Define and evaluate key concepts of business analytics.
This assignment is designed to assess learning outcomes 1, 2, and 4:
- Define and evaluate key concepts of business analytics.
- Critically apply business analytics skills for decision making.
- Critically analyse and interpret the outputs of data mining models and forecasting results for end-users.
- Solve managerial problems and make systematic decisions by applying business data analysis techniques.
- Have ability to apply business analytics to various international business contexts by selecting appropriate techniques.
This assignment is an individual assignment. It consist of a Video presentation and 1000 word report. The video presentation and report are weight at 50% each.
Background information
The airline industry is one of the most vibrant industries in the world. For 2016 financial year, the global air traffic grew by 6.3% over 2015, with annual passengers’ rate of 3.7 billion. The growth is driven by lower air fares and low fuel jet prices. Air traffic is projected to grow in the long-term, driven by global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth. Annual passenger Kilometres (RPKs) are forecast to grow over the period 2016-2035 at a rate of 4.5% per annum. This growth has its associate environmental implications (European Commission 2017).
Assessment requirement
This assignment requires you to produce a 1000 report and a 10 minutes video presentation on the airline industry.
Analyse the dataset on Airline industry to uncover hidden patterns, show changes over time, and interpret the data in the light of the impact of the airline industry on the environment.
The report and the video presentation should address the following:
- Analyse contemporary research on business analytics skills for decision making and define any key concepts
- . Use the dataset on the airline industry to develop and plot appropriate tables and graphs to determine
- Which airline is emitting the highest amount of CO2 into the atmosphere?
- Which year was the highest amount of CO2 emitted?
- Which destination recorded the highest CO2 emission?
- Critically analyse the relationship between the cost of tickets sales, customer satisfaction, CO2 emission, average number of seats and total revenue
- How will you use the information from the data output to advice top management teams in the airline industry on CO2 and revenue.
Criteria for Assessment
Table 1: Assessment criteria
| Criteria | Proportion of overall module mark |
| 1. Depth of Knowledge/address learning Outcomes) | 30% |
| 2. Analysis, interpretation and application of theory | 30% |
| 3. Quality of research (Evidence of reading, use of resources and research | 20% |
| 4. Academic writing (accurate citations and referencing | 20% |
| Total | 100% |
Word Count
The word count is 1000
There will be a penalty of a deduction of 10% of the mark (after internal moderation) for work exceeding the word limit by 10% or more.
The word limit includes quotations, but excludes the final reference list and appendices.
How to submit your assessment
The assessment (Video presentation and report) must be submitted by 18:00. on 09/03/2018. No paper copies are required. You can access the submission link through the module web.
- Your coursework will be given a zero mark if you do not submit a copy through Turnitin. Please take care to ensure that you have fully submitted your work.
- All work submitted after the submission deadline without a valid and approved reason (see below) will be given a mark of zero.
- The University wants you to do your best. However we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you can’t submit your coursework by the deadline – these events should be beyond your control and not easy to predict. If this happens, you can apply for an extension to your deadline for up to two weeks, or if you need longer, you can apply for a deferral, which takes you to the next assessment period (for example, to the resit period following the main Assessment Boards). You must apply before the deadline.
You will find information about the process and what is or is not considered to be an event beyond your control at https://share.coventry.ac.uk/students/Registry/Pages/Deferrals-and-Extension.aspx
- Students MUST keep a copy and/or an electronic file of their assignment.
- Checks will be made on your work using anti-plagiarism software and approved plagiarism checking websites.
GUIDELINES AND BACKGROUND TO THIS ASSIGNMENT
Plagiarism
As part of your study you will be involved in carrying out research and using this when writing up your coursework. It is important that you correctly acknowledge someone else’s writing, thoughts or ideas and that you do not attempt to pass this off as your own work. Doing so is known as plagiarism. It is not acceptable to copy from another source without acknowledging that it is someone else’s writing or thinking. This includes using paraphrasing as well as direct quotations. You are expected to correctly cite and reference the works of others. The Centre for Academic Writing provides documents to help you get this right. If you are unsure,
please visit www.coventry.ac.uk/caw. You can also check your understanding of academic conduct by completing the Good Academic Practice quiz available on Moodle.
Moodle includes a plagiarism detection system and assessors are experienced enough to recognise plagiarism when it occurs. Copying another student’s work, using previous work of your own or copying large sections from a book or the internet are examples of plagiarism and carry serious consequences. Please familiarise yourself with the CU Harvard Reference Style (on Moodle) and use it correctly to avoid a case of plagiarism or cheating being brought. Again, if you are unsure, please contact the Centre for Academic Writing, your Academic Personal Tutor or a member of the course team.
