|
Module Title |
Introduction to International Business |
|
|
Module Code |
25-4011-00L (BTEC = 25-4H11-00S/L) |
|
|
Semester of Delivery |
1 and 2 |
|
|
Mandatory/Elective/Option |
Mandatory |
|
|
Level |
4 |
|
|
Credit Points |
20 |
|
|
Assessment Mode Weighting |
Coursework |
40% |
|
Examination |
60% |
|
|
Pre-requisites |
None |
|
|
Co-requisites |
None |
|
|
Class Contact Hours |
||
|
Average Weekly |
1.5 |
|
|
Directed Learning |
||
|
Average Weekly |
5 |
|
|
Module Leader |
Francis Gray |
|
|
|
Sheffield Business School |
|
|
Module Banding |
A |
|
|
Approval Status |
Validated |
|
Rationale
Business is becoming increasingly more international in scope and although the operations undertaken by international firms are not fundamentally different from those of purely domestic firms, they are made more complex by the need for international firms to interact with a more diverse business environment than that faced by firms operating in only one country. Companies that conduct business transactions across national borders are brought into contact with different currencies, different laws, cultures and ways of doing business all of which affect their operations and the means by which they are carried out. This module provides an introduction to the main methods of transacting international business and the influence that the international environment has on the activities and business practices of international companies. As a level 4 module, Introduction to International Business provides the underpinning for further study of international business dealt with in the level 5 modules the Emerging Global System and Foreign Business Operations in the UK as well as introducing students to the international dimension of business.
Summary of aims
The aims of this module are:
To enable students to gain an appreciation of the nature of the international business environment within which international firms operate
To provide students with knowledge and understanding of the techniques available to help firms decide which foreign markets to enter
To generate a familiarity with the main methods of transacting international business
To introduce students to the methods by which international firms seek to reduce the risks inherent in undertaking international business
To provide students with opportunities to practise and develop competence in key skills appropriate to level 4.
Anticipated Learning Outcomes
Upon successful completion of this module, students should be able to:
1. Identify the key elements of the international environment which have an impact on the activities of international firms
2. Explain and understand the basis and recent patterns of international trade and investment
3. Demonstrate an understanding of a range of market selection techniques
4. Select appropriate methods of international market entry and development
5. Comment critically on the main methods of risk minimisation available to international companies
Assessment and Feedback Strategy
There will be 2 pieces of assessment:
Coursework
One group presentations (worth 10%)
One individual Essay (30%)
Examination
2 hour Examination (60%)
Coursework
The coursework has two elements:
1. Group presentation
For the group presentation each seminar group is divided into sub-groups. Each sub-group is required to carry out an evaluation of a recent international current affair.
The presentations take place in the seminar sessions. Each presentation is to be no longer than 15 minutes with 5 minutes for questions and discussion. The requirements of the presentation are explained to students in the Topic 1 seminar. Each group will receive initial verbal feedback from their seminar tutor at the time of the presentation and formal written feedback by e-mail. The group presentations constitute 10% of the overall assessment for the module.
2. Individual essay
This takes the form of an essay and constitutes 30% of the overall assessment for the module. Students have a choice of topic from a list of titles. The assignment is handed out in the Topic 3 lecture (Part-time students) or the Topic 4 lecture (Full-time students). Students will have the opportunity to discuss any issues concerning the management of the assignment in the following seminar. The deadline for all students is the Topic 8 seminar. Students receive their marked assignments and individual written feedback in the Topic 11 seminar.
Examination
The examination is unseen and has 2 sections:
Section 1 will be a Case study with a question attached.
Section 2 will require students to undertake an essay based answer
Both sections are equally weighted. (I.e. 50% each)
Teaching and Learning Strategy and Methods
The module is delivered to Full- and Part-time students. Full-time students study for 24 weeks, a one hour lecture one week followed by a two-hour seminar the next. Part-time students study for 12 weeks in one Semester in three hour blocks, lecture followed directly by seminar. Lectures provide a framework and introduction to each topic covered in the module. Following on from lectures, students are required to undertake directed learning activities each week with respect to the topics covered in preparation for seminars. These activities involve retrieving and processing information from data bases and other sources, reading specified texts and other material, self assessment exercises in the form of multiple choice questions and short exercises, preparing answers to questions for collective discussion and working with others in the preparation of group presentations. Seminars involve student participation in a variety of activities including the discussion of prepared answers to questions and exercises, group and individual presentations and collaborative work using case studies both in written and video form. These activities are designed to facilitate the achievement of the anticipated learning outcomes of the module and to enable students to develop and deepen proficiency in the application of key academic skills.
