Criteria N (0-29) N (30-49) P (50-59) C (60-69) D (70-79) HD (80-100)
Criteria N (0-29) N (30-49) P (50-59) C (60-69) D (70-79) HD (80-100)
Business Proposal:
Completeness and
Presentation Clarity
10 marks Key components are missing, and the proposal is poorly presented, with serious issues in clarity, formatting, and overall professionalism. Several components are missing, and cohesion is weak.
Presentation is poor, with multiple formatting errors and lack of clarity. Some components are missing.
Presentation is adequate but contains noticeable formatting or clarity issues. Most components are present, but presentation could benefit from better organization or formatting. Proposal includes all components in a comprehensive manner and good cohesion.
Clear formatting with few minor issues in presentation. Proposal includes all required components in a highly cohesive, comprehensive, and well-structured manner.
Presentation is professional with excellent clarity, formatting, and attention to detail.
Business Proposal:
Theoretical Foundation
10 marks Minimal to no application of theoretical concepts, with significant gaps in understanding. Applies a few basic concepts, but shows shallow understanding or weak integration. Limited application of concepts, with occasional inaccuracies or gaps in understanding. Applies relevant concepts with a good understanding, though not fully integrated. Applies several theoretical concepts from the unit accurately and effectively. Applies a wide range of theoretical concepts from the unit effectively and with depth.
Business Proposal:
Practicality
5 marks Business model is unrealistic or lacks sufficient detail to assess feasibility. Business model has many impractical elements, lacking clear feasibility. Business model shows practicality but has several unclear or unrealistic elements. Business model is mostly practical, though some details could be further developed. Business model is practical, with most aspects clearly defined and implementable. Business model is highly practical and clearly implementable, with well-defined steps.
Business Proposal:
Financial Viability
5 marks Financial projections are missing or highly unrealistic, providing little to no support for viability. Financial viability is weak, with minimal projections and several unrealistic assumptions. Some attempt at financial projections, but lacks adequate detail or accuracy. Financial viability is addressed with some solid but underdeveloped projections. Financial viability is mostly convincing, with strong supporting data. Proposal convincingly demonstrates financial viability, with detailed, realistic projections.
Business Proposal:
Originality
5 marks Lacks originality, relying entirely on existing ideas with no personal input. Very little originality, with minimal evidence of personal input or creativity. Limited originality, with noticeable reliance on existing ideas or templates. Some originality is present, with moderate personal input and creative thinking. Proposal shows a good degree of originality, with clear personal insights. Proposal is exceptionally original, with strong evidence of creative thinking and personal input.
Individual Reflection:
Economic Theory Application
2 marks Fails to explain how economic theory contributed to the proposal or provides irrelevant or no examples. Provides vague or minimal connection between economic theory and the proposal, with few examples. Mentions economic theory but with limited explanation or relevance to the business proposal. Provides a good explanation of the role of economic theory, but lacks depth or a broad range of examples. Provides a strong explanation of how economic theory contributed to the proposal, with relevant examples, though could be more detailed. Provides a detailed, comprehensive explanation of how economic theory significantly enhanced the business proposal, supported by highly relevant examples.
Individual Reflection:
ELS Skills
2 marks Fails to identify relevant ELS skills or provide meaningful reflection on personal and professional development. Mentions one or two ELS skills but provides little reflection or connection to professional development. Identifies a few ELS skills, but reflection on areas for improvement is minimal or underdeveloped. Identifies some ELS skills but lacks depth in reflecting on professional development or only touches briefly on areas for improvement. Identifies relevant ELS skills, with a clear reflection on areas for improvement in professional development, though could be more thorough. Thoughtfully and clearly identifies multiple ELS skills used in the assignment, with an in-depth reflection on areas for personal and professional development.
Individual Reflection:
Career Interests
1 mark Fails to adequately explore non-economist roles, or makes vague and irrelevant statements with no use of career resources. Mentions two roles but with minimal detail or relevance to personal career interests. Resources like DeakinTALENT are barely mentioned. Mentions two non-economist roles, but the discussion is superficial with little personal insight or connection to career goals. Discusses two non-economist roles but lacks depth or fails to show strong personal insights. Connection to resources is limited. Explores two non-economist roles with clear links to personal career interests, supported by some use of DeakinTALENT or similar resources. Explores two or more non-economist roles in detail, with strong personal insights and clear connections to career interests, using DeakinTALENT or other resources effectively.
