MGF5020 Chap.12 AT1 Group Presentation Toolkit: Ethical Business Practices Investigation and the Peer Rating Sheet (20%)
AT1 Group Presentation Toolkit: Ethical Business Practices Investigation and the Peer Rating Sheet (20%)
AT1 is a group presentation worth 20% of the unit. The task page allocates Presentation Details 15% plus Research: List of Relevant Literature and Resources 5%. The separate task rubric is expressed on a 100-point internal scale. Those numbers describe different denominators and must not be added as if the task were worth 120%. The 15 + 5 split allocates the unit mark; the rubric percentages allocate judgement within the presentation. The separate individual peer-rating form may be used to moderate grades, but it is not presented as an additional unit-weight percentage in the materials available here.
The official materials contain three distinct presentation-slot strings. Unit information says Week 3–10 except Week 6. The task page says in week 3–11 except week 6. A Week 1 lecture slide says week 3–10/11 except week 6. Preserve all three strings and obtain the allocated slot from live Moodle or the teaching team. A separate link showing 5 October 2026 should be treated as an upload cutoff unless the live activity states otherwise; it is not silently converted into the presentation date.
The presentation answers an ethical question about a selected organisation or issue through research, theory, argument and coordinated delivery. Start with a decision sentence, not a broad topic. Define the ethical problem, locate affected groups, select frameworks that create real analytical contrast, apply them to evidence and arrive at a qualified recommendation. Slides should make the reasoning visible: each slide needs one function, a claim-led heading, legible evidence and a clear transition.
The AT1 rubric's weighted marking table — the instrument that carries the marks — has six criteria: Understanding of Key Concepts 20%; Quality of Analysis 10%; SDGs and Responsible Business 20%; Structure and Expression 10%; Delivery, Engagement & Teamwork 20%; and Visual Aids & Support Material 20%. A preparation audit should retain all six, their weights and their N–HD performance progression. Two official documents also print a second, unweighted list of five criteria with no weights and no N–HD bands: the AT1 task page's own “Assessment Criteria” table, and the preamble above the weighted table in the rubric PDF, both naming Understanding of Key Concepts; Quality of Analysis; Presentation Quality; Real-World Application; Group Cohesion. The PDF's copy is the crosswalk between the two: it writes the third as “Presentation Quality -Visual Aids & Support Material” and ends Group Cohesion with “& Engagement in Discussion”, tying them to weighted criteria 6 and 5. Carry both lists into planning and do not merge them. The peer instrument has eight separate scored items and should also be preserved in full rather than reduced to a vague teamwork impression.
Condition 1 prohibits generative AI from producing assessment material or content. Keep argument, slide text, speaking content and responses human-authored. Protect peer privacy in group records. Use names only in authorised course systems and keep any private working ledger access-limited.
What this chapter covers
- 0120% task: 15% presentation details plus 5% literature and resources
- 02Three conflicting presentation-slot strings
- 035 October upload cutoff versus presentation slot
- 04Six-criterion 100-point rubric
- 05Eight-item peer evaluation
- 06Human-authored group workflow and evidence trail
Build an ethical presentation spine
- 2Frame a specific decision, scope and time horizon.
- 2Map workers, supplier management, the buyer and affected communities.
- 2Apply one consequence-based and one duty- or justice-based framework.
- 2Separate verified evidence from assumptions and identify missing decision evidence.
- 2Compare exit, remediation and conditional continuation with risks.
- 2Recommend an accountable course with milestones, voice and remedy.
Key terms
- Unit-mark denominator
- The contribution of a component to the final unit result, here 15% presentation details plus 5% literature and resources for AT1.
- Rubric denominator
- The internal 100-point allocation used to judge dimensions of the same task.
- Presentation slot
- The teaching week and class allocation in which the group presents, to be confirmed live.
- Claim-led heading
- A slide title that states the point established rather than naming a broad topic.
- Transition
- A logical handoff showing how one speaker or slide advances the shared argument.
- Peer evaluation
- The individual component recording distinct contributions to group work through eight items.
AT1 Group Presentation Toolkit: Ethical Business Practices Investigation and the Peer Rating Sheet (20%) FAQ
How much is AT1 worth?
20% overall: the task page allocates 15% to presentation details and 5% to the literature and resources list. The peer-rating form is separate and may moderate grades.
Does the rubric make it worth another 100%?
No. The 100-point rubric is the internal judgement denominator for the task.
Which presentation week range is correct?
The materials give three different strings. Confirm the group's actual allocation on live Moodle or with the teaching team.
Is 5 October the presentation date?
Treat it as the separate upload cutoff shown by the link unless the live activity explicitly says otherwise.
Should each speaker use a different theory?
Only if the frameworks advance one shared argument. Avoid disconnected mini-presentations.
Are polished slides enough?
No. The rubric also rewards ethical analysis, research, critical argument, delivery, coordination and questions.
Can generative AI write slides or notes?
No. Condition 1 prohibits generated material or content for the assessment.
Should the eight peer items be collapsed into one score?
No. Preserve and answer each item separately according to the official peer instrument.
How should speaking work be divided?
Allocate ownership, but rehearse one shared argument. Every member should understand the decision, evidence, transitions and recommendation well enough to support coordinated questions.
What belongs on an evidence slide?
A claim-led heading, only the evidence needed for that claim, a readable attribution and a spoken explanation of significance and limitation. Dense screenshots do not demonstrate analysis.
How can questions be prepared?
List the most vulnerable factual premise, theoretical choice, stakeholder omission and implementation risk. Rehearse concise answers that acknowledge uncertainty and return to the shared reasoning chain.
What proves genuine group coordination?
The argument remains coherent across speakers, transitions explain why the next point follows, evidence does not conflict, timing is controlled and the group can answer questions from shared understanding. Equal speaking time alone does not establish coordination, and one polished speaker cannot repair disconnected analysis.
Assessment move
Create two control records: a task record for weight, rubric, allocated slot and upload requirement, and a team record for claims, evidence, speaker, slide, transition and rehearsal status. Copy all three timing strings into the task record without choosing one by guess; then replace uncertainty with the confirmed live allocation. Build a one-page argument map before slides. Put the ethical decision at the top, then list stakeholders, evidence, theoretical tests, options, objections and recommendation conditions. Assign each evidence item an owner and provenance. Build slides around claims, not speaker territories. Rehearse once for logic, once for time and delivery, and once under skeptical questions. Check all six rubric criteria and their weights. Complete the peer evaluation through all eight official items using specific, respectful evidence of contribution. Keep private group records secure, submit through the designated activity, reopen the uploaded file and preserve confirmation.
Working through AT1 Group Presentation Toolkit: Ethical Business Practices Investigation and the Peer Rating Sheet (20%) in MGF5020? Sia is AskSia’s AI Management tutor — ask any MGF5020 AT1 Group Presentation Toolkit: Ethical Business Practices Investigation and the Peer Rating Sheet (20%) question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how MGF5020 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
