La Trobe Business School Marking Rubric for IBU5COV: Assignment 2 – Individual Report – Entrepreneurial Health Audit CRITERIA Excellent (10-9 marks) Very good (8-7 marks) Good (6-5 marks) Fair/Poor (4-3 marks) Very Poor (2-0 marks) PROFESSIONALISM Meets the criteria of a management report e.g. cover page, executive summary, introduction, conclusion (10% of total mark) ☐ Very professional; introduction sets the scene exceptionally well; purpose of report very clear; conclusions drawn in a deep and insightful manner. ☐ Professionally done; introduction sets the scene very well; purpose of report is clear; conclusions drawn in an insightful manner. ☐ Of acceptable standard; introduction sets the scene reasonably well; purpose of report is clear; conclusion is thoughtful but lacks some detail. ☐ Not professionally presented; introduction has several gaps and purpose of report unclear; conclusion is inconclusive. ☐ Some parts incomplete or missing; some parts nonsensical. THEORETICAL CONCEPTS Overview of key theoretical concepts and definitions (10% of total mark) ☐ Exceptionally well done. Very effective in bringing even novice readers up to speed with theory. ☐ Very well done. Effective in bringing even novice readers up to speed with theory. ☐ Well done. Succeed in bringing even novice readers up to speed with theory. ☐ Poorly done. Confuse novice readers w.r.t. theory. ☐ No attempt made to explain theory or key terminologies. DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION: EI Level & quality of data analysis and assimilation & presentation of findings (30% of total mark) ☐ Excellent and comprehensive analysis of all relevant components, combined with insightful and clear to understand discussion and presentation of findings. ☐ Very good analysis of all relevant components, combined with useful and clear to understand discussion. Findings very well presented. ☐ Good analysis of most or all relevant components, combined with good discussion. Findings presented in acceptable manner. ☐ Poor analysis of most components, with little discussion of findings. Findings poorly presented. ☐ No or very little analysis performed. Findings not presented or presented in such a manner that does not make sense. DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION: CECI Level & quality of data analysis and assimilation & presentation of findings (40% of total mark) ☐ Excellent and comprehensive analysis of all relevant components, combined with insightful and clear to understand discussion and presentation of findings. ☐ Very good analysis of all relevant components, combined with useful and clear to understand discussion. Findings very well presented. ☐ Good analysis of most or all relevant components, combined with good discussion. Findings presented in acceptable manner. ☐ Poor analysis of most components, with little discussion of findings. Findings poorly presented. ☐ No or very little analysis performed. Findings not presented or presented in such a manner that does not make sense. STRUCTURE Effective and professional structure and language, including appropriate use of referencing (10% of total mark) ☐ Excellent structure that emphasizes quality of work. Excellent grammar & spelling and use of references. ☐ Clear structure, applied consistently across the report. Good grammar & spelling and use of references. ☐ Overall structure clear and useful, but structure within ideas can be improved. Good grammar & spelling and use of references. ☐ Generally well structured. Some grammar & spelling errors and use of references. ☐ Unclear or messy structure. Obvious spelling & grammar errors and use of references.