Assessment

Continous Assessment Activities

Title	Weighting	Hours	ECTS	Learning Outcomes
Group evaluation, oral presentation and final debate	15% final qualification	1	0.04	1, 15
Group evaluation, written	30% final qualification	2.5	0.1	10, 11, 6, 7, 3, 2, 4, 14, 9, 5, 15, 8
Individual assessment / final exam	35%	3	0.12	12, 10, 11, 6, 7, 3, 2, 4, 13, 14, 1, 9, 5, 8
Individual evaluation / first test	15% final qualification	1	0.04	12, 10, 11, 6, 3, 2, 4, 13, 14, 1, 9, 8
Participation in group activities in class	5%	0	0	12, 10, 11, 6, 7, 3, 2, 4, 13, 14, 1, 9, 5, 15, 8

The course follows a continuous assessment model, both individually and in groups.

I) Group Assessment

The group assessment aims to evaluate teamwork skills, as well as synthesis and oral/written expression abilities. It will consist of a practical project involving the organisation of a seminar session and the preparation of a systematic literature review on a chosen topic. Group work accounts for 45% of the final grade (30% for the systematic literature review; 15% for the oral presentation of a related article, including a written support using the PRISMA template).

Attendance at the seminars and the oral presentations is mandatory and evaluated as part of the 5% participation mark. Deliverables for the seminar session, as well as the final literature review, must be submitted within the deadlines and formats specified via the virtual campus. Late submissions or absences will result in proportional deductions from the final grade. Missed or failed seminar tasks cannot be resubmitted.

II) Individual Assessment

The individual assessment evaluates students’ mastery of analytical and conceptual knowledge, as well as their critical thinking and reasoning skills. It consists of two exams:
• A midterm test, held after the introductory section, in the form of a multiple-choice test during class hours (15% of the final grade).
• A final written exam, held at the end of the semester (max. 2 hours), requiring a short essay on a topic from the monographic section (35% of the final grade).

These two components will together account for 45% of the final grade. A minimum score of 4/10 in the final written exam is required to average with the group project.

III) Failing, “Not Presented”, and Re-assessment

Both the final project and the individual exam are graded on a 0 to 10 scale.

There is no recovery activity for the group project.

Students who fail the midterm but attend it may recover it byretaking the relevant part during the final exam. A re-assessment (retake) will also be available at the end of the first semester for students who do not achieve an average of 4/10 between both individual exams. Any grade below 4 results in failing the course.

IV) Copying, Plagiarism, or Other Irregularities in Assessment

As highlighted in the multimedia resource Argumenta, Unit 20, on plagiarism:

“Plagiarising shows a lack of originality and creativity. Academic plagiarism specifically undermines the development of critical thinking, which should be central to any learning process. One must rely on oneself and bring out one’s own creativity.”
http://wuster.uab.es/web_argumenta_obert/unit_20/tot_t20.html

With this positive spirit in mind, students are encouraged to use the tools offered by the UAB to help with studying and preparing written assignments and tests to avoid plagiarism or other forms of academic dishonesty. The Social Sciences Library website offers key information and recommendations:
http://www.uab.cat/web/recursos-d-informacio/citacions-i-bibliografia-1326267851837.html

Any irregularity of this nature will result in a score of 0 for the corresponding assessment activity.
See Article 116, Point 10 of the UAB Academic Regulations:

“If a student commits any irregularity that could significantly alter the grade of an assessment activity, that activity will be graded with a 0, regardless of any disciplinary process. If multiple irregularities occur, the final grade for the subject will be 0.”
http://www.uab.cat/doc/TR_Normativa_Academica_Plans_Nous

The use of generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, is allowed as complementary support in preparing assignments and written assessments, provided it does not replace the student’s own analytical, critical, and writing abilities. Students may use these tools to clarify doubts, explore examples, or improve their understanding of content. However, final submissions must reflect original, individual work. Improper use—such as submitting automatically generated text or showing a lack of personal reflection—may be considered academic misconduct.

Under no circumstances may students submit texts entirely generated by AI. Controls will be implemented to verify compliance. Violating this rule may be considered a breach of academic integrity and will invalidate the related assessments.

V) Single Assessment Option

From the 2023–2024 academic year onward, students may request single assessment for certain subjects in undergraduate and master’s programmes. A list of eligible subjects is available on the faculty’s website. Students may request single assessment if the course content and methodology allow, as specified in the course syllabus.

In the case of Sociology of Business, the single assessment will consist of three parts:
• A written exam covering the course contents: a multiple-choice test on the introductory section and a short essay on a monographic topic (45%). A score below 4/10 in this part invalidates the rest of the assessment.
• A written literature review, to be submitted on the exam day, based on the seminar contents (30%). The topic must be previously approved by the instructor.
• A short oral interview on course content (15%).

Re-assessment conditions are the same as for students following continuous assessment.

VI. Non-Assessable Students

A student is considered assessable if they complete a set of activities that account for at least two-thirds of the total grade.

If this threshold is not reached or the student fails to score at least 4/10 in individual exams, the instructor may classify them as “not assessable.”