MNG81001 S3 2018 MARKING RUBRIC: ASSESSMENT 3
MNG81001 Assessment 3 Marking criteria
u
ic
Evaluation criteria
Task
Weight
1. Format,
Introduction,
& Conclusion
Is the memo format used fully and appropriately?
Does the introduction, body and conclusion contain all the identifying features ?
Are the elements of the introductory and concluding paragraphs clear, relevant and informative?
Co
ect word length: 1000 words +/-10%:
700 words: Introduction, Conclusion, Q1, 2 and 3; 150 words Communication plan; 150 words 5 PPT slides.
12.5%
Purpose & Audience
Has the student understood the task and covered the key points?
Does the response adequately address the topic and task?
Does this document take into account the needs of the audience?
Does this document provide adequate information for the reader?
Does the writer thoroughly address any potential questions from the reader?
15%
Credibility
Is the student able to convince the reader that they are knowledgeable about the topic?
Are claims backed up?
Sources cited?
Are sources reliable and authoritative?
Does the student understand the proper attribution rules?
Do the appearance, accuracy and clarity of the writing give credibility?
Are three to five reliable sources used to evaluate Qs 1, 2 and 3.
15%
Referencing
Has the SCU Harvard reference style been used?
Does every source have:
The name of the author(s)
The full title; and
Complete publication information?
Are sources cited in the body of the paper and in the reference list at the end of the paper?
Are the right model citations used?
12.5%
Readability
Is there a clear structure to the response?
Do the paragraphs contain one main idea that is explored using relevant evidence?
Is there cohesion between sentences?
Are internal headings clear and informative and enhance the readability for the audience?
10.0%
Language
Is there a range of vocabulary?
Are sentences grammatically co
ect?
Are sentences accurate and complete?
Has a spell check been used?
Is spelling accurate?
10.0%
PPT slides
Visual appeal and referencing
12.5%
PPT slides
Audience and credibility
12.5%
Fail
Pass
Credit
Distinction
High Distinction
0 - 49
50 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
XXXXXXXXXX
<12.5
12.5 – 15.5
16 - 18
18.5 – 20.5
21+
Multiple parts of the assignment are missing or incomplete. Student fails to answer the question.
Essential elements are imprecise or absent. Work at a level that would be considered basic.
Key elements are presented but could be further developed and given more depth.
Most aspects included in a final, well-developed form.
The assignment contains all required elements and is of the highest order.
2
MNG81001 S3 2018 Assessment 3
Criteria
High Distinction
85 to 100 %
Distinction
75 to 84 %
Credit
65 to 74 %
Pass
50 to 64 %
Fail
0 to 49 %
Format,
Introduction,
& Conclusion
Weight 12.5%
Memo format is used fully and appropriately. Elements of the Introductory and Concluding paragraphs are clear, relevant and informative.
Co
ect word length 1000 words (+/-10%).
700 words: Introduction, Conclusion, Q1, 2 and 3
150 words: Communication plan
150 words 5 PPT slides.
Memo format is used appropriately. Elements of the Introductory and Concluding paragraphs are clear, relevant and informative. There may be some minor inconsistencies. Co
ect word length 1000 words (+/-10%).
700 words: Introduction, Conclusion, Q1, 2 and 3
150 words: Communication plan
150 words 5 PPT slides.
Memo format is used. Most elements of the Introductory and Concluding paragraphs are clear, relevant and informative. Co
ect word length 1000 words (+/-10%).
700 words: Introduction, Conclusion, Q1, 2 and 3
150 words: Communication plan
150 words 5 PPT slides.
Memo format is used. Some elements of the introductory and/or Concluding paragraphs may be clear, relevant and informative. Co
ect word length 1000 words (+/-10%).
700 words: Introduction, Conclusion, Q1, 2 and 3
150 words: Communication plan
150 words 5 PPT slides.
Memo format may not be used. Elements of the introductory and/or Concluding paragraphs may be missing and/or i
elevant, and/or unclear. Inco
ect word length.
700 words: Introduction, Conclusion, Q1, 2 and 3
150 words: Communication plan
150 words 5 PPT slides.
Purpose & Audience
Weight 15.00%
The purpose of the assessment is fully addressed, and main ideas are fully appropriate for the audience.
The purpose of the assessment is sufficiently addressed, and main ideas are appropriate for the audience.
The purpose of the assessment is addressed, and most main ideas are appropriate for the audience.
The purpose of the assessment is adequately addressed, and some main ideas are appropriate for the audience.
The purpose of the assessment is not adequately addressed, and main ideas are inappropriate for the audience.
Credibility
Weight 15.00%
Main ideas are clearly and sufficiently supported using required case study (see assessment details). Q 1, 2 and 3 are evaluated using 5 - 7 reliable and appropriate sources to support the analysis. Communication plan is detailed and all structural elements addressed. Credibility is enhanced by sufficient and appropriate Paraphrasing, Quoting, Synthesising, and Referencing.
Main ideas are clearly and sufficiently supported using required case study (see assessment details). Q1, 2 and 3 are more or less evaluated using 5 -7 reliable and appropriate sources to support the analysis. Communication plan is appropriate. However, there are minor inconsistencies. Credibility is enhanced by sufficient and appropriate Paraphrasing, Quoting, Synthesising, and Referencing.
