors, stylistic choices are random.

Video introduction (pass/fail) / individual

Gallery Walk (10%) / team / peer graded

5 = excellent
Presents clearly the identified problem and initial solution. Logic between the approach and identified key findings is clear. The delivery arouses interest in the audience and shows credibility. The initial solution and direction of the project is easily comprehensible for the audience and the team can coherently answer questions on their project topic.

3 = good
The overall presentation is lacking clarity on the relation of the problem and the initial solution. Identified key findings are somewhat clear. The delivery is adequately interesting and shows some credibility.

1 = poor
The relation of the problem and the initial solution is unclear. Findings are random. The delivery does not arouse interest and lacks on credibility. The presentation lacks in preparation.

Final Presentation (30%) / team

5 = excellent
Presents a strong case and defines a clear concept. Concept adds value to the client. Depth and complexity of ideas is supported by rich and engaging details. Team demonstrates ability to evaluate best possible ways for delivering the pitch. Delivery shows creativity and strategic thinking within the given time limit. Design of slide deck takes into consideration aspects of storytelling, visual design and typography. The relationship between the problem and the solution is clear. Team is able to answer questions in a convincing manner.

3 = good
Presents a comprehensible case, but lacks clarity in concept. Some original ideas, supported by details. Team demonstrates ability to evaluate adequate ways for delivering the presentation. Delivery shows some strategic thinking and creativity within a given time limit. Design of slide deck adequately takes into consideration aspects of storytelling and visual design. The relationship between the problem and the solution lacks clarity. Team answers questions in somewhat convincing manner.

1 = poor
Makes a stand, but lacks clarity. Ideas lack on originality and added value is unclear. Does not provide context. Delivery lacks strategic thinking and creativity, or exceeds the time limit. Storyline is difficult to follow. The relationship between the problem and the solution is not clear. Team is not able to answer questions in a convincing manner.

Concept paper (30%) / team

5 = excellent
Demonstrates strong evidence of analysis. Ideas developed logically. Details of concept are unique and interesting. High level of strategic understanding in the area of digital business. Employs language with fluency with exemplary stylistic choices. Shows strong reporting skills and visual clarity.

3 = good
Arguments supported by more than citations. Development of ideas is somewhat logical. Adequate level of strategic understanding in the area of digital business. The use of language has few errors. Reporting skills have few errors, visuality doesn’t support the delivery.

1 = poor
Lacking evidence of analysis. Minimal idea development and limited insights. Low level of strategic understanding in the area of digital business.The use of language has significant errors, lacks on the basics of reporting skills, stylistic choices are random.

In-class exercises, class attendance and activity (10%) / individual

5 = excellent
Evidence of exemplary activity in class, engaging in dialogue, expressing original thoughts while giving space to contribute for other participants. Attends all classes.

3 = good
Adequate activity in class engaging partially in dialogue. Late several times.

1 = poor
Little evidence of activity in class. Arrives significantly or several times late.

Reflection paper (10%) / individual

5 = excellent
Level of reflection and insight throughout the course is high. Maintains clear focus, and the voice of author is distinctive. Outcome shows creativity and clarity of layout

3 = good
Level of reflection and insight is mediocre. Focus is lost from time to time. Voice of author is identifiable. Outcome shows some clarity of layout.

1 = poor
Level of reflection and insight is low. Unclear focus. Voice of author is lacking. No effort in the look of the paper.

Video analysis (pass/fail) / individual