| MMM132/MMMP132 Assignment Marking Rubric: Assignment 1 Part A (Report Preparation Tasks) (10% - 10 marks) | ||||||
| PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | YET TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM STANDARD | MEETS STANDARD | EXCEEDS STANDARD | |||
| No/poor attempt | Needs improvement | Satisfactory | Good | Very good | Excellent | |
|
Report Table of Contents (TOC) is relevant to the task ULO2(Unit Learning Objective 2) (Max 1 mark) |
Poor attempt at developing a Table of Contents, incorrect order of sections or majority of sections are not included. (0-0.2 marks) |
Does not follow the required TOC structure, with some sections not included or in the wrong order. (0.23-0.45 marks) |
An attempt is made to follow the required TOC structure. Most sections are included but some inconsistencies exist in the layout. (0.5-0.55 marks) |
A good attempt is made to follow the required TOC structure. Most sections are included and layout is consistent within the table. (0.6-0.65 marks) |
A very good attempt is made to follow the required TOC structure. All sections are included and layout is consistent within the table. (0.7-0.75 marks) |
Excellent use of the TOC structure/format. All sections are in included and layout is clear and consistent within the table. (0.76-1.0 mark) |
|
Critically reflects on theory of the ‘general environment’ and applies analysis to chosen organisation in 2016/2017. ULO3 (Max 4 marks) |
The fundamental theories and their application to the chosen organisation are not clear. (0-0.75 marks) |
The fundamental theories and their application to the chosen organisation may be slightly unclear or poorly applied. (0.8-1.6 marks) |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question and their application to the chosen organisation are provided without ambiguity (2.0 -2.35 marks) |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question and their application to the chosen organisation are clear and quite well-reasoned. (2.4-2.75 marks) |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question and their application to the chosen organisation are clear, well-reasoned and systematic (2.8-3.2 marks) |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question and their application to the chosen organisation are clear, systematic and comprehensive (3.25-4.0 marks) |
|
Cites text and suitable academic journal article ULO2 (Max 1 marks) |
No quotations included and/or most entries not compliant with most Harvard citation guidelines (0-0.2 marks) |
One of either but not both direct and indirect quotations included and/or are not compliant with most Harvard citation guidelines. (0.23-0.45 marks) |
Both direct and indirect quotations included and are partially compliant with most Harvard citation guidelines. (0.5-0.55 marks) |
Both direct and indirect quotations included and are mostly compliant with most Harvard citation guidelines (0.6-0.65 marks) |
Both direct and indirect quotations included and are very compliant with Harvard citation guidelines (0.7-0.75marks) |
Both direct and indirect quotations included and citations are completely error free (0.76-1.0 mark) |
|
Direct and indirect quotations using Deakin Harvard citation style ULO2 (Max 1 marks) |
No quotations included and/or most entries not compliant with most Harvard citation guidelines (0-0.2 marks) |
One of either but not both direct and indirect quotations included and/or are not compliant with most Harvard citation guidelines. (0.23-0.45 marks) |
Both direct and indirect quotations included and are partially compliant with most Harvard citation guidelines. (0.5-0.55 marks) |
Both direct and indirect quotations included and are mostly compliant with most Harvard citation guidelines (0.6-0.65 marks) |
Both direct and indirect quotations included and are very compliant with Harvard citation guidelines (0.7-0.75marks) |
Both direct and indirect quotations included and citations are completely error free (0.76-1.0 mark) |
|
Reference list of sources suitable to use in this task and planned for the Final Report using Deakin Harvard referencing style ULO1 ULO2 (Max 3 marks) |
No academic journal articles relating to the tasks and/or reference list not included or most entries not compliant with most Harvard referencing guidelines. (0-0.8 marks) |
Fewer than three academic journal articles relate well to the tasks and/or reference list is not compliant with many of the Harvard referencing guidelines. (0.9-1.4 marks) |
Fewer than four journal articles relate satisfactorily to the task and reference list mostly complies with Harvard guidelines. Suitable organisational source and text included. (1.5-1.7 marks) |
At least four journal articles relate well to the task and reference list is compliant with mainly the Harvard guidelines. Suitable organisational source and text included. (1.8-2.0 marks) |
Five or more journal articles relate well to the task and reference list is compliant with Harvard guidelines. Suitable organisational source and text included. (2.1-2.3marks) |
Five or more exceptionally well-selected journal articles in relation to the task and reference list is completely error free. Excellent organisational source and text included. (2.4-3.0 marks) |
|
MMM132 Business Report Format (Adapted from http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/study-support/academic-resources/report-writing) |
|
|
Title page (notincluded in theword count) |
· Titleof report (should be short to indicate whatthe reportisabout) · Nameandwebsiteoforganisation · Studentnameand IDnumber · Unitcodeand unitname |
| Executivesummary | Thisis a summary ofthewholereport.Outlinethetask andexplaintheresearchprocessused,whatyoufound,and whatyour findingsmean (approx.200 words). |
|
Table ofcontents (notincluded in theword count) |
Listthe headings of main sectionsandsub-sectionsofyourreport. Use an appropriate numbering system for headings/sections and subheadings/sub-sections. (UsetheMSWordtemplateprovided intheunitsitetohelp you). |
| Introduction | Setthescene;givesomebackground information aboutthereport/organisation;statetheaims/purposesof thereport.Provideanoutlineof the main sectionsin thebody ofthereport(approx.150 words). |
