| Communication SkillsThis is about the presentation of the work including: Structure, Format, Grammar, including imagesValue 15%Grade range 0-2.25 | Poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, concepts were not clear, no paragraphs or formatting- no images, tables or illustrations
Marks XXXXXXXXXX | Some grammatical errors, sentences were clear and complete clear structure and formatting using headings, and sub headings, some illustrations and diagrams, but not explained and only decorativeMarks XXXXXXXXXX | Minor grammatical errors, sentences were clear and complete, structure and format were used to aid the reader including diagrams, tables and images, that were relevant to argument, but were still not fully explained or describedMarks 1.5 – 1.6 | Free of grammatical errorsStructure and format were clear Sentences were well constructed. Language was concise. Excellent use of diagrams, images and tables that were both visually appealing as well as clearly relevant and explainedMarks 1.7 – 1.9 | Free of grammatical errorsStructure and format were clear, logical and consistent. Sentences were well constructed. Exceptional use of diagrams, images and tables, clearly relevant, explained and insightful links madeMarks 2.0 – 2.25 |
Theoretical analysis skills
This criterion is about defining, describing and evaluating the conceptsthat were found when researching the topicValue 30%Grade range 0-4.5 | Concepts were not defined, described or evaluated, mainly listed without explanationMarks 0 – 2.2 | Concepts were defined, there was an attempt to provide descriptions with examples to explain, limited analysisMarks 2.3 – 2.9 | Clear and relevant definitions and descriptions with examples, some attempt to develop analysis by comparing and contrasting of conceptsMarks 3 – 3.3 | Clear definitions, descriptions with examples and analysis of concepts with comparison, with clear evaluations and conclusionsMarks 3.4 – 3.8 | Clear definitions, descriptions with examples and analysis of concepts with highly insightful and perceptive comparisons, evaluations and conclusionsMarks 3.9 – 4.5 |
Application skills
This criterion is about linking theory to a specific context, explaining how it relates to a product/company and making recommendationsValue 40%Grade range 0-6 | There was no or limited application to the case study, no examples provided no recommendationsMarks 0 – 2.9 | Case study was described and identified. The context was connected briefly to theory, but the discussion was not well supported by argumentsMarks 3 – 3.8 | Case study was described and identified. The context was connected to theory with clear links. There were relevant market discussions Marks 3.9 – 4.4 | Case study described and identified and insightful evaluations were made. The context was connected to theory with clear, creative and logical links. There were relevant,well supportedmarket discussions with explicit connections to theoreticalargumentsMarks XXXXXXXXXX | Case study described and identified and insightful evaluations were made. The context was connected to theory with exceptional, logical and imaginative links. The market discussions were highly relevant , realistic and supportedwith explicit connections to theoreticalarguments Mark 5.1 – 6 |
Referencing Skills
This criterion was about the application of APA 6th referencingValue 15%Grade range 0-2.25 | There was limited or no attempt at in text or end of text referencingMarks 0 – 1.2 | There was an attempt to apply referencing, but styleand application were inconsistent and some points remain unreferencedMarks XXXXXXXXXX | Referencing applied. However style/application was inconsistent with some errors in text/reference listMarks 1.5 – 1.6 | Both the in text and end reference list were consistent in terms of style and application of APA6.Marks XXXXXXXXXX | Both the in text and end referencelist were consistent in terms of style and application of APA6. Referencing apparent in all places where expected.Marks XXXXXXXXXX |