International Business and Cultures (5cr)

Evaluation scale

H-5

Content scheduling

The study unit is partly carried out with the Innopeda and PBL-method and learning by doing.
Themes: Elements of International marketing mix, Cultural classification theories.
AUTUMN 2020; the course will be organized distance / on-line, because of the COVID-19 situation. More information will be send to the students enrolled through Peppi-system. The course is intended for the PTUTAS17 and 18 students and for the exchange students.

Objective

The aim is to increase the students' awareness of the content and significance of selling and marketing communications in general in international business and prepare them for an understanding of the concept of the international marketing mix. A further aim is to make the students understand cultural differences and customer behaviour in international business life. The student can work in International Business environment.

Content

- Elements of international marketing mix
- International marketing communications and selling
- Understanding cultural differences in international business

Location and time

Sepänkatu, Autumn 2018, 1 time at week

Materials

Daniels & Radebaugh; International Business (newest version available at the Library or e-book).

Teaching methods

The study unit is carried out with Innopeda -method and also partly carried out with the PBL-method and learning by doing.

Employer connections

There is an inbound connection to the working life in the exercises and lectures.

Pedagogic approaches and sustainable development

Innopeda, PBL, Learning By Doing.

Completion alternatives

No optional versions.

Student workload

5 ects, detailled instructions during the first lecture.

Please note, put lots of effort to all course tasks and activities right away, because the only way to up-grade the final grade is to participate to the next course round.

Evaluation methods and criteria

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5
• Fail (0)
There are clear mistakes in the returned tasks, or something is missing (e.g. video-presentation, peer comments etc.) or the tasks returned are very limited. Or the deadlines are neglected. References are limited or poorly used. Or there is no participation into the any of the discussions and a qualified absence is not covered adequately.
• Satisfactory (1-2)
All the task are returned on time and they reach satisfactory level, but they are limited / narrow and lacking deep analysis. Or the references are very limited. Presentations limited. The amount of tools & theories used is limited. Self- and peer-evaluation(when and if asked) is limited. Participation only to one discussion session and poor covering of the missed two topics.
• Good (3-4)
All the tasks are analytical, and well done. They represent high quality in terms of references, length and deep analysis. And in comparison to other group members there are clear bonus aspects. Also presentations are of high quality. And the peer comments are constructive and analytical (when asked). Above the minimum requirements in every way. The amount of used tools & theories is large. Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive. Participation to discussion sessions or well executed missed session´s task(s) according to instructions.

• Excellent (5)
All the tasks are excellent. And results are even higher than in the grade 3-4. Presentations extremely high quality as well as peer comments. Well above all the other requirements ( in length, deep analysis etc.). Lots of references, all the tools & theories used (or at least most of them). Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive. Maximum one missed session of three and that has been very well covered according to given task.


Arviointi –kriteerit tiivistettyinä suomeksi (tarkemmat kriteerit yllä englanniksi). Huomaa, että Plagioinnin -tarkastus ohjelma Urkundia saatetaan käyttää tehtävien tarkastuksessa.
• Ainoastaan tehtävät, jotka on palautettu aikataulussa ohjeen mukaan arvioidaan. Myöhästyneitä suorituksia ei huomioida.
Hylätty
Oppimistehtävien suorittaminen osoittaa useissa arviointikohteina olevissa kyvyissä olevan vakavia puutteita ilman niitä kompensoivia erityisansioita. Tai opiskelija jättää tehtävät tai niihin kuuluvat esitykset pitämättä. Tai myöhästyy palautusaikataulusta / deadlinestä, ei ole läsnä keskusteluissa.
• Arviointikriteerit - tyydyttävä (1-2)
Opiskelija osoittaa hallitsevansa oppimistehtävien suorittamisen perus-kyvyt, mutta tehtävissä on selviä puutteita. Työkalujen & teorioiden ja lähteiden käyttö on vähäistä. Kieli saattaa olla haparoivaa ja tehtävät ovat lyhyitä, eivätkä kovin analyyttisiä. Esitys on heikkotasoinen. Itse- ja vertaisarviointi (mikäli sellaista pyydetään) on lyhyt ja epäanalyyttinen. Läsnä vain yhdessä keskustelussa.
• Arviointikriteerit - hyvä (3-4)
Oppimistehtävät on hyvin ja analyyttisesti tehty ja selkeästi esitetty. Opiskelija osoittaa hallitsevansa pääosin oppimistehtävien suorittamisen edellyttämät kyvyt. Suorituksen erityisansioilla voidaan kompensoida joissakin mainituissa kyvyissä mahdollisesti ilmenneitä puutteita. Lähteiden käyttö laajaa ja käytettyjä työkaluja & teorioita on runsaasti. Itse-/ vertaisarviointi on myös laaja ja analyyttinen sekä reflektoiva ja konstruktiivinen. Puutteellinen osallistuminen keskustelusessioihin.
• Arviointikriteerit - kiitettävä (5)
Suorituksessa on keskeiset arviointikriteerit huomioon ottaen useita huomattavia ansioita ilman näitä mitätöiviä puutteita. Kaikki edellä mainitut kriteerit ylittyvät ja työkalujen & teorioiden käyttö on erittäin laajaa. Lähteitä on runsaasti. Esitys on korkeatasoinen. Itsearviointi / vertaisarviointi (mikäli sitä pyydetään) on myös erittäin analyyttinen ja laaja sekä reflektoiva ja konstruktiivinen. Osallistunut kaikkiin keskustelusessioihin.

Failed (0)

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5
• Fail (0)
There are clear mistakes in the returned tasks, or something is missing (e.g. video-presentation, peer comments etc.) or the tasks returned are very limited. Or the deadlines are neglected. References are limited or poorly used.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5

• Satisfactory (1-2)
All the task are returned on time and they reach satisfactory level, but they are limited / narrow and lacking deep analysis. Or the references are very limited. Presentations limited. The amount of tools & theories used is limited. Self- and peer-evaluation(when and if asked) is limited.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5

• Good (3-4)
All the tasks are analytical, and well done. They represent high quality in terms of references, length and deep analysis. And in comparison to other group members there are clear bonus aspects. Also presentations are of high quality. And the peer comments are constructive and analytical (when asked). Above the minimum requirements in every way. The amount of used tools & theories is large. Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5

• Excellent (5)
All the tasks are excellent. And results are even higher than in the grade 3-4. Presentations extremely high quality as well as peer comments. Well above all the other requirements ( in length, deep analysis etc.). Lots of references, all the tools & theories used (or at least most of them). Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

Further information

-