Return of Marked Work
You can expect to have marked work returned to you 26/03/2018 (15 working days for level 1 and 2, 10 working days for level 3 and M level). If for any reason there is a delay you will be kept informed. Marks and feedback will be provided online/in class/face to face. As always, marks will have been internally moderated only, and will therefore be provisional; your mark will be formally agreed later in the year once the external examiner has completed his / her review.
| Banding | Knowledge and Understanding | Critical Analysis, Evaluation and Application of Theory | Quality of Research | Academic Writing |
| 90-100% | Exceptional knowledge base exploring, critically analysing and evaluating the discipline and its theory with extraordinary originality and autonomy. | Demonstrates an exceptional command of relevant critical analytical and/or evaluative techniques, and the ability to apply these to new and/or abstract information and situations. Shows an exceptional appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of particular analytical approaches, where relevant. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where relevant, is of an exceptional detail. High level of appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout the work, where relevant Approach to assessment task is clearly, appropriately and consistently theoretically informed across all relevant learning outcomes. | Exceptional exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assessment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with flawless synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas. | Exceptional answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied well throughout. No language errors present and referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. |
| 80-89% | Outstanding knowledge base exploring, critically analysing and evaluating the discipline and its theory with clear originality and autonomy
| Demonstrates an outstanding command of relevant critical and/or evaluative analytical techniques, and the ability to apply these to new and/or abstract information and situations. Shows an outstanding appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of particular analytical approaches. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where relevant, is of an outstanding detail. Appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout the work. Approach to assessment task is clearly, appropriately and consistently theoretically informed across all relevant learning outcomes. | Outstanding exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with a high degree of synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas. | Outstanding answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied well throughout. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. |
| 70-79% | Excellent knowledge base that supports critical analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with considerable originality | Makes excellent use of a range of relevant critical analysis and/or evaluative techniques, and applies these to new and/or abstract information and situations. Shows well developed ability to compare alternative theories and apply them to the context of the assessment task and all learning outcomes. Demonstrates a detailed, accurate, systematic theoretical understanding. Appropriately selected theoretical knowledge is integrated into the overall assessment task and all learning outcomes. | Excellent exploration of wider academic sources with evidence of independent learning which may exceed the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated, with accurate synthesis of research leading to original and interesting ideas. | Excellent answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. The answer is entirely relevant and focused. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied well throughout. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. |
| 60-69% | Very good knowledge base that supports critical analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with some originality displayed.
| Makes good use of established techniques of critical analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Shows a developing ability to compare alternative theories and/or analytical approaches, where relevant. Shows a systematic and accurate understanding of key theories, where relevant, which are appropriately applied within the context of the assessment task and learning outcomes. | Very good evidence of wider academic reading and independent learning. Sources have been accurately interpreted, integrated, with evidence of synthesis leading to original ideas. | Very good answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is relevant and focused with a clear argument/line of reasoning. Discipline specific vocabulary is used well and academic style applied throughout. Minor language errors may be present but do not impact on clarity of expression. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is accurate. |
| 50-59% | Good knowledge base that supports some critical analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline.
| Good use of established techniques of critical analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Sound descriptive knowledge of key theories, where relevant, with some appropriate application | Good evidence of wider academic reading and independent learning. Sources have been interpreted and integrated, with some attempt at synthesis | Good answer with coherent and logical presentation. The answer is largely relevant but lacks focus at points. Evidence of an argument/line of reasoning. Discipline specific vocabulary is used and academic style applied throughout. Minimal language errors are present but does not impact on clarity. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate. |
| 40-49% | Satisfactory knowledge base demonstrating comprehension and formulation of basic knowledge with some omissions at the level of theoretical understanding. Limited ability to discuss theory and solve problems within the discipline. | Makes satisfactory but limited use of established techniques of critical analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Selection of theory, where relevant, is satisfactory but application and/or understanding is limited. | Satisfactory evidence of wider academic reading, but with minimal attempt to move beyond the recommended texts. Interpretation of sources is acceptable, but there may be some instances of misunderstanding. Poor synthesis of theories and concepts within the discipline. | Satisfactory answer with some attempt at coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains some irrelevant material and lacks focus at points. Some discipline specific vocabulary is used and an attempt at academic writing style is made. There is an attempt at an argument/ line of reasoning. Some language errors may be present which impacts on clarity at times. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate but with some errors. |
| 35-39% (Marginal Fail) | Outcomes not or partially met. Restricted knowledge base. Limited understanding of discipline and ethical issues. Difficulty with linking theory and problem solving in discipline. | Attempts at critical analysis and/or evaluation are ineffective and/or uninformed by the discipline. Knowledge of theory inaccurate and/or incomplete, where relevant. Choice of theory inappropriate. Application and/or understanding is very limited.
| Limited evidence of wider reading at an academic level. Sources used may be inappropriate and interpreted poorly. Little evidence of integration or synthesis of discipline specific theories and concepts. | Answer is limited and lacks coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains irrelevant material and lacks focus throughout with no argument/line of reasoning. Language errors are present and impact on clarity of expression. No attempt at using discipline specific vocabulary and inconsistent application of academic writing style. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is inconsistent. |
| 0 – 34%% | Little or no evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline. Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline. | Lacks any critical analysis and/or evaluation. Absence of relevant theoretical content and/or use of theory, where relevant. | Inadequate or no evidence of reading at an academic level with poor application of sources and ideas. Answer is likely to include inappropriate references which are misunderstood and not integrated. Possibility of plagiarism OR no evidence of academic research. Answer may not be research based. | Answer is inadequate with serious flaws in coherence and presentation. Poorly structured with multiple language errors which impact on clarity. No attempt at subject specific vocabulary or inaccurately used. No evidence of academic writing style. Weak application of CU version of Harvard referencing style. |