Course Requirements


Assignments 1 and 3

You will be asked to present your understanding of course materials within two (2) major submissions, one from an analytical perspective and the other from a persuasive perspective. The analytical submission (Assignment 1) will consider a market environment or a specific venture. The persuasive submission (Assignment 3) will allow you to pitch the business proposition for a new venture, or else a rebuilding, new direction or operating plan for an existing venture. We will be looking for critical thought, design, and presentation (structure, writing, and use of media) of a professional and scholarly standard (APA style) in these submissions. It is also expected that students, given the nature of the course content, will demonstrate a sound understanding of comparative and analytic techniques respecting the viability of learning technology enterprises. It is almost always more difficult to be clear and compelling with few words, but as this is a very ‘businesslike’ virtue we have placed the written equivalent of a 2,500 word maximum length on these submissions, or twelve minutes maximum in narrative form. We will appreciate it when you can communicate your thoughts concisely!

Rubric for Assignment 1 (pdf)

Rubric for Assignment 3 (pdf)

Assignment 2: Emerging Market Analysis

Each of the Research Phase Modules of ETEC 522 covers a separate emerging market, and we would like small groups of students to work together to design and deliver a Market-specific engaging online interactive experience for the whole class for each of the separate weeks covering Modules 4-11. If you have a particular interest in one of the emerging market topics, let your instructors know about this by email in the first week of the course.  They will take your interest into consideration when forming the teams.  You will be notified by the end of the first week which Module you have been assigned to, and which of your peers will be your Market Team in looking after your week.

Market Teams will be encouraged to experiment with online presentation and collaboration tools of their choice in the conduct of their moderation duties, and to submit an evaluation of the effectiveness of these tools upon the conclusion of their assignment. The Emerging Market Analysis Assignment is worth 25% of your total grade. A formal team-based self-assessment of your moderation activity is a required summative contribution due within one week of the completion of your moderation assignment (worth one-fifth of the Assignment #2 grade, or 5% of total grade).

Rubric for Assignment 2 (pdf)

Participation in Discussions

As an online experience, ETEC 522 provides an ongoing opportunity for interaction with your fellow students and the instructors. The final 25% of your grade for the course will be assessed based on the quality of your participation with your students in the discussion venues in the course weblog.

Rubric for Participation (pdf)


A set of Activities will be provided at various times. These will not be graded, and are intended as stimuli for further individual investigation of concepts leading to your ability to generate the Assignments and participate in the discussions taking place in the course weblog.


The general format for the evaluation of your success in ETEC 522 is summarized here; the detailed requirements for each assignment, discussion forum and activity will be presented as they occur. Students in the MET program will be marked in accordance with the following grading standards:

Fail: Students are given a failing grade if they do not participate and/or do not complete one or more major assignments.

75 – 79%: A mark in this range would be issued to a student who completed all assignments but at a level considered inadequate for graduate level work.

80 – 84%: Adequate work for a graduate student, meets requirements.

85 – 89%: Good work, what we expect of our best graduate students.

90 – 95%:Excellent work, better than average and better than expected, what we hope for.

A mark over 95% would be given in rare circumstances where a student produced work of such outstanding quality that it merits special recognition. This work would be well outside the range of what was reasonably expected.