Not Shown (0) Poor (1) Unsatisfactory (2) Satisfactory (3) Good (4) Very Good (5) Excellent (6) Main Criteria: RESEARCH No sources are used. Possible Academic Misconduct case. A limited number (<5) of poor quality, inappropriate or noncritical resources and/or law is selected. Some sources may be fictional or irrelevant. A limited number (<5) of poor quality, inappropriate or noncritical resources and/or law is selected. Some sources may be fictional or irrelevant. Some quality, appropriate critical academic resources and/or law is selected, but they include a few poorer quality sources (e.g. Lecture notes, websites) A body of quality, appropriate critical academic resources and/or law is selected with some omissions or errors of judgement. A body of almost entirely top quality, mostly appropriate critical academic resources and/or law is selected. An extensive body of top quality, highly appropriate critical academic resources and/or law is selected. Main Criteria: ANALYSIS No ability to analyse concepts or theories is shown in the report. Discussion is irrelevant to the case study provided. Fails to identify and demonstrate an understanding of key factors in case. Limited analysis of case evidence, inaccurate interpretations and/or judgements. No discernible statement of position or argument. No contrary evidence or argument provided Many inaccuracies of fact, or unsubstantiated information. Fails to identify and demonstrate an understanding of key factors in case. Limited analysis of case evidence, inaccurate interpretations and/or judgements. No discernible statement of position or argument. No contrary evidence or argument provided Many inaccuracies of fact, or unsubstantiated information. An attempt is made to identify the key factors in the case but there are a number of errors or omissions and only a basic understanding is demonstrated. Limited critical analysis evident. Statement of position or argument given but is not always supported by evidence. Limited contrary evidence or argument is provided. Argument may not always follow logically from information provided. Identifies some of the key factors in the case and demonstrates some understanding of their complexities. Some critical analysis evident with some lapses into description. 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. Identifies most of the key factors in the case and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of these. Critical analysis evident with mostly accurate application of theory and law (where relevant). Statement of position or argument is clear, with evidence and argument for and against the position taken nearly always given. Argument follows logically from information provided. Clearly identifies all key factors in the case and demonstrates a highly sophisticated understanding of these. Extensive critical analysis evident with consistently accurate application of theory (and law where relevant). Statement of position or argument is very clear, & well developed with comprehensive evidence and argument for and against the position taken always given. Argument follows logically from information provided HRMT20026 – Assessment 3 Marking Criteria Main Criteria: APPLICATION No application of theory demonstrated Little or no application of theory and/or law (where relevant), e.g. Mostly description of case and theory and/or law with negligible integration, so no analysis. Little or no application of theory and/or law (where relevant), e.g. Mostly description of case and theory and/or law with negligible integration, so no analysis. Basic application of theory and/or law, e.g. Integrates some case examples with the application of theory and/or law, but many are not. May contain several minor errors of fact or sweeping generalisations. Very good application of theory and/or law, e.g. Some parts done in a degree of depth and detail. Integrates most case examples with the application of theory and/or law, but some are not well founded. Sophisticated application of theory and/or law, e.g. Detailed approach with application of theory and/or law generally well integrated with case examples. Highly sophisticated application of theory and/or law. e.g. Highly detailed approach with well integrated case examples to aid the application of theory and/or law. Main Criteria: STRUCTURE Lack of structure significantly impacts the report’s ability to convey understanding and application. Failure to acknowledge sources by citations in- text and/or in reference list Lacks a clear structure to answer the questions, with most elements missing. Poor introduction. Conclusion missing, or contains serious omissions Failure to acknowledge sources by citations in- text and/or in reference list Lacks a clear structure to answer the questions, with most elements missing. Poor introduction. Conclusion missing, or contains serious omissions A reasonable attempt has been made to acknowledge sources, with a few citation errors in-text and/or in reference list. Attempted to structure the report to answer the questions, but some elements missing. Weak introduction. Conclusion recaps obvious arguments or evidence, but not necessarily both. May contain new information Generally sources have been correctly acknowledged, both in text and in reference list (might be a few errors). Good structure with appropriate headings that identify the questions, but lacks one element. Good introduction Conclusion recaps most arguments and evidence. Sources are correctly acknowledged, both in-text and in reference list (might be one or two errors). Very good structure that guides the reader through the report and answers to all research questions. Very good introduction that foreshadows the report. Detailed conclusion recaps arguments and evidence. Sources are all correctly acknowledged, both in-text and in reference list. Superb attention to detail. Clear and succinct report that clearly identifies the research questions under separate headings. Well formulated introduction. Sophisticated and succinct conclusion recaps arguments and evidence. Main Criteria: COMMUNICA TION Communication is very poor, or incomprehensible. Communication is poor. Limited vocabulary with frequent and significant grammatical & spelling errors. Communication is poor. Limited vocabulary with frequent and significant grammatical & spelling errors. Communication is generally coherent, vocabulary suitable, but hampered by grammar and spelling errors. Communication is clear and generally easily understood, using a good range of suitable vocabulary with some grammar and spelling errors. Communication is clear, concise & easily understood, using an extensive range of suitable vocabulary with one or two grammar and spelling errors. Communication is clear, concise & easily understood, using a sophisticated vocabulary with no grammar and spelling errors.