Indicative Reading List
Core text
International Business (Environments and Operations) 11th Edition, by John D Daniels, Lee H Radebaugh, and Daniel P Sullivan, published by Pearson-Prentice Hall 2006.
Additional Readings
Dawes, B (editor) 'International business' Stanley Thornes, 1995.
El Kahal, S 'Introduction to international business' McGraw-Hill 1994
Hill, C W L 'International business; competing in the global marketplace' Irwin, 1994
Daniels et al 'Globalization and Business', Prentice Hall, 2002
Charles S.L. Hill 'International Business', McGraw'Hill Irwin 4 th ed., 2003
Welford, R and Prescott, K: 'European business: an issue-based approach' 3 rd edition Pitman, 1996.
Group presentation assessment criteria
|
Outcome 4
Transfer skills gained to new and changing situations and context |
Outcome 6
Relate to and interact effectively with individuals and groups
|
Outcome 8
Receive and respond to a variety of information |
Outcome 11
Participate in oral and non-verbal communication
|
Distinction (D) over 70% |
Appropriate frameworks have been skilfully applied and have been fully integrated into the analysis. |
A first rate team effort with the group having worked together effectively to produce a cohesive group presentation |
A good standard of analysis and evaluation of relevant issues with well synthesised comparisons of theory and practice. A broad knowledge of theory and concepts with well explained and relevant application to the task set. Provides a convincing case. |
A good standard of presentation with good pace and audibility. Effective use of visual material to support the presentation. Questions and discussion well handled. |
Merit (M) between 56% and 70% |
The required theoretical frameworks have been applied correctly and have been fully used in the analysis |
A good group effort with all team members being aware of areas dealt with by all members of the group. Evidence of division of labour. |
A good standard of analysis and evaluation of most issues. Has good general comparisons of theory with practice. A broad knowledge of theory and concepts explained and applied to the task set. Provides a cohesive case. |
A good standard of presentation, well paced and audible. Good use of visual material to support the presentation. Discussion is well lead. |
Pass (P) between 40% and 55% |
Appropriate theoretical frameworks have been selected and applied correctly but could have been used more fully. |
A team effort but has some fragmentation with team members demonstrating responsibility for only part of the presentation. |
Patchy analysis of relevant issues. Little attempt at evaluation. Few comparisons of theory and practice. Conclusions are weak and only partially supported by arguments made. |
Adequate standard of presentation. Appropriately paced and audible. Visual material supported the presentation. Limited leading of discussion. |
Working towards (W) less than 40% |
Very little or no use made of material from the taught course. |
Fragmented. A collection of individual pieces of work lacking cohesion. |
Descriptive coverage of issues, not all of which are relevant to the task set. No attempt at evaluation. Few or no comparisons of theory with practice. Confused or muddled description of theory and concepts. No attempt to apply to the task set. Conclusions are unsubstantiated. |
Poor standard of presentation. Uneven pace and/or not all presenters audible. Visual material poorly designed or ineffective in supporting the presentation. Presentation lacks structure and/or logical development. Reluctance to lead discussion.
|
|
Outcome 4
Transfer skills gained to new and changing situations and contexts
|
Outcome 10
Communicate in writing
|
Outcome 12
Use information sources |
Outcome 18
Use a range of thought processes |
Distinction (D) over 70% |
Appropriate frameworks have been skilfully applied and have been fully integrated into the analysis. |
A good standard of written English. Well structured and cohesive and is well argued... Referencing is complete with all sources acknowledged. |
Good standard of research drawing on a wide range of relevant sources. |
A good standard of analysis and evaluation of relevant issues with well synthesised comparisons of theory and practice. A broad knowledge of theory and concepts with well explained and relevant application to the task set. Provides a convincing case. |
Merit (M) between 56% and 70% |
The required theoretical frameworks have been applied correctly and have been fully used in the analysis |
Clearly written and of appropriate standard. Well structured and clearly argued. All sources are acknowledged. |
Good standard of research with effective use of relevant source materials. |
A good standard of analysis and evaluation of most issues. Has good general comparisons of theory with practice. A broad knowledge of theory and concepts explained and applied to the task set. Provides a cohesive case. |
Pass (P) between 40% and 55% |
Appropriate theoretical frameworks have been selected and applied correctly but could have been used more fully. |
Clearly written. Has a structure but arguments are not fully developed. Referencing is incomplete. |
Basic research has been done. Draws on an adequate range of source material. |
Patchy analysis of relevant issues. Little attempt at evaluation. Few comparisons of theory and practice. Conclusions are weak and only partially supported by arguments made. |
Working towards (W) less than 40% |
Very little or no use made of material from the taught course. |
Poorly written with errors in grammar and/or vocabulary. Meaning often obscured. Little structure and no attempt to reference. |
