ASSIGNMENT 1 (