| Body | Organise the body of the report into sections. You should have four sections and each section answers one question with a clear section heading. The analysis of each question should define and describe academic theory and/ concepts on the topic of the questions, describe what you found about the organisation, as well as your interpretation and analyses of what you found, with correctly cited references drawn from appropriate academic textbook and journal sources. Remember to include at least one academic reference for each of the four sections (approx.2000 words). |
| Conclusion | Summarisewhathasbeenachievedin thereport.Use theinformation fromthebody of yourreporttoidentifytheanticipated futuredirectionof theorganisation in lightof theenvironmentsdiscussed inthebody of thereport,and the‘match’betweenyou and thatorganisation ina graduaterole(approx.150 words). |
| Recommendations | NOT required in this assignment. |
|
References (not included in the word count) |
A list of all of the in-text sources that you cited in the report using the Deakin Harvard referencing style: http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/study-support/referencing/harvard |
| Appendices – No marks [optional] | Any information (graphs, charts, tables or other data) you used in your report but did not include in the body.NOT required in this assignment. |
| MMM132/MMMP132 Assignment 1 Part B Marking Rubric: Individual Business Report (30% - 30 marks) | ||||||
| PERFORMANCE INDICATORS | YET TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM STANDARD | MEETS STANDARD | EXCEEDS STANDARD | |||
| No/poor attempt | Needs improvement | Satisfactory | Good | Very good | Excellent | |
| Report structure, organisation and flow, including Executive Summary, Table of Contents, Introduction and Conclusion. ULO2 (Max 5 marks) |
Poor attempt Report does not follow the required format. There is no logical flow between sections. 0-1.4 |
Report somewhat follows the required format. Report is disjointed and fragmented. 1.5-2.4 |
An attempt is made to follow the required report structure/format. Report lacks flow and is somewhat disjointed and fragmented. 2.5-2.9 |
A good attempt is made to follow the required report structure/format. Report flows quite well, but is disjointed or fragmented in some places. 3.0-3.4 |
A very good attempt is made to follow the required report structure/format. Report has a logical flow. 3.5-3.9 |
Excellent use of the required report structure/format. Report has a logical flow and coherent line of argument. 4 - 5 |
|
Description and analysis of Q1 relevant to the organisation. ULO1 (Max 3 marks) |
The fundamental theories and practice relevant to this question are not applied at all to the organisation chosen. The context is not provided or is very unclear. 0-0.75 |
The fundamental theories and practice relevant to this question are slightly unclear or have not been cited to an appropriate academic source (text or journal article). Some context is provided but remains unclear. 0.76-1.45 |
The fundamental theories and practice relevant to this question are described without ambiguity and refers to a text or journal article, but these have not be well discussed. Some context provided. 1.5 – 1.75 |
The fundamental theories and practice relevant to this question are clearly identified. Reference to a suitable journal article included, that is somewhat explained without ambiguity and in context. 1.76-2 |
The fundamental theories and practice relevant to this question are clearly identified and described well. Relevant information, suitable journal article(s), and argument where necessary for understanding included. The context and the background are explained. 2.1-2.4 |
The fundamental theories and practice relevant to this question are clearly identified and described comprehensively, suitable journal article(s) are used. Response delivers all relevant information necessary for full understanding. The context and the background are well explained. 2.45-3 |
|
Description and analysis of Q2 relevant to the organisation. ULO1 (Max 6marks) |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are not applied to the organisation chosen. The context has not be provided or is very unclear. Paraphrases or summarises information rather than providing an analysis. Does not identify components of the theory, and does not distinguish the relevant from irrelevant details. 0-1.7 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are slightly unclear or an appropriate academic source (text or journal article) has not been cited. Some context is provided but is unclear. Paraphrases or summarises information with very little analysis. Inconsistently identifies components of the theories and incorrectly distinguishes relevant from irrelevant details. 1.75-2.9 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are provided without ambiguity and refer to a text or journal article, but these are not well discussed. Some context provided. Demonstrates the ability to analyse information at a rudimentary level. Identifies components of the theories; mostly distinguishing relevant from irrelevant details. 3-3.5 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are clearly identified and explained, without ambiguity and in context and with reference to a suitable journal article. A fair analysis of information, clearly identifying the key components of the theories and accurately distinguishes relevant from irrelevant details. 3.6-4.15 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are clearly identified and described well, with relevant information and argument where necessary for understanding. The context is clear and suitable journal article(s) are used. A robust analysis of information, consistently identifying the key components of the theories and accurately distinguishes relevant from irrelevant details. 4.2-4.75 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are clearly identified and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding. The context and background are well explained and suitable journal article(s) are used. A thorough analysis of information, identifying the key components of the theories and accurately and thoroughly distinguishes relevant from irrelevant details. 4.8-6 |
|
