Marking Rubrics

112 views 10:11 am 0 Comments May 6, 2023

MGMT 20144 T3 2020: Marking Rubrics for Assessment 1 (30 marks)

Section/Criteria Fail (Less than 25%) Fail (26-49%) Pass (50-64%) Credit (65-74%) Distinction (75-84%) High Distinction (85 –
100%)
Criteria 1. Introduction:
Clearly outlines the purpose, scope, a n d
structure of the essay. (3 marks)		 No clear introduction
provided		 No topic, key points
and/or purpose is
introduced or the
introduction is irrelevant
to the assessment item.		 Topic introduced, but
the introduction is
underdeveloped in
terms of key points
and/or purpose		 Topic, key points and
purpose of the essay
is introduced with
satisfactory clarity.		 Topic, key points and
purpose of the essay is
introduced in a very good
and interesting way.		 Topic, key points and
purpose of the essay is
introduced in an
excellent way.
Criteria 2. Body—Theoretical knowledge
Demonstrated ability to define key
terms and utilise only one of the
theories and concepts presented in
Topics 1-5. (8 marks)		 Demonstrates no ability
to define key terms and
utilise one of the
theories and concepts
presented in Topics 1-5.		 Limited ability to define
key terms and utilise
one of the theories and
concepts presented in
Topics 1-5.		 Satisfactory ability to
define key terms and
utilise one of the
theories and concepts
presented in Topics
1-5.		 Proficient ability to
define key terms and
utilise one of the
theories and concepts
presented in Topics 1-
5.		 Very good ability to define
key terms and utilise one of
the theories and concepts
presented in Topics 1-5.		 Excellent ability to
define key terms and
utilise one of the
theories and concepts
presented in Topics 1-5.
Criteria 3. Body—Research efforts and
analysis
Level of research efforts demonstrated
on the chosen organization and ability
to critically analyse the impact of a
range of internal and external
contextual factors on the performance
and decision making of the chosen
organization through addressing the
five proposed topics.
(12 marks)		 Demonstrates little, if
any, research efforts on
the chosen
organization. No/very
limited ability to
critically analyse the
impact of a range of
internal and external
contextual factors on
the performance and
decision making of the
chosen organization.
The question asked is
not at all effectively
addressed.		 Demonstrates limited
research efforts by
providing a limited level
of information and
analysis on the case
organization. Limited
ability to critically
analyse the impact of a
range of internal and
external contextual
factors on the
performance and
decision making of the
chosen organization.
Very little attempt to
effectively address the
question asked.		 Demonstrate average
level of research
efforts by providing
an acceptable level of
information. Average
ability to critically
analyse the impact of
a range of internal
and external
contextual factors on
the performance and
decision making of
the chosen
organization.
Satisfactory attempt to
address the question
asked.		 Demonstrates a good
level of research
efforts on the chosen
organization by
providing ample
relevant information.
Good ability to
critically analyse the
impact of a range of
internal and external
contextual factors on
the performance and
decision making of
the chosen
organization. Good
attempt to address
the question asked.		 Demonstrates a very good
level of research efforts on
the chosen organization as
well as critical thinking by
providing a high level of
analysis with evidence.
Great ability to critically
analyse the impact of a
range of internal and
external contextual factors
on the performance and
decision making of the
chosen
organization. Very good
attempt to address the
question asked.		 Demonstrates an
excellent level of
research efforts and
critical thinking by
providing a high level of
analysis with strong and
compelling evidence.
Exceptional ability to
critically analyse the
impact of a range of
internal and external
contextual factors on
the performance and
decision making of the
chosen organization. An
excellent attempt to
address the question
asked.
Criteria 4. Conclusion:
All aspects drawn together in a brief,
concise summary. Consistent with
findings, no new material introduced
but highlights implications or a
comment on the future of the
company. (3 marks)		 No conclusions
provided.		 Brief conclusion but no
links established to the
introduction and body of
the essay.		 Brief conclusion with
limited links
established to the
introduction and body
of the essay.		 Good conclusion
which provided some
links to the
introduction and
body, but also
highlights implications
for the future.		 Clear and concise conclusion
which summarises the essay
with effective links to the
introduction and body, and
effective implications for the
future.		 Excellent conclusion
with a clear and concise
summary of the essay
with exceptionally
effective links to the
introduction and body
of the essay.
Very effective
implications for the
future.

