Blog
Uncategorized
HRMT20028 – Assessment 3
HRMT20028 – Assessment 3 – Business Report – Marking Rubric
| Criterion | Not shown (0%) | Poor (<25%) | Unsatisfactory (25%-49%) | Satisfactory (50%-64%) | Good (65%-74%) | Very good (75% – 84%) | Excellent (85% -100%) |
| Analysis (30%) |
No implications identified |
Demonstrate poor understanding of current and future changes, drivers of change, and HRD requirements of the case study organisation. |
Identifies a few current and future changes, drivers of change, and HRD requirements of relating to change at case study organisation. But few key elements are missing. |
Identifies few current and future changes, drivers of change, and HRD requirements of relating to change at case study organisation. Limitations in the discussion. |
Demonstrate a good understanding of current and future changes, drivers of change, and HRD requirements of case study organisation. |
Demonstrate a very good understanding of current and future changes, drivers of change, and HRD requirements of case study organisation. |
Demonstrate an excellent understanding of current and future changes, drivers of change, and HRD requirements of case study organisation. |
| Theory and literature (20%) |
No integration of theory and literature |
Limited to no attempt to integrate change management theory and literature. |
Limited integration of change management theory with errors in understanding. |
Integrates related theory. Limited critical analysis is evident. Basic understanding of theory is demonstrated. |
Integrates related theory. Some critical analysis evident with some lapses into description. Satisfactory understanding of theory is demonstrated. |
Very good integration of theory. Critical analysis evident with mostly accurate application of theory. Good understanding of theory is demonstrated. |
Excellent integration of theory. Extensive critical analysis evident with consistently accurate application of theory. Excellent understanding of theory is demonstrated. |
| Recommend ations (15%) |
No response/ recommendations provided. |
Inappropriate or irrelevant recommendations provided |
Limited analysis is evident, inaccurate interpretations and/or judgements. Inaccurate or inappropriate recommendations. |
Statement of position or argument given but is not always supported by evidence. Argument may not always follow logically from information provided. A few appropriate recommendations. |
Statement of position or argument is clear, and while evidence is provided to support the argument, only some contrary evidence is given. Argument mostly follows logically from information provided. Satisfactory recommendations. |
Statement of position or argument is clear, with evidence and argument for and against the position taken are nearly always provided. Good recommendations addressing many aspects of the issues identified. |
Statement of position or argument is very clear, & well developed with comprehensive evidence and argument for and against the position taken. Excellent recommendations addressing all aspects of the issues identified. |
| Research (15%) |
No references | Irrelevant or inappropriate references. |
A limited number (<10) of peer reviewed journal articles. Some sources may be fictional or irrelevant. |
Refers to 10 relevant peer reviewed journal articles and the news item (totalling 15 references). But the list of references also includes a few poorer quality sources (e.g. Lecture notes, websites) |
Refers to 11 -12 relevant peer reviewed journal articles and the news item (totalling around 16 – 18 references). A body of quality, appropriate critical sources selected, with some omissions or errors of judgement, to support the key points. |
Refers to 11-12 relevant peer reviewed journal articles and the news item (totalling around 20 references). A body of almost entirely top quality, mostly appropriate critical sources integrated to support the key points. |
Refers to 11-12 or more relevant peer reviewed journal articles and the news item (totalling around 20 references). An extensive body of top quality, highly appropriate critical sources integrated to support the key points. |
| Presentation (15%) |
Very poor structure to answer the questions. Significantly over or under the word limit. Very poor communication. Limited vocabulary with very frequent and significant grammatical and spelling errors. |
Poor structure to answer the questions. No exe. summary, introduction, or conclusion. Significantly over or under the word limit. Very poor communication. Limited vocabulary with very frequent and significant grammatical andspelling errors. |
Unsatisfactory structure to answer the questions. Either exe. summary, introduction or conclusion missing. Slightly over or under the word limit. Poor communication. Limited vocabulary with frequent and significant grammatical and spelling errors. |
Satisfactory structure to answer the questions, but some elements missing. Weak exe. summary, introduction or conclusion. Within the word limit. Communication is generally coherent, vocabulary suitable, but hampered by grammar and spelling errors. |
Good structure. Good exe. summary and introduction. Conclusion recaps most arguments and evidence. Within the word limit. Communication is clear and generally easily understood, using a good range of suitable vocabulary with some grammar and spelling errors. |
Very good structure that guides the reader through the report and answers to all questions. Very good exe. summary and an introduction that foreshadows the presentation. Detailed conclusion recaps arguments and evidence. Within the word limit. Communication is clear, concise and easily understood, using an extensive range of suitable vocabulary with one or two grammar and spelling errors. |
Clear and succinct presentation. Well formulated exe. summary and introduction. Sophisticated and succinct conclusion recaps arguments and evidence. Within the word limit. Communication is clear, concise and easily understood, using a sophisticated vocabulary with no grammar and spelling errors. |
| Referencing (5%) |
No in-text referencing or no list of references. |
Poor acknowledgement ofsources by citations in-text and/or in reference list. Not consistent with APA 7 style. |
Unsatisfactory acknowledgement of sources by citations in text and/or in reference list. Not consistent with APA 7 style. |
A reasonable attempt has been made to acknowledge sources, with a few citation errors in text and/or in reference list. Mostly consistent with APA 7 style. |
Generally, sources have been correctly acknowledged, both in text and in reference list (might be a few errors). Mostly consistent with APA 7 style. |
Sources are correctly acknowledged, both in-text and in reference list (might be one or two errors). Consistent with APA 7 style. |
Sources are all correctly acknowledged, both in-text and in reference list. Superb attention to detail. Strictly consistent with APA 7 style. |