Page 1 of 10
School of Management
—
BUSM4551 CID/Innovation Management
Assessment 1: Argumentative Essay
Assessment type: Essay Word limit: 1,500 (+/- 10%)
Word count excludes the cover
page and reference list.
Due Date: Friday of Week 5 on or before 23:59
(Singapore time)
Weighting: 30%
Rationale
As students undertaking undergraduate study in an Australian University, you are expected to
develop your critical thinking skills. This requires you to go beyond just describing and summarizing
phenomena or criticizing phenomena to find their faults. Critical thinking involves higher level
thinking and reasoning skills to independently ‘analyse (break things down), evaluate (make
judgements based on evidence) and synthesize or create (put parts together into a coherent whole)’
(RMIT University n.d). Critical thinking involves doing independent research, reading critically
(questioning what you read with an open mind), analysing and evaluating your findings, developing
your arguments based on solid evidence and synthesizing your arguments, and presenting them
appropriately.
These skills will help you to become good researchers, independent thinkers and challenge
established ideas and perspectives.
Reference:
RMIT University n.d., What is critical thinking? RMIT University, viewed 1 February 2020,
https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/what-critical-thinking
Learning outcomes
Course Learning Outcomes related to this assessment are:
CLO1 Explain the relationship between creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship and how it
impacts business growth, sustainability and wealth creation
CLO2 Investigate factors that inhibit creativity in individuals and innovation within teams and
organisations, and recommend strategies and tactics to encourage entrepreneurial behaviour
Page 2 of 10
CLO3 Identify and critique organisational models of innovation management
The Program Learning Outcomes related to this assessment are:
PLO2
Integrate business knowledge, social intelligence and ethical decision-making in ways that are
inclusive and culturally appropriate to produce outcomes that are impactful, sustainable and
fair.
PLO5 Coherently articulate technical and conceptual business knowledge that is both contemporary
and interdisciplinary.
Overview
The purpose of this assessment is to provide you with an opportunity to apply your critical thinking
skills. This requires you to write an argumentative essay in the context of innovation management.
Your essay is written from the perspective of a university student who is studying the management
of innovation. In the essay, you will apply critical thinking skills to argue a specific point of view
regarding the practice of innovation.
Assessment details
You will learn from this 12-module course that the management of innovation within the corporate
context (medium to large enterprises) is a multi-faceted endeavour that occurs at all levels within the
organisation. Demonstration of that learning will require you to apply critical thinking as you argue to
show understanding of the many, often competing, viewpoints. One such viewpoint is that innovation
is complex, uncertain, and almost impossible to manage.
Your task is to write an argumentative essay in which you critically argue in favour of, or against, the
above (underlined) viewpoint. This assessment requires that you focus your arguments on the
challenges (and remedies?) associated with the various sub-sets of managing innovation.
To be clear, arguments must be balanced across all four modules, which is reflected in the marking
rubric. Select specific concepts, models, theories, frameworks, or tools that you found particularly
useful to support those arguments. Critical thinking requires you to make arguments rather than
describe materials covered in this course. In those arguments, draw on specific examples of your
learnings from each of the first four Modules of this course. As you argue, apply relevant specialist
terminology and demonstrate relevance to contemporary creativity and innovation practices. Where
possible and appropriate, support your arguments with real-world industry examples.
Important requirements:
• Your chosen examples (concepts, models, theories, frameworks, or tools) must originate
from the materials presented in the first four modules in this course. Do not include
examples from elsewhere.
• There is no upper limit to the number of examples you may wish to select from each module.
• You should include at least two examples of theories and two examples of tools among your
examples across the four modules.
• Please be guided by the marking rubric when writing your essay. The four Canvas modules
that you must cover each carries a heavy weighting (20%) in the assessment criteria.
Page 3 of 10
Assessment criteria (100 marks equate to 30% of overall course assessment)
This assessment will measure your ability to:
• Introduce the context, background, scope and purpose of your essay (7 marks)
• Critically argue the factors related to Module 1 (20 marks)
• Critically argue the factors related to Module 2 (20 marks)
• Critically argue the factors related to Module 3 (20 marks)
• Critically argue the factors related to Module 4 (20 marks)
• Synthesise and conclude your arguments and relate it back to the broader knowledge of the
innovation management field (7 marks)
• Cite appropriate resources using the Harvard /RMIT Harvard style (3 marks)
• Present your arguments professionally (3 marks)
Structure of the argumentative academic essay
Your argumentative academic essay must include the following components:
Cover page (compulsory)
Please include the following detail on your cover page: Your full name and student number; Course
title, Tutor name; Assignment 1: Argumentative essay; Tutorial #; Word count.
