CRITERIA A: Excellent (> 80 %) B: Very good (70 79%) C: Good (60 69%) D: Acceptable (50 59%) N: Unacceptable (<50%)
CRITERIA A: Excellent (> 80 %) B: Very good (70 79%) C: Good (60 69%) D: Acceptable (50 59%) N: Unacceptable (<50%)
Addressing Tasks
(10)
Demonstrate an excellent ability in writing a business/research report: Introduction: State clearly the context, purpose, and overview of the report; Body: Argue clearly if hiring a candidate based on their appearance is illegal or unethical; Conclusion: make a succinct conclusion & recommend clearly what Hazel Hen should do to ensure its legal/ethical recruitment (8-10 marks) Demonstrate a very good ability in writing a business/research report: Introduction: State clearly the context, purpose, and overview of the report; Body: Argue clearly if hiring a candidate based on their appearance is illegal or unethical; Conclusion: make a succinct conclusion & recommend clearly what Hazel Hen should do to ensure its legal/ethical recruitment (7 7.5 marks) Demonstrate a good ability in writing a business/research report: Introduction: State clearly the context, purpose, and overview of the report; Body: Argue clearly if hiring a candidate based on their appearance is illegal or unethical; Conclusion: make a succinct conclusion & recommend clearly what Hazel Hen should do to ensure its legal/ethical recruitment (6 7.5 marks)
Demonstrate an acceptable ability in writing a business/research report: Introduction: State clearly the context, purpose, and overview of the report; Body: Argue clearly if hiring a candidate based on their appearance is illegal or unethical; Conclusion: make a succinct conclusion & recommend clearly what Hazel Hen should do to ensure its legal/ethical recruitment (5 5.5 marks) Fail to demonstrate an acceptable ability in writing a business/research report (<5 marks)
Clarity of arguments
(20 marks)
Make clear, appropriate, thoughtful, critical, and well structured arguments; Define key concepts clearly and accuractely using appropriate academic references; Clearly identifies the complexities of the topic (16-20 marks) Make clear, appropriate, and well structured arguments. Define key concepts accuractely using appropriate academic reference; Identifies the complexities of the topic (14-15,5 marks) Make clear and appropriate arguments; Fair attempt to define key concepts using appropriate academic reference; Fair attempt to relay the complexities of the topic (12-13,5 marks) Attempt to argue if hiring a candidate based on their appearance is illegal or unethical; Attempt to define key concepts; Fails to relay the complexities of the topic (10-11,5 marks) Unclear arguments; Unclearly defined concepts;Poor or missing analysis of the complexities of the topic (<10 marks)
Understanding of legal/ethical frameworks
(20 marks) Consistently use appropriate Victorian or Australian legislation and/or ethical models to support arguments (16-20 marks) Proficiently use appropriate Victorian or Australian legislation and/or ethical models to support arguments (14-15,5 marks) Competently use appropriate Victorian or Australian legislation and/or ethical models to support arguments (12-13,5 marks) Limited use of appropriate Victorian or Australian legislation and/or ethical models to support arguments (10-11,5 marks) Little or no use of appropriate Victorian or Australian legislation and/or ethical models to support arguments (<10 marks)
Research evidence
(30 marks) Consistently use authoritative, appropriate, and insightful case law, academic research, or commentary to support arguments throughout the report (24-30marks) Proficiently use authoritative, appropriate, and insightful case law, academic research, or commentary to support arguments throughout the report (21-23,5 marks) Competently use authoritative, appropriate, and insightful case law, academic research, or commentary to support arguments (18-20,5 marks) Limited use of case law, academic research, or commentary to support arguments (15-17,5 marks) Little or no use of case law, academic research, or commentary to support arguments (<15marks)
Structure, writing and referencing
(20 marks) Sequence and structure are logical and easy to follow; Excellent use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature using correct APA 7 referecing style; Excellent use of academic language with no grammatical errors (16-20 marks) Sequence and structure are logical and easy to follow; Very good use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature using correct APA 7 referecing style; Very good use of academic language with no grammatical errors (14-15,5 marks) Structure well enough to make sense; Good use of relevant and appropriate sources of literature using mostly correct APA 7 referecing style; Good use of academic language with some grammatical errors (12-13,5 marks) Could be more clearly and logically organised; Good use of relevant sources of literature using generally correct APA 7 referecing style; Academic language is lacking with some grammatical errors (10-11,5 marks) Lacks coherent organisation and structure. Difficult to ascertain responses; Few if any literature sources included and poor referencing; Poor spelling and grammar (<10 marks)