Little research undertaken. Few sources consulted. Information lacks relevance to issues under consideration. |
Descriptive coverage of issues, not all of which are relevant to the task set. No attempt at evaluation. Few or no comparisons of theory with practice. Confused or muddled description of theory and concepts. No attempt to apply to the task set. Conclusions are unsubstantiated. |
|
Outcome 4
Transfer skills gained to new and changing situations and contexts
|
Outcome 10
Communicate in writing
|
Outcome 12
Use information sources |
Outcome 18
Use a range of thought processes
|
Distinction (D) over 70% |
Appropriate frameworks have been skilfully applied and have been fully integrated into the analysis. |
A good standard of written English. Well structured and cohesive and is well argued. Referencing is complete with all sources acknowledged. |
Good standard of research drawing on a wide range of relevant sources. |
A good standard of analysis and evaluation of relevant issues with well synthesised comparisons of theory and practice. A broad knowledge of theory and concepts with well explained and relevant application to the task set. Provides a convincing case. |
Merit (M) between 56% and 70% |
The required theoretical frameworks have been applied correctly and have been fully used in the analysis |
Clearly written and of appropriate standard. Well structured and clearly argued. All sources are acknowledged. |
Good standard of research with effective use of relevant source materials. |
A good standard of analysis and evaluation of most issues. Has good general comparisons of theory with practice. A broad knowledge of theory and concepts explained and applied to the task set. Provides a cohesive case. |
Pass (P) between 40% and 55% |
Appropriate theoretical frameworks have been selected and applied correctly but could have been used more fully. |
Clearly written. Has a structure but arguments are not fully developed. Referencing is incomplete. |
Basic research has been done. Draws on an adequate range of source material. |
Patchy analysis of relevant issues. Little attempt at evaluation. Few comparisons of theory and practice. Conclusions are weak and only partially supported by arguments made. |
Working towards (W) less than 40%
|
Very little or no use made of material from the taught course. |
Poorly written with errors in grammar and/or vocabulary. Meaning often obscured. Little structure and no attempt to reference. |
Little research undertaken. Few sources consulted. Information lacks relevance to issues under consideration. |
Descriptive coverage of issues, not all of which are relevant to the task set. No attempt at evaluation. Few or no comparisons of theory with practice. Confused or muddled description of theory and concepts. No attempt to apply to the task set. Conclusions are unsubstantiated. |
Examination Case Study Assessment Criteria
|
Outcome 4
Transfer skills gained to new and changing situations and contexts
|
Outcome 8
Receive and respond to a variety of information |
Outcome 10
Communicate in writing
|
Outcome 18
Use a range of thought processes
|
Distinction (D) over 70% |
Appropriate frameworks have been skilfully applied and have been fully integrated into the analysis. |
A good analysis of the details given or data gathering with an excellent approach to the implications related to several sources and significant to the case provided |
A good standard of written English. Well structured and cohesive and is well argued. Referencing is complete with all sources acknowledged. |
A good standard of analysis and evaluation of relevant issues with well synthesised comparisons of theory and practice. A broad knowledge of theory and concepts with well explained and relevant application to the task set. Provides a convincing case. |
Merit (M) between 56% and 70% |
The required theoretical frameworks have been applied correctly and have been fully used in the analysis |
A satisfactory set of answers and information/data analysis; good and skilful application on the case provided |
Clearly written and of appropriate standard. Well structured and clearly argued. All sources are acknowledged. |
A good standard of analysis and evaluation of most issues. Has good general comparisons of theory with practice. A broad knowledge of theory and concepts explained and applied to the task set. Provides a cohesive case. |
Pass (P) between 40% and 55% |
Appropriate theoretical frameworks have been selected and applied correctly but could have been used more fully. |
An adequate set of information or data gathered with some evidence of learning and practice undertaken at a basic level in relation to the case material |
Clearly written. Has a structure but arguments are not fully developed. Referencing is incomplete. |
Patchy analysis of relevant issues. Little attempt at evaluation. Few comparisons of theory and practice. Conclusions are weak and only partially supported by arguments made. |
Working towards (W) less than 40%
|
Very little or no use made of material from the taught course. |
Details of the case material were not analysed effectively in the answer give; little or no information/data gathered and weakly applied or evidence of learning provided to an unsatisfactory level |
Poorly written with errors in grammar and/or vocabulary. Meaning often obscured. Little structure and no attempt to reference. |
Descriptive coverage of issues, not all of which are relevant to the task set. No attempt at evaluation. Few or no comparisons of theory with practice. Confused or muddled description of theory and concepts. No attempt to apply to the task set. Conclusions are unsubstantiated. |