1. Introduction: must include
• A general statement to provide context and background information.
• A purpose statement that outlines the scope and structure of the essay.
• A statement (argument) that identifies the topic and your position.
2. Argument: Your argumentative academic essay can include any number of paragraphs. Give
each set of paragraphs that portray a specific topic a descriptive sub-heading and make it clear
which sections relate to which course modules.
Each paragraph should:
• describe one main idea only, supported by information and evidence from your research
• follow the TEEL strategy to ensure all elements of a good paragraph are included
• relate back to the argument you posed in your introduction
In the paragraphs, you must include in-text citations of all scholarly work (i.e., journals,
academic textbooks, e-books, etc.) and of non-scholarly work (i.e., company websites,
newspaper articles, company videos, etc.) used. Non-scholarly work must be cited when realworld corporate examples are used to support your arguments.
3. Conclusion:
Your conclusion should:
Page 4 of 10
• restate your position (for completeness’ sake)
• summarise how the most important evidence supports this
• show how your position is related to the broader body of knowledge of this field/topic
4. References: List all scholarly and non-scholarly work you have cited in the body of the essay in
a Reference List.
• The reference list is not included in the word count.
• References should be in RMIT Harvard style (or Harvard style if using Endnote).
• The list should be in alphabetical order by family name.
• The list should not be listed by numbers or bullet points.
• A minimum of 5 references must be from scholarly work, the remainder can be non-scholarly
work where real-world corporate examples are used.
Referencing guidelines
Use RMIT Harvard referencing style for this assessment.
You must acknowledge all the courses of information you have used in your assessments.
Refer to the RMIT Easy Cite referencing tool to see examples and tips on how to reference in the
appropriated style. You can also refer to the library referencing page for more tools such as
EndNote, referencing tutorials and referencing guides for printing.
Feedback mode: Feedback will be provided using Canvas/Turnitin’s inline marking tool, a Rubric
and general comments.
Format: Professionally presented using Ariel or Calibri 12-point font, justified. Cover page must
include the word count.
Additional resources | Please refer to the following links for further information on:
Critical thinking:-
• What is critical thinking? by RMIT’s Learning Lab
What is an argumentative academic essay?
An argumentative academic essay is a piece of writing that examines and interprets a given ‘claim’
or ‘statement’ and defends or refutes it with the use of theoretical and practical evidence.
In such an essay, you are essentially building up and presenting your own argument(s) on the
statement while using scholarly (i.e., journal articles, textbooks, theories, etc.) and practical
evidence (e.g., corporate stories, news items relating to companies, etc.) to support your arguments.
Hence, you are not simply describing or summarizing what others have said about a given
statement but introducing and developing your own arguments on it. Your arguments must be
backed by evidence if they are to be valid.
In summary, in writing an argumentative academic essay, you are using your critical thinking skills.
• How to Write a Good Argumentative Essay: Easy Step-by-Step Guide by MasterClass
Page 5 of 10
• Argument by The Writing Center
Submission
Back up all copies of drafts and your final assignment on a separate device (USB or similar) in
case it is required as evidence. Computer failure is not allowable grounds for an Extension or
Special Consideration.
Use Word documents in the .doc or .docx formats only. The assessment will be submitted in
Canvas as a file upload. Assignments submitted in pdf format will not be graded.
Turnitin
Assignments and other assessments must be submitted through the CANVAS assessment
submission system (Turnitin). Submitted assignments that do not have a similarity score will not be
graded.
Do NOT look at similar assignments that have been uploaded onto Internet sites by RMIT students
or students studying at other universities. If you do so you will be tempted to paraphrase their work,
which is not permitted and will lead to a failure mark. You are only allowed to paraphrase
information obtained from legitimate sources.
Do NOT attempt to obtain a similarity score by first submitting it to TurnItIn via another course as
this will result in you achieving a very high similarity score when you eventually submit your
assignment for this course. A 10% penalty will be imposed in such instances.