Most main ideas are supported using required case study (see assessment details). Q1, 2 and 3 are somewhat evaluated using 5 -7 reliable and appropriate sources to support the analysis. Communication plan is adequate. However, some may be unclear and/or insufficient. Credibility is often enhanced by appropriate Paraphrasing, Quoting, Synthesising, and Referencing.
Some main ideas are supported using case study (see assessment details). Q1, 2 and 3 are partially evaluated using 5 -7 reliable and appropriate sources to support the analysis. Communication plan is reasonable. However, main ideas often lack clarity and/or support. Credibility is impacted as a result of missing and/or inadequate Paraphrasing, Quoting, Synthesising, and Referencing.
Main ideas are not supported by the case study (see assessment details). Evaluation of Q1, 2 and 3 is lacking. Less than 5 – 7 sources are used to support the analysis. There is evidence of ‘sham’ referencing. Communication plan inadequate and lacking in detail. Credibility may be lacking as a result of missing and/or inadequate Paraphrasing, Quoting, Synthesising, and Referencing.
Criteria
High Distinction
85 to 100 %
Distinction
75 to 84 %
Credit
65 to 74 %
Pass
50 to 64 %
Fail
0 to 49 %
Referencing
Weight 12.50%
SCU Harvard in-text and end-of-text referencing is fully accurate and consistent throughout. Quotes are used accurately and appropriately throughout.
SCU Harvard in-text and end-of-text referencing is accurate and consistent. Quotes are used accurately and appropriately, although minor e
ors may occur.
SCU Harvard in-text and end-of-text referencing is mostly accurate and consistent. Quotes may be used too often and/or may be used inappropriately. There may be some evidence of plagiarism.
SCU Harvard in-text and end-of-text referencing is often faulty, and/or missing, and/or poorly marked in paragraphs. Quotes may be used too often and/or may be used inappropriately. There may be evidence of plagiarism and/or poor paraphrasing.
No or very little SCU Harvard in-text and end-of-text referencing used. If used it is mostly inaccurate and/or inadequate. There may be significant evidence of plagiarism.
Readability
Weight 10.0%
Each paragraph has one clear main idea and is logically organised. Cohesion between sentences is fully acceptable. Internal headings are clear and informative and enhance the readability for the audience.
Each paragraph has one clear main idea and are logically organised Cohesion between sentences is well-managed. However, minor inconsistencies occur. Internal headings are clear and informative and enhance the readability for the audience, although there may be minor inconsistencies.
Paragraphing is adequate. However, the main idea, and/or organisation and/or cohesion is sometimes faulty and/or unclear. Internal headings are adequate, but could be clearer, and/or more informative, and/or more frequent to enhance readability for the audience.
Paragraphing may be missing or inappropriate. Organisation and/or cohesion are often faulty and/or unclear. Internal headings are often inadequate, and/or unclear, and/or uninformative for the audience.
Paragraphing, organisation, and cohesion are inadequate and cause strain for the audience. Internal headings are missing or do very little to enhance readability for the audience.
Language
Weight 10.0%
A wide range of vocabulary is used accurately and is used appropriately (for audience); spelling is accurate throughout. A wide range of grammatical structures used accurately and appropriately. Punctuation is accurate.
A range of vocabulary is used accurately and is used appropriately (for audience); minor spelling e
ors. A range of grammatical structures are appropriately used; some minor e
ors, (incl. punctuation e
ors).
Vocabulary is generally adequate and accurate, and is used appropriately (for audience), some spelling e
ors.
Vocabulary is adequate but is sometimes used inaccurately and/or inappropriately (for audience), and spelling e
ors may occur. Grammatical structures lack accuracy, and e
ors (incl. punctuation e
ors) impede communication.
Vocabulary is often inadequate, inappropriate (for audience) and inaccurate; words often inco
ect or inco
ectly used; substantial spelling e
ors. Grammatical structures lack accuracy, and e
ors (incl. punctuation e
ors) strain communication.
PowerPoint slides: Format, Visual Appeal & referencing 12.5%
Font, Format and Images of PowerPoint slides are fully appropriate and highly visually-appealing. Co
ect number of slides. All main points are logically-organised. SCU Harvard referencing is fully accurate and consistent throughout.
Font, Format and Images of PowerPoint slides are appropriate and visually-appealing. Co
ect number of slides. Main points are logically-organised. SCU Harvard referencing is accurate and consistent.
Font, Format and Images of PowerPoint slides are mostly appropriate and visually-appealing. Co
ect number of slides. Main points are mostly logically-organised. SCU Harvard referencing is mostly accurate and consistent. There may be some evidence of plagiarism.
Some Font, Format and Images of PowerPoint slides are appropriate and have some visual appeal. There may be too many or too few slides used. Some points are logically-organised. SCU Harvard referencing may be faulty, and/or missing, and/or poorly marked in paragraphs. There may be evidence of plagiarism and/or poor paraphrasing.
Font, Format and Images of PowerPoint slides may be inappropriate and/or may lack visual appeal. There may be too many or too few slides used. Main points may not be logically-organised. SCU Harvard referencing may be faulty, and/or missing, and/or poorly marked in paragraphs. There may be evidence of plagiarism and/or poor paraphrasing.
PowerPoint slides: Purpose, Audience, & Credibility 12.5%
All main points in PowerPoint slides are clear, informative, and appropriate for a viewing audience. Credibility is greatly enhanced by logic and