辅导 N1583 Entrepreneurship Finance and Accounting Semester Two, 2023/24

N1583 Entrepreneurship Finance and Accounting

Module Assessment Brief for Students (Essay)

Semester Two, 2023/24

The module uses two modes of assessments to assist student learning and to test different types of knowledge, skills, and module learning outcomes. Your grade for the module will be based on an individual 1,800-word Essay (weighted at 70%) and a Computer Exam (CEX) (weighted at 30%). The information of assessments will be provided before week 7 (for Report) and before the Assessment Period (for CEX) respectively. Please check Canvas for the submission deadline, exam dates, and details.

Link to module learning outcomes

This written assignment links to all the module learning outcomes. It aims to evaluate students’ ability to explain a variety of ways to finance a business and manage working capital. It also aims to assess students’ ability to evaluate forms of finance available to small firms and to identify factors which make particular forms of finance more relevant.

Topic (70%)

This written assignment consists of two parts: a 1200-word case study followed by a 600-word discussion.

For the case study part, students should choose either a current or former ‘unicorn’ firm (i.e. a company that has – currently or previously – reached a valuation in excess of $1 billion USD). A list of these may be found online. [NB. Do not choose  these unicorns: AirBNB, ByteDance, Gymshark, SpaceX, Spotify, and Uber; selecting any of these will result in a 10%  deduction in marks.] The case study should discuss the following items:

•   A brief explanation of the company’s background (i.e. context)

•   The main business model of the company

•   The funding and industry environment in which the company operates

•   The funding history of the company: sources of capital, funding rounds, exit strategy, etc.

•   If the company has not reached ‘unicorn’ status recently, what happened after reaching that valuation

For the discussion part, students should critically discuss the case study, drawing upon concepts discussed in the module. This can include:

•   How key theories, principles, and concepts discussed in the module (i.e. pecking order

hypothesis, information asymmetries, and principal agent theory, etc) relate to the case.

•   The implications of the case – for theory/academics, for managers or for policymakers

•   The role of the public sector indirectly or indirectly supporting the firm.

Submission

Students should submit their work by uploading electronic files, in a Word format, of a 1,800- word Report to Canvas (Electronic submission via Canvas only, other submission such as via email are not acceptable).

Assessment criteria

Below is an indicative list of the assessment criteria used for the marking:

You are also reminded:

•   To acknowledge all sources of your ideas and comments. You must provide references to sources of literature that you have drawn on in your report.

•   There is a preference for Harvard style referencing, but, as long as a consistent referencing style is followed, there is no penalisation.

•   To ensure your use of English is to the required academic standard. In addition, write clearly and simply. Ensure that your work contains no grammatical or spelling mistakes.

•   To be concise (Inline with University regulations, you are allowed to have +/- 10% on the word count).

•   The words in all sections from Introduction to Conclusion are included in the word count. References and appendices are excluded from the word count.

•   Using a 12-point Times New Roman font and double line space is preferred, although not a compulsion.

•   To make use of diagrams where appropriate.

Writing Well and Avoiding Academic Misconduct

•   Plagiarism, collusion, and cheating in exams are all forms of academic misconduct which the University takes very seriously.

•   Every year, some students commit academic misconduct unintentionally because they did not know what was expected of them. The consequences for committing academic misconduct can be severe, so it is important that you familiarise yourself with what it is and how to avoid it.

•   The University’s Skills Hub (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/skillshub)guide to study skills gives

advice on writing well, including hints and tips on how to avoid making serious mistakes. You will also find helpful guides to referencing properly and improving your critical writing skills. Make use of the resources there.

•   If you are dealing with difficult circumstances, such as illness or bereavement, do not try to

rush your work or hand in something which may be in breach of the rules. Instead, you should seek confidential advice from the Student Life Centre. The full University rules on academic misconduct are set out in the Examination and Assessment Regulations Handbook (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/adqe/standards/academicmisconduct).

• If you do not think that you should betaking this assessment, or if you have any additional questions, please get in touch as soon as possible.

Marking Process and Ensuring Marking Fairness

•   The University takes several steps to ensure marking fairness.

• Assessment Convening: The module convenor is usually the lead marker, designs the assessment, and specifies the marking criteria.

• Calibration: When there are several markers:

•   They calibrate their marking expectations and scale, usually in a meeting before the marking begins. They usually mark a few submissions together and discuss the characteristic of poor to excellent works using the marking criteria.

•   The module convenor checks the marks and distributions by each marker to ensure similarity and fairness across groups. By analysing the data, any unexplained anomalies are identified    and compensated.

• Moderation: A sample of the marked submissions/scripts (including some from each mark

classification) is then looked at by a moderator to confirm the accuracy of the marking (if they feel there is a problem they may recommend a third person to review all scripts).

• External Examination: The sample is then sent to an external examiner to confirm that the marking has been appropriate and internal procedures have been followed.

•   Finally, a Module Assessment Board (MAB) then considers the overall distribution of marks, taking into account any complaints or problems raised concerning each module, and a Progression and Award Board (PAB) agrees awards for successful candidates andresit/sit opportunities for failed modules/assessments.