MGT5OBR: Assessment 2 Marking Guide 40 Marks Total 2017-1 CRITERIA* A: Excellent (> 80 %) B: Very good (70 – 79%) C: Good (60 – 69%) D: Acceptable (50 – 59%) N: Unacceptable (<50%) Article description (15% of assessment mark) *Note: this does NOT need to be a separate section of the report. ☐ B-level of achievement for this criterion PLUS Demonstrates deep and broad understanding of the theory and research in all three articles. ☐ All three articles described clearly with good focus on key points (e.g., main theoretical perspectives, key concepts, findings). ☐ Articles described (e.g., main theoretical perspectives, key concepts, findings) and mostly clear and focused on key points. Or discussion of two articles is clear and focused but discussion of third article could be improved. ☐ Articles described (e.g., main theoretical perspectives, key concepts, findings), but could be more clear or focused on key points. Or discussion of one article is clear and focused but discussion of other two articles could be improved. ☐ Articles not described, or description is unclear, or discussion is focussed on mostly irrelevant points. Or analysis description is based on disconnected bits of information or many direct quotes with no actual context or discussion. (4.8 – 6 marks) (4.2 – 4.7 marks) (3.6 – 4.1 marks) (3 – 3. 5 marks) (< 3 marks) Analysis (30% of assessment mark) ☐ B-level of achievement for this criterion PLUS Critical or evaluative thinking about how &/or why relevant theories &/or concepts are used in the articles. ☐ Relevant similarities and differences among all articles explained in clear, concise, and accurate manner. Good focus on key points. ☐ Similarities and differences among articles discussed and mostly clear and focused on key points. Or two comparisons are clear and focused but third/ overall comparison could be improved. ☐ Similarities and differences among articles discussed but could be more focused or clear. Or one comparison is clear and focused but other two/overall comparisons could be improved. ☐ Similarities and differences among articles not discussed. Or analysis describes disconnected bits of information or many direct quotes with no actual insight or analysis. (9.6 – 12 marks) (8.4– 9.5 marks) (7.2 – 8.3 marks) (6 – 7.1 marks) (< 6 marks) Integration (10% of assessment mark) ☐ Integration and synthesis of articles is based on sound logic and reasoning. Clear insights based on rest of analysis. ☐ Attempt at integration and synthesis that may have some errors in reasoning. Insights mostly based on rest of analysis. ☐ No integration, synthesis or evaluation of ideas, or is based on major flaws in reasoning. (2.8 – 4 marks) (2 – 2.7 marks) (< 2 marks) Application (10% of assessment mark) ☐ Application to work or organisation situation is clear, specific, concisely stated. Application is highly relevant and logical based on the analysis. Very few and minor errors in reasoning, accuracy or relevance. ☐ Application to work or organisation situation is mostly clear and concise, could be more focused. Attempts to formulate sensible application in mostly logical and relevant manner. May have some errors in reasoning or application. ☐ No application to work or organisation situation, or based on major flaws in logic or no evidence. Or unrelated to analysis in rest of report. (2.8 – 4 marks) (2 – 2.7 marks) (< 2 marks) Research and References (5% of assessment mark) ☐ All articles meet requirements. Minimal errors in formatting of in-text citations and references following APA or Harvard style. ☐ Some articles meet requirements. May have some errors in formatting of in-text citations and references following APA or Harvard style. ☐ Research does not meet requirements. Substantial errors in formatting in-text citations and references. (1.4 – 2 marks) (1 – 1.3 marks) (< 1 mark) Introduction and conclusion (5% of assessment mark) ☐ Separate introduction and conclusion that are clear, concise, and engaging summaries of the major points of the paper. ☐ Separate introduction and conclusion but lacks focus, engagement, or summary. Or one is high quality but other is inadequate. ☐ Both absent or both inadequate. (1.4 – 2 marks) (1 – 1.3 marks) (< 1 mark) Structure and organisation (10% of assessment mark) ☐ Sequence and structure are logical and easy to follow; excellent overall organisation. Powerful connections between different themes or sections; clear and concise focus throughout. ☐ Sequence and structure are logical and easy to follow; good overall organisation. ☐ Structured well enough to make sense; could be better organised and more tightly focused upon the main thesis. ☐ Mostly coherent organisation; may have some sections where difficult to follow reasoning. Could be more clearly and logically organised. ☐ Lacks coherent organisation and structure. Difficult to follow reasoning. Describes disconnected bits of information or many direct quotes used in excess and without appropriate context or further elaboration. (3.2 – 4 marks) (2.8 – 3.1 marks) (2.4 – 2.7 marks) (2 – 2.3 marks) (< 2 marks) Writing quality (10% of assessment mark) ☐ Language is sound and clear throughout, and demonstrates expressiveness, precision, and clarity. Spelling, grammar, punctuation are good with very few and minor errors. ☐ Language is generally sound and clear throughout. Spelling, grammar, punctuation are good with very few and minor errors ☐ Clear enough to be understood; minimal confused or unclear expression. Spelling, punctuation, grammar acceptable but could be improved. ☐ Clear enough to be understood. May have some confused or unclear expression. May have a few moderate or several minor issues with spelling, punctuation, grammar. ☐ Mostly unclear or confused expression. Major errors with spelling, grammar, punctuation. (3.2 – 4 marks) (2.8 – 3.1 marks) (2.4 – 2.7 marks) (2 – 2.3 marks) (< 2 marks) Article copy (5% of assessment mark) ☐ Includes copy of the first page of each article. ☐ Includes copy of the first page of two articles. Includes copy of the first page of one article. ☐ Does not include copy of the first page of any article. (2 marks) (1.5 marks) (1 mark) (0 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.