MGB130 - Assignment 2 Group Report Marking Rubric
MGB130 - Assignment 2 Group Report Marking Rubric
Criteria Ratings Points
[HO2.2] Independent judgement, planning, problem solving and decision makingview 20 to >16.98 pts
High Distinction
All strategic issues are identified and explained in detail based on a compelling critique of required extant high quality theoretical and empirical research. Extant research covered is highly relevant, of high quality and tied directly to the case. Recommendations are appropriate for the organisational context and evidence based (i.e., derived from relevant organisational behaviour research). A specific course of action derived from theory to improve organisational effectiveness is provided.
16.98 to >14.98 pts
Distinction
Strategic issues are identified and comprehensively explained within the required frameworks, based on a detailed critique of extant high quality relevant theoretical and empirical research. Extant research covered is relevant, of high quality and tied directly to the case. Recommendations are relevant for the organisational context and derived from evidence-based research. A specific practical course of action is provided which will improve organisational effectiveness.
14.98 to >12.98 pts
Credit
Analysis is informed by required research. Strategic issues are generally well identified and explained based on a mostly detailed critique of extant high quality theoretical and empirical research. Extant research covered is generally relevant, of good quality and generally tied directly to the case. Evidence of conclusions grounded in quality literature but with omissions. Recommendations are based on the evaluation of the case organisation but with some minor lapses. A specific course of action to embed effective organisational behaviours is provided which demonstrates a solid understanding of organisational behaviour.
12.98 to >9.98 pts
Pass
Analysis is only partly informed by required research. Only some strategic issues are noted with explanation of justification and/or implications underdeveloped. Some issues are identified and explained based on a critique of specified extant theoretical and empirical research. Extant research covered is somewhat relevant to the case. Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by analysis. Recommendations are somewhat based on the evaluation of the case analysis. They provide a course of action. but it may be underdeveloped with respect to embedding effective organisational behaviours into future situations.
9.98 to >7.98 pts
Marginal Fail
Analysis is not informed by required research I does not describe the underlying reasons causing the issues in the case, provide a justification, or discuss implications. Unsubstantiated conclusions. Recommendations have limited links to the evaluation of the case analysis. They are practical but some limitations exist, they only partially address effective organisational behaviours in future situations and show a basic and limited understanding of organisational behaviour.
7.98 to >4.98 pts
Fail
Analysis is not informed by required research. It does not describe the reasons for the issue in the case, nor provide justification, nor discuss implications. Conclusions are unsubstantiated. The recommendations are not linked or poorly linked to the issue in the case. Little or no justification for the recommendations are provided. Work is largely unsubstantiated. Clear limitations exist and there is little to no attempt to address effective organisational behaviours in future situations. Little to no understanding of organisational behaviour is evident.
4.98 to >0 pts
Low Fail
Work provides little evidence of learning in relation to this criterion0 pts
NE
No evidence provided / 20 pts
[PC3.1] Written communication
view longer description 5 to >4.25 pts
High Distinction
Excellent. Response to task is comprehensive yet succinct; the material is coherently structured and professionally visualised resulting in a persuasive and compelling message. The correct professional format for context and audience has been used and carried out with consistently high level of attention to details of formatting, word limit, etc.; choice and execution of visual displays (tables, graphs etc.) is creative and imaginative and adds qualitative value to the communication of meaning.
4.25 to >3.75 pts
Distinction
Response to task is comprehensive; the material is logically structured with good visual effect, resulting in a clear message The correct professional format for context and audience has been used and carried out with a high level attention to details of formatting, word limit, etc.; choice and execution of visual displays (tables, graphs etc.) adds significant value to the communication of meaning.
3.75 to >3.25 pts
Credit
Have taken account of all aspects of task; provided relevant information in a logical fashion but had minor visualisation and flow issues. The correct professional format for context and audience has been used with only minor lapses in details of formatting, word limit, etc. and/or occasional misjudgement of pitch to audience; use of visual displays (tables, graphs etc.) adds value to the meaning.
3.25 to >2.5 pts
Pass
Have responded to key aspects of the task with minor errors; material is logically sequenced, & contains analytical elements, but on occasion information may be misplaced or insufficiently documented. The correct professional format for context and audience has been used, though there are lapses in details of formatting, word limit, etc. and/or occasional misjudgement of pitch to audience; use of visual displays (tables, graphs etc.) shows some enhancement of the meaning, but there are occasional problems in choice and execution.
2.5 to >2 pts
Marginal Fail
Only a limited grasp of the task is shown; there are significant errors and/or omissions, and/or covered material that is not relevant and/or coherent. Insufficient consideration has been given to choosing the correct professional format for context and audience, and there are errors of formatting, word limit, etc.; use of visual displays (tables, graphs etc.) is limited or absent, and does not add value to the meaning and is not well executed.
2 to >1.25 pts
Fail
No grasp of the task is shown. The errors are so significant that meaning is impeded. No consideration given to choosing the correct professional format for context and audience. Major errors in formatting are present.
1.25 to >0 pts
Low Fail
Work provides little evidence of learning in relation to this criterion0 pts
NE
No evidence provided / 5 pts
[TS4.2] Teamwork knowledge and skills
view longer description 0 pts
Credit
Most team members agree that you mostly showed support for the team by aiding others and working diligently towards the team goals. Example behaviours include most of: demonstrating excellent levels of team and self-leadership, communication, and engagement with team processes (such as participation in all group meetings), workflows, and outputs (such as writing drafts and meeting deadlines).
0 pts
Distinction
All team members agree that you almost always showed consistently high levels of support for the team by aiding others and working diligently towards the team goals. Example behaviours include almost all of: demonstrating excellent levels of team and self-leadership, communication, and engagement with team processes (such as participation in all group meetings), workflows, and outputs (such as writing drafts and meeting deadlines).
0 pts
Fail
All team members identify that you demonstrated poor or counterproductive engagement with team process, workflows and output. No or insufficient demonstration of the following: - team and self-leadership - communication - engagement with team processes0 pts
High Distinction
All team members agree that you always showed consistently high levels of support for the team by aiding others and working diligently towards the team goals. Example behaviours include all of: demonstrating excellent levels of team and self-leadership, communication, and engagement with team processes (such as participation in all group meetings), workflows, and outputs (such as writing drafts and meeting deadlines).
0 pts
Low Fail
Work provides little evidence of learning in relation to this criterion0 pts
Marginal Fail
All or the majority of team members identify that you demonstrated consistently poor or counterproductive engagement with team process, workflows, and outputs. Example behaviours include few (or none) of: demonstrating excellent levels of team and self-leadership, communication, and engagement with team processes (such as participation in all group meetings), workflows, and outputs (such as writing drafts and meeting deadlines).
0 pts
NE
No evidence provided0 pts
Pass
Most team members agree that you showed some support for the team by aiding others and working diligently towards the team goals. Example behaviours include a some of: demonstrating excellent levels of team and self-leadership, communication, and engagement with team processes (such as participation in all group meetings), workflows, and outputs (such as writing drafts and meeting deadlines). / 0 pts