Description and analysis of Q3 relevant to the organisation ULO1 (Max 6 marks) |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are not applied to the organisation chosen. The context has not be provided or is very unclear. Paraphrases or summarises information rather than providing an analysis. Does not identify components of the theory, and does not distinguish the relevant from irrelevant details. 0-1.7 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are slightly unclear or an appropriate academic source (text or journal article) has not been cited. Some context is provided but is unclear. Paraphrases or summarises information with very little analysis. Inconsistently identifies components of the theories and incorrectly distinguishes relevant from irrelevant details. 1.75-2.9 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are provided without ambiguity and refer to a text or journal article, but these are not well discussed. Some context provided. Demonstrates the ability to analyse information at a rudimentary level. Identifies components of the theories; mostly distinguishing relevant from irrelevant details. 3-3.5 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are clearly identified and explained, without ambiguity and in context and with reference to a suitable journal article. A fair analysis of information, clearly identifying the key components of the theories and accurately distinguishes relevant from irrelevant details. 3.6-4.15 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are clearly identified and described well, with relevant information and argument where necessary for understanding. The context is clear and suitable journal article(s) are used. A robust analysis of information, consistently identifying the key components of the theories and accurately distinguishes relevant from irrelevant details. 4.2-4.75 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are clearly identified and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding. The context and background are well explained and suitable journal article(s) are used. A thorough analysis of information, identifying the key components of the theories and accurately and thoroughly distinguishes relevant from irrelevant details. 4.8-6 |
|
Report and reflection of Q4 relevant to the organisation ULO1 (Max 6 marks) |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are not clearly applied to the organisation chosen. The context may not be provided or may be very unclear. Reflection does not demonstrate clear reasoning and does not provide discussion on the “cultural fit” to the organisation 0-1.7 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question may be slightly unclear or may not cite an appropriate academic source (text or journal article). Some context is provided but may be unclear. Reflection demonstrates minimal clear reasoning and provides very basic discussion on the “cultural fit” to the organisation. 1.75-2.9 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are provided without ambiguity and refer to a text or journal article, but these may not be well discussed.Some context provided. Reflection demonstrates satisfactory clear reasoning and provides reasonable discussion on the “cultural fit” to the organisation. 3-3.5 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are clearly identified and explained, without ambiguity and in context and with reference to a suitable journal article. Reflection demonstrates clear and consistent reasoning and provides detailed discussion on the “cultural fit” to the organisation. 3.6-4.15 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are clearly identified and described well, with relevant information and argument where necessary for understanding. The context is clear and suitable journal article(s) are used. Reflection demonstrates clear, consistent and detailed reasoning and provides high-level discussion on the “cultural fit” to the organisation. 4.2-4.75 |
The fundamental theories relevant to this question are clearly identified and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding. The context and background are well explained and suitable journal article(s) are used. Reflection demonstrates consistent and systematic reasoning and provides thorough discussion on the “cultural fit” to the organisation. 4.8-6 |
|
Quality of language and ability to communicate information accurately using academic style ULO2 (Max 4 marks) |
Writing filled with grammatical and spelling errors. English expression is difficult to understand. Little or no use of paraphrasing, with a heavy reliance on quotes. In-text citation and referencing have not been used or do not conform to Harvard standard. 0-1.55 |
Many grammatical and spelling errors. English expression is difficult to understand, but meaning can be made of what is written. Little effort has been put into paraphrasing of material. In-text citations not utilised or inaccurate. List of references does not follow the Harvard referencing style correctly. 1.6-1.95 |
Expresses thoughts meaningfully, even though there may be occasional errors. Paraphrasing uses too many of the author’s own words. In-text citations are too sparse and/or mostly inaccurate. Some attempt to present a list of References following the Harvard referencing style, but may have several errors. 2-2.36 |
Expresses thoughts meaningfully, even though there may be occasional errors. Paraphrasing portrays the ideas of others in student’s own words. In-text citations are accurate in most cases and are just adequate to the task. List of References presented using the Harvard referencing style accurately in most cases. 2.4-2.76 |
Communicates meaning with clarity and fluency. Writing is almost error-free. Paraphrasing correctly portrays the ideas of others in student’s own words. In-text citations are accurate and support the arguments made in the assignment quite well. List of References presented accurately using the Harvard referencing style. 2.8-3.16 |
Skilfully communicates meaning with high level of clarity and fluency. Writing is virtually error-free. Paraphrasing correctly portrays the ideas of others in student’s own words. In-text citations are accurate and support the arguments made in the assignment very well. List of References presented very accurately using the Harvard style. 3.2-4 |