| MGT5OBR Assessment 2 Marking Rubric Individual Assignment |
|||||
| CRITERIA | Excellent (80 – 100%) | Very good (70 – 79%) | Good (60 – 69%) | Acceptable (50 – 59%) | Unacceptable (<50%) |
| Introduction (5%) |
Excellent introduction which clearly describes the two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks; clearly sets focus of the essay and provides essay structure. |
Very good introduction with concise description of the two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks; sets focus of the essay and structure. |
Description of the two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks is mostly clear and concise. Some irrelevant details or could have more detail on key information. |
Description of the two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks provided. Some details inappropriate or unclear. |
Description of the two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks lacks focus on key or relevant details. |
| Demonstrated knowledge and critical analysis of OB theory (50%) |
Excellent analysis and critical examination of the two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks. No errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. Argument is strongly supported by relevant and specific examples. |
Very good analysis and critical examination of the two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks. Very few and minor errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. Argument is well supported by relevant and specific examples. |
Good analysis and critical examination of the two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks. May include some minor errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. Argument is supported by relevant and specific examples. |
Solid analysis. May include fewer than two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks. May have some minor or a few major errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. Examples may require improvement. |
Does not analyse theories, concepts or frameworks as assigned, or is mostly inaccurate or irrelevant. Examples are disjointed or incorrectly stated. |
| Critical application (25%) |
Excellent, logical and relevant linkage between the two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks. Argument is strongly supported by relevant and specific examples. |
Very good, logical and relevant linkage between the two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks. Argument is well supported by relevant and specific examples. |
Good linkage between the two (2) CHOSEN theories, concepts or frameworks. Argument is supported by examples. |
Solid linkage. May have some minor or a few major errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. Examples included but require improvement. |
Basic or underdeveloped linkage. Examples are disjointed or incorrectly stated. |
| Structure, organisation, and writing (10%) |
Sequence and structure are logical and easy to follow; excellent overall organisation. Excellent grammar and spelling. |
Sequence and structure are logical and easy to follow; very good overall organisation. Very good grammar and spelling. |
Structured well enough to make sense; could be better organised and more tightly focused upon the topic. Good grammar and spelling. |
Mostly coherent organisation; may have some sections difficult to follow reasoning. Some grammar and spelling errors. |
Lacks coherent organisation. Describes disconnected bits of information or many direct quotes. Poor spelling and grammar. |
| Referencing (10%) |
Excellent use of relevant and appropriate academic sources. Correct referencing used throughout. |
Very good use of relevant and appropriate academic sources. Correct referencing. |
Good use of relevant and appropriate academic sources. Good referencing. |
Acceptable use of relevant academic sources. Mostly correct referencing. |
Few if any academic sources included and poor referencing. |
Tags: alwaysopen, assignmenthelpaustralia, assignmenthelpmelbourne, assignmenthelpsydney, assignmenthelpwebsites, london, londonstudent, melbourne, myassignmenthelp, plagiarismfreework, studentassignmenthelp