Marking Guide Group Assignment

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.