Do NOT include the declaration form as part of your TurnItIn submission as that will incorrectly
increase your similarity score.
Turnitin Similarity Percentage: The Turnitin Similarity Percentage is an indicator of the similarity of
your paper with other assignments. This link gives you information on how to interpret the similarity
report.
Allow sufficient time for the TurnItIn system to reset before you make another attempt at obtaining
a similarity score. Make sure you obtain your final similarity score well in advance of the
assignment deadline in order to avoid a penalty for late submission.
Academic integrity and plagiarism
Academic integrity is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledging
the work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge, and ideas.
Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including:
• Failure to properly acknowledge or accurately document sources used
• Use of Copyright material from the internet or databases
• Collusion and sharing of work between students
You should take extreme care that you have:
• Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you have
quoted (i.e. directly copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed or mentioned in your
assessment through the appropriate referencing methods.
Page 6 of 10
• Provided a reference list of the publication details so your reader can locate the source if
necessary. This includes material taken from Internet sites.
If you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarism
because you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriate
referencing, as if they were your own.
RMIT University treats plagiarism as a very serious offence constituting misconduct.
For further information on our policies and procedures, please refer to the University website.
Page 7 of 10
Rubric
Introduction
Introduces the topic in
an interesting and
appropriate manner.
Defines the purpose,
stance, scope and
structure of the essay.
Provides a perspective
on the essay statement.
7 marks
HD
Excellent
Introduction.
Introduces the
essay in an
interesting way
and clearly
articulates the
purpose, stance,
scope and
structure of the
essay. A concise
perspective on
the essay
statement is
given.
D
Well written
Introduction and
well stated
purpose, stance,
scope and
structure of the
essay. Provided
a good
perspective on
the essay
statement.
C
Generally good
Introduction of
the topic and
quite clearly
stated purpose,
stance, scope
and structure of
the essay and
perspective
provided. There
is however,
room for
improvement.
PA
Some
Introduction of
the topic and
some statement
of the purpose,
stance, scope
and structure of
the essay but not
clearly
expressed.
NN
Inadequate
Introduction
provided. Has not
clearly stated the
objectives, stance or
the scope of the
essay
DNS
No introduction
provided
Arguments from
Module 1
Quality of arguments
with regard to critical
thinking ability;
understanding of course
content; relevance to
and impact on practice.
Arguments are
supported with
additional scholarly and
professional evidence.
20 marks
HD
Outstanding
quality of
arguments and
high perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
deemed highly
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
D
High quality of
arguments and
high perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
deemed relevant
to and impactful
on practice.
C
Acceptable
quality of
arguments and
sufficient
perceived
understanding
of content.
Arguments are
deemed
somewhat
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
PA
Average quality
of arguments
and low
perceived
understanding of
content. Some
arguments are
deemed not very
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
NN
Very poor quality of
arguments and no
perceived
understanding of
content. Arguments
are not relevant to
and not impactful on
practice.
DNS
Failed to provide any
discussion related to
the content of module 1
Arguments from
Module 2
HD D C PA NN DNS
Page 8 of 10
Quality of arguments
with regard to critical
thinking ability;
understanding of course
content; relevance to
and impact on practice.
Arguments are
supported with
additional scholarly and
professional evidence.
20 marks
Outstanding
quality of
arguments and
high perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
deemed highly
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
High quality of
arguments and
high perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
deemed relevant
to and impactful
on practice.
Acceptable
quality of
arguments and
sufficient
perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
deemed
somewhat
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
Average quality of
arguments and
some low
perceived
understanding of
content. Some
arguments are
deemed not very
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
Very poor quality
of arguments and
very little
perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
not relevant to
and not impactful
on practice.
Failed to provide any
discussion related to
the content of
module 2
Arguments from
Module 3
Quality of arguments
with regard to critical
thinking ability;
understanding of course
content; relevance to
and impact on practice.
Arguments are
supported with
additional scholarly and
professional evidence.
20 marks
HD
Outstanding
quality of
arguments and
high perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
deemed highly
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
D
High quality of
arguments and
high perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
deemed relevant
to and impactful
on practice.
