STUDYING THE REASONS FOR
PRODUCT RETURN INTENTIONS
OF CHINESE YOUNG WOMEN IN
THE FASHION SECTOR IN CHINA
by Yilian Zhang
Submission date: 02-May-2022 08:43AM (UTC+0100)
Submission ID: 178010889
File name: Research_Project.pdf (802.8K)
Word count: 12760
Character count: 69869
FINAL GRADE
75/100
STUDYING THE REASONS FOR PRODUCT RETURN INTENTIONS
OF CHINESE YOUNG WOMEN IN THE FASHION SECTOR IN
CHINA
GRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructor
Presentation
A very interesting topic to select creating an
interesting read.
This project is well written including all the
relevant sections.
Your rationale and aims and objectives are clearly
defined and justified throughout.
Study depth
It’s clear to see a wide variety of relevant research
sources have been applied and correctly
referenced throughout.
You have kept the thread of discussion running
through your project ensuring clarity.
You have clearly defined and explained your
research methods using relevant theory.
It’s good that you have critiqued your sources and
advised their relevance.
You could have considered consumer behaviour as
a further framework and theory to discuss.
Analysis
Analysis is evident throughout your writing.
You have analysed the results of your primary
research and gone one step further in your
discussion relating back to secondary research.
The justification and review of your outcomes
shows good evidence of your skills in this area.
It is good to have concluded and highlighted your
findings at each stage.
Argument
You have sufficiently highlighted and discussed
your findings throughout. In the discussion of
primary and secondary research you have
identified areas where the contradictions occur
and made valid and justified responses to the
case.
The limitations highlighted and very relevant.
Conclusion
Your conclusion clearly relates back to the aims
and objectives initially set. You have been able to
create some clear recommendations for fashion
companies working in China to gain traction in this
area.
It is clear that the sample for primary research is
small for this area of study, this has been
identified clearly within your recommendations.
In general, this has been an interesting report to
read. You have discovered an existing topic and
highlighted that there was a gap in research when
relating to China. This could follow further
direction with more depth of study within the
primary research area.
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
PAGE 3
PAGE 4
PAGE 5
PAGE 6
PAGE 7
PAGE 8
PAGE 9
PAGE 10
PAGE 11
PAGE 12
PAGE 13
PAGE 14
PAGE 15
PAGE 16
PAGE 17
PAGE 18
PAGE 19
PAGE 20
PAGE 21
PAGE 22
PAGE 23
PAGE 24
PAGE 25
PAGE 26
PAGE 27
PAGE 28
PAGE 29
PAGE 30
PAGE 31
PAGE 32
PAGE 33
PAGE 34
PAGE 35
PAGE 36
PAGE 37
PAGE 38
PAGE 39
PAGE 40
PAGE 41
PAGE 42
PAGE 43
PAGE 44
PAGE 45
PAGE 46
PAGE 47
PAGE 48
PAGE 49
PAGE 50
PAGE 51
PAGE 52
PAGE 53
PAGE 54
PAGE 55
PAGE 56
RUBRIC: FMAN3003_RESPRJ_21/22
PRESENTATION (15%)
FAIL, INSUFFICIENT : 0-
19
(10)
FAIL, WEAK : 20-39
(30)
BASIC PASS : 40-49
(45)
EFFECTIVE : 50-59
(55)
THOROUGH : 60-69
(65)
AUTHORITATIVE : 70-79
(75)
OUTSTANDING : 80-89
(85)
EXCEPTIONAL : 90-100
(100)
STUDY DEPTH (25%)
FAIL, INSUFFICIENT : 0-
19
(10)
FAIL, WEAK : 20-39
(30)
BASIC PASS : 40-49
(45)
EFFECTIVE : 50-59
(55)
73.50 / 100
75 / 100
Presentation, style, structure, language, communication, grammar, referencing.
Poorly structured and incoherent communication of the project. Does not meet
module requirements or follow DMU conventions. Unclear project purpose and
process. Poor writing style with grammar and/or spelling mistakes.
Inappropriate structure with weak communication of the project details. Does not
meet module requirements or follow DMU conventions. Weak communication of
project purpose and process. Poor writing style
Adequate structure and communication of the project. Fulfils requirements and
follows all conventions. Communications the details of the project. Adequate
writing style though may be typos and grammar issues.
Appropriate structure and communication of the project. Good communication
and writing style, may be some spelling and grammar issues.
Cohesive structure and good communication of the purpose, process and
outcomes of the project with few minor spelling and grammar issues.
Excellent structure with clear, flowing communication of the purpose, process and
outcomes of the project. Practically no spelling or grammar issues.
Outstanding clarity and communication of the purpose, process and outcomes of
the project. Excellent use of language and visuals where appropriate. A pleasure
to read.
Exceptionally clear structure and communication of the purpose, process and
outcomes of the project. Excellent use of language and visuals where appropriate.
A pleasure to read.
