| MGT5OBR: Assessment 3 Marking Guide Group Assignment |
|||||
| CRITERIA* | A: Excellent (> 80 %) | B: Very good (70 – 79%) | C: Good (60 – 69%) | D: Acceptable (50 – 59%) | N: Unacceptable (<50%) |
| Introduction (10% of assessment mark) |
Excellent introduction which clearly defines the fictional business. Sharply focused on relevant and key organisation details. (8-10 marks) |
Very good introduction with concise description of the fictional business and clear focus on relevant and key organisation details. (7 marks) |
Summary of fictional business is mostly clear and concise. Some irrelevant details or could have more detail on some key information. (6 marks) |
Summary of fictional business provided. Some details inappropriate or unclear. (5 marks) |
Summary of fictional business lacks focus on key or relevant details. (< 5 marks) |
| Issue identification and analysis (50% of assessment mark) |
In depth analysis undertaken. Relevant OB theory or concepts from at least 3 modules are clearly explained and applied to the fictional business. Demonstrates strong critical or evaluative thinking about how relevant theories &/or concepts are applied; clear understanding of how and why they are used. Excellent linkages between the theory and the fictional business. (40-50 marks) |
Very good analysis undertaken. Relevant OB theory or concepts from at least 3 modules are clearly explained and applied to the fictional business. Very few and minor errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. Very good linkage between the theory and the fictional business. (35-39 marks) |
Good analysis undertaken. OB theory or concepts described and applied to fictional business. Includes some minor errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. May discuss OB concepts or theories from fewer than 3 modules, but discussion of concepts from other modules is generally very good. Solid linkage between the theory and the case study. (30-34 marks) |
Solid analysis undertaken. OB theory or concepts described and applied to fictional business, but may have some minor or a few major errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. May discuss OB concepts or theories from fewer than 3 modules. Superficial linkages between the theory and the case study (25-29 marks) |
Analytical skills not demonstrated. Does not describe or apply OB theory or concepts, or is mostly inaccurate or irrelevant. Does not discuss concepts from four modules, and discussion is generally poor quality. Theory has not been integrated. Non-academic sources used. (<25 marks ) |
| Recommendations (20% of assessment mark) |
Excellent recommendations that are clearly stated and well supported. Recommendations are clearly linked back to issues. The way in which the recommendations are communicated is very clear, compelling and inspiring. (16-20 marks) |
Very good recommendations that are supported. Recommendations are mostly linked back to issues. Very few and minor errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. (14-15 marks) |
Good recommendations but could be more strongly related to the overall article analyses and comparisons. May include some minor errors in reasoning. (12-13 marks) |
Solid attempt to formulate recommendations but may have some minor or a few errors in reasoning or application. Some recommendations are linked back to issues but there are key issues which are not addressed. (10-11 marks) |
Recommendations are missing or are superficially dealt with. Recommendations are disjointed from the rest of the report. Inappropriate in the way in which recommendations are communicated. (< 10 marks) |
| Structure and Organisation (10% of assessment mark) |
Sequence and structure are logical and easy to follow; excellent overall organisation. Excellent conclusion. (8-10 marks) |
Sequence and structure are logical and easy to follow; very good overall organisation. Very good conclusion. (7 marks) |
Structured well enough to make sense; could be better organised and more tightly focused upon the topic, may lack focus, engagement or summary. Good conclusion. (6 marks) |
Mostly coherent organisation; may have some sections where difficult to follow reasoning. Could be more clearly and logically organised. Solid conclusion. (5 marks) |
Lacks coherent organisation and structure. Describes disconnected bits of information or many direct quotes. Conclusion either missing or incorrect. (<5 marks) |
| Writing and referencing (10% of assessment mark) |
Excellent use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature. Correct referencing used throughout. Excellent grammar and spelling. (8 – 10 marks) |
Very good use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature. Correct referencing, and good grammar and spelling. (7 marks) |
Good grammar and spelling. May include some errors in referencing and citations. (6 marks) |
Acceptable use of relevant sources of literature. Mostly correct referencing. Some grammar and spelling errors. (5 marks) |
Few if any literature sources included and poor referencing. Poor spelling and grammar. (<5 marks) |
| *Note: Weighting of criteria is approximate. Failure to adequately complete one of the criteria (e.g., failure to compare relevant theory &/or concepts, etc.) may result in a substantially lower or even failing mark. |