 

Criteria 5. Presentation:
High quality of expression, grammar,
spelling, punctuation and proofreading.
(2 marks)		 Many problems with
academic writing such
as grammar,
punctuation and/or
spelling mistakes.
Not meeting the word
count requirements		 Some problems with
sentence structure and
presentation. Frequent
grammar, punctuation
and/or spelling mistakes.
Not meeting the word
count requirements		 Quality of writing is of
an average standard.
There are a few
grammar, spelling
and/or punctuation
mistakes.
Meeting the word
count requirements		 Quality of writing is of
a good standard.
Few grammar,
spelling and/or
punctuation mistakes.
Meeting the word
count requirements		 Quality of writing is of a high
standard.Few grammar,
spelling and/or punctuation
mistakes.
Meeting the word count
requirements		 Quality of writing is at a
very high standard.
Correct grammar,
spelling and
punctuation.
Meeting the word count
requirements
Criteria 6. Referencing:
Inclusion of an accurate reference list on a
separate page listing only the sources that
actually have been used. The reference list
is arranged in alphabetical order
according to the authors’ last names. At
least 8 academic references have been
used, together with numerous non
academic references where appropriate.
(2 marks)		 Utilises less than 8
academic references
and/or not all relevant or
are of high quality, and
few non-academic
references.
Does not meet the
requirement, in terms
of in-text referencing
style and the reference
list. There are
inconsistencies in in
text citations and the
reference list.		 Utilises less than 8
academic references
and/or not all relevant or
are of high quality, and few
non-academic references.
There are frequent
citation errors, both in
in-text references and in
the final reference list.		 Utilises 8 academic
references
from reputable
journals and a few
non-academic
references.
There are occasional
referencing errors,
either in-text or in the
final reference list.
However, the in-text
references and final
reference list are
consistent.		 Utilises 8-10
consistent, recent
academic references
from good journals
and a range of non
academic references.
There are very few
referencing errors,
either in in-text
references or in the
final reference list.
The in-text references
and final reference list
are consistent.		 Utilises 10-12 relevant,
recent and credible sources
from reputable journals and
a range of non-academic
references.
Use of APA referencing style
in a consistent and correct
manner in the essay itself.		 Utilises 12 -14 excellent,
relevant, recent, and
credible academic
sources from reputable
journals and a wide
range of non-academic
references.
Use of APA referencing
style in a consistent and
correct manner in the
essay itself.

 

Late assessment penalty 5% per day x 30 marks = 1.5 marks per day
MGMT 20144 T3 2020: Marking Rubrics for Assessment 1 (simplified version)
• Criteria 1. Introduction * 3 marks
Clearly outlines the purpose, scope, structure of the essay.

 

• Criteria 2. Body—Theoretical knowledge * 8 marks
Demonstrated ability to define key terms and utilise only one of the theories and concepts presented in Topic 1 to Topic 5.

• Criteria 3. Body—Research efforts and analysis * 12 marks
Level of research efforts demonstrated on the chosen organization and ability to critically analyse the impact of a range of internal and external contextual factors on the
performance and decision making of the chosen organization through addressing one of the five proposed topics

• Criteria 4. Conclusion *3 marks
All aspects drawn together in a brief, concise summary. Consistent with findings, no new material introduced but highlights implications or a comment on the future of the organization.

 

• Criteria 5. Presentation *2 marks
High quality of expression, grammar, spelling, punctuation and proofreading.

• Criteria 6. Referencing * 2 marks
Inclusion of an accurate reference list on a separate page listing only the sources that have been used. The reference list is arranged in alphabetical order according to the authors’
last names. At least 8 academic references that meet the recency requirement have been used, together with numerous non-academic references where appropriate.