65 / 100
Depth and breadth of secondary and primary research. Quality and relevance of literature, awareness
of how it relates to their project, critical nature of selection of sources. Development and use of primary
methods.
Inadequate or irrelevant literature.
Low quality literature with limited evidence of understanding or application.
Adequate cover of literature with some evaluation though limited evidence of its
impact on the project.
Good awareness of prior research and its relevance to the project. Some gaps in
knowledge highlighted with some relation to the project.
THOROUGH : 60-69
(65)
AUTHORITATIVE : 70-79
(75)
OUTSTANDING : 80-89
(85)
EXCEPTIONAL : 90-100
(100)
ANALYSIS (25%)
FAIL, INSUFFICIENT : 0-
19
(10)
FAIL, WEAK : 20-39
(30)
BASIC PASS : 40-49
(45)
EFFECTIVE : 50-59
(55)
THOROUGH : 60-69
(65)
AUTHORITATIVE : 70-79
(75)
OUTSTANDING : 80-89
(85)
EXCEPTIONAL : 90-100
(100)
ARGUMENT (25%)
FAIL, INSUFFICIENT : 0-
19
(10)
FAIL, WEAK : 20-39
(30)
Strong critical selection and use of relevant literature. Definite gaps in knowledge
highlighted and related to the project.
Discerning selection, critique and use of highly relevant literature. Clear
identification of gaps in knowledge and their relationship to the project.
Highly discerning, creative and critical engagement with highly relevant literature.
Superb debate of its impact on the project.
Exceptionally discerning, creative and critical engagement with highly relevant
literature. Superb debate of its impact on the project.
75 / 100
Analysis and outcomes. Appropriate analytical method used and applied, indepth dealing with data.
Appropriateness, strength and justification of outcomes.
No analysis. Descriptive presentation of results.
Little and limited analysis. Descriptive presentation of results.
Some evidence of appropriate methods used. Overly derivative and descriptive.
Evidence of appropriate analytical methods and criteria used. May have some
descriptive elements.
Clear and convincing evidence of correct analytical methods being used, with well
defined analytical criteria.
Excellent choice and application of appropriate analytical methods with creatively
developed analytical criteria.
Clear and extensive evidence of a high level of appropriate analytical methods,
with specific analytical criteria created and developed.
Clear and extensive evidence of a high level of appropriate analytical methods,
with specific analytical criteria created and developed.
75 / 100
Discussion of key analytical findings, structured and cohesive argument created and developed,
engaging with critical debate, justified outcomes, highlighting limitations and boundaries, strong links
to theory.
No clear argument or outcomes.
Weak discussion and argument leading to unclear outcomes.
BASIC PASS : 40-49
(45)
EFFECTIVE : 50-59
(55)
THOROUGH : 60-69
(65)
AUTHORITATIVE : 70-79
(75)
OUTSTANDING : 80-89
(85)
EXCEPTIONAL : 90-100
(100)
CONCLUSIONS (10%)
FAIL, INSUFFICIENT : 0-
19
(10)
FAIL, WEAK : 20-39
(30)
BASIC PASS : 40-49
(45)
EFFECTIVE : 50-59
(55)
THOROUGH : 60-69
(65)
AUTHORITATIVE : 70-79
(75)
OUTSTANDING : 80-89
(85)
EXCEPTIONAL : 90-100
(100)
Derivative and simplistic argument leading to some defined outcomes.
Good discussion and argument leading to solid, reliable outcomes. Recognition of
limitations of the research.
Well-structured critical argument leading to well justified outcomes. Findings are
related to theory and limitations of the work presented.
Excellent, cohesive critical argument with clear, well justified outcomes, clear
contribution to knowledge, strong links to theory, and well-presented limitations
and/or implications.
Sophisticated and critical argument of the issues involved, well justified outcomes,
outstanding reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research, offers
fresh/new insights on the problem or development.
Sophisticated and critical argument of the issues involved, well justified outcomes,
exceptional reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research, offers
dynamic new insights on the problem or development.
85 / 100
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work (RFW). Clear relationship to purpose and stated
aim, evidence used to derive conclusions, justification, new insights or knowledge into topic. RFW
identify relevant areas, critical relationship to the project, specific.
Conclusions do not do not show the value of the project. RFW are missing or
irrelevant.
Poorly justified conclusions, lacking evidence or relation to the aim. RFW are not
helpful for developing the topic.
Relates the work to the aim though with limited justification. RFW are basic and
uncritical.
Adequate use of evidence and argument to derive conclusions. Generalised RFW
though related to the project.
Solid conclusions that clearly relate the evidence and findings to the aim Good
RFW with clear critical relation to the project.
Strong conclusions clearly showing new knowledge, with clear relationship to the
aim. Clear and relevant RFW showing insight and thought.
Significant and justified conclusions, adding new insights to the topic. RFW
critically identify highly specific and insightful areas.
Significant, exceptional and justified conclusions, adding new insights to the topic.
RFW critically identify highly specific and insightful areas.