C
Acceptable
quality of
arguments and
sufficient
perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
deemed
somewhat
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
PA
Average quality of
arguments and
some low
perceived
understanding of
content. Some
arguments are
deemed not very
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
NN
Very poor quality
of arguments and
very little
perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
not relevant to
and not impactful
on practice.
DNS
Failed to provide any
discussion related to
the content of
module 3
Arguments from
Module 4
Quality of arguments
with regard to critical
thinking ability;
understanding of course
content; relevance to
and impact on practice.
HD
Outstanding
quality of
arguments and
high perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
D
High quality of
arguments and
high perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
deemed relevant
C
Acceptable
quality of
arguments and
sufficient
perceived
understanding of
content.
PA
Average quality of
arguments and
some low
perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
NN
Very poor quality
of arguments and
no perceived
understanding of
content.
Arguments are
not relevant to
DNS
Failed to provide any
discussion related to
the content of
module 4
Page 9 of 10
Arguments are
supported with
additional scholarly and
professional evidence.
20 marks
deemed highly
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
to and impactful
on practice.
Arguments are
deemed
somewhat
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
deemed not very
relevant to and
impactful on
practice.
and not impactful
on practice.
Conclusion
All aspects are drawn
together in a brief
concise summary.
Consistent with
discussion/arguments
presented in the Body
of the essay. No new
materials introduced
here
7 marks
HD
Excellent
conclusion that is
written in a very
concise,
consistent
manner. No new
material is
presented.
D
Very clear and
concise
conclusion.
Consistent with
the
discussion/argum
ents provided in
the Body
C
Good conclusion
that summarises
the main issues
clearly. Yet there
is scope for
improvement.
PA
Satisfactory
conclusion but
could be done in
a clearer and/or
more concise
manner.
NN
Inadequate
conclusion provided
and poor summary of
issues that have
been discussed.
DNS
No conclusion
provided.
Works cited
Scholarly and nonscholarly work used is
cited in the body of the
text. A minimum of 5
scholarly works has
been used. A separate
reference list accurately
applies the RMIT
Harvard style of
referencing for in-text
citations and the
reference list.
3 marks
HD
Referencing is
consistently
applied according
to the RMIT
Harvard style. A
minimum of 5
scholarly works
has been used.
Citations used
very well within
the Body. A
separate
reference list is
provided with
references that
D
A minimum of 5
scholarly works
has been used.
Only minor
referencing
errors. Citations
used well in the
Body and the
reference list is
drawn up well.
C
In-text citations
and references
mostly done well.
Has followed the
RMIT Harvard
style although
errors exist.
PA
A number of
errors in
formatting and
use of in-text
references and
listing of
references. Some
missing
references. There
is scope for
improvement.
NN
Very poor attempt at
referencing.
DNS
No attempt at
referencing.
Page 10 of 10
are only cited intext, and vice
versa.
Presentation of
Assignment
Quality of expression /
language, paragraph
construction, spelling,
and proofreading
(lacking in typos).
Format and layout
presented in
professional manner.
3 marks
HD
Logical,
compelling
progression of
ideas in essay;
clear structure
which enhances
and showcases
the central idea or
theme and moves
the reader
through the text.
Excellent
expression /
language used
with minimum
spelling errors.
Professionally
presented in
relation to the
format and layout.
D
Overall, the paper
is logically
developed.
Progression of
ideas in essay
makes sense and
moves the reader
easily through the
text. Well written
and with good
expression and
very few spelling
mistakes. Good
use of paragraph
constructs. Very
well presented.
C
Progression of
ideas in essay is
awkward yet
moves the reader
through the text
without too much
confusion.
Effective
language. Mainly
accurate spelling.
Well presented.
PA
Arrangement of
essay is unclear
and illogical. The
writing lacks a
clear sense of
direction. Ideas,
details or events
seem strung
together in a
loose or random
fashion; there is
no identifiable
internal structure
and readers have
trouble following
the writer’s line of
thought.
Adequate
language but
some errors in
spelling. Format
and layout are
satisfactory but
can be presented
more
professionally.
NN
Arrangement of
essay is completely
unclear and illogical.
The writing lacks any
sense of direction.
Inappropriate/poor
language.
Substantial errors in
spelling. Need to be
proofread. Poor
format and layout
that do not meet
professional
expectations.
DNS
Not applicable
