ACC706Marking Rubric for Assignment 3 Group Report and Weekly Progress ReportCriteriaResearch — extent and applicationValue 30% Mark awardedAnalysis of the organisation Value 30% Mark awardedRecommendations / conclusionsValue 20% Mark awardedReport ContentValue 20./. Mark awardedFail (0 — 49%)Inaccurate, inappropriate or no use of literature. Analysis not developed. No original explanations provided.Significant gaps in knowledge of the theory and lack of understanding of company’s capabilities. Minimal analysis provided. Disjointed or no discussion.Few or no recommendations made / no justification. Any recommendations made are not supported or are inaccurate.Referencing is absent / not systematic / incorrectWeekly Progress Report Assessment Mark /5Total mark out of 100 faonrdgroup wre:eekrly progress report /15Assessment mark /15Student does not submit log of videosPass (50 — 64%)Minimum nurnber of sources, not all current or relevant. Paraphrasing used throughout but not always accompanied by original explanations. Theory relevant but not always linked toSimple discussion of areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Work reflects limited engagement with organisational context or relevant theory. Not all aspects of task completed In sufficient detail. Most aspects of the task completed but assessment lacks cohesion.Snma narnmnnAnclatinns .………… made / not well linked to the results of the evaluation or relevant theory.Acceptable content — obvious errors demonstrating lack of attention to detail. Some attempt at referencing but obvious ArMrSStudents submits weekly progress report however required number and comments not achievedCredit (65 — 74%)Good selection of theory from a range of sources to build and adequately justifies analysis. Paraphrasing used throughout but accompanied by original explanationsWW11.111eb d. discusses areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Discussion of some relevant issues in theory and organisational content in evaluation. All aspects of the task completed — some cohesion.Good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation results / may not be linked back systematically to relevant theoryGood content overall but some obvious errOfS. Referencing is mainly accurateStudents submits weekly progress report and a majority of required number and comments achievedDistinction (75 — 84%)Insightful and appropriate selection of theory from a good range of current and relevant sources to systematically build and justify analysis. Minimum paraphrasingI Iexplains areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation. All aspects of the task completed with minimal errors in cohesionVery good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Theory used systematically to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of the organisation’s capabilitiesProfessional content—minor errors in some elements. Correct referencing throughoutStudents submits weekly progress report and most required number and comments achievedHigh Distinction (85 — 100%)Integration and originality in the selection and handling of relevant theory to build and justify analysis. Wide range of current and relevant sources integrated in systematic way.Identifies and insiahtfully , discusses areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Strong links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation. All aspects of the task completed in a comprehensive and cohesive mannerExcellent recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Theory used in insightful vreac=riluesnticflYations and discuss enhancement of the organisation’s capabilitiesHighly professional content — satisfies all the elements for an exceptional report. Correct referencing throughoutStudents submits weekly progress report and required number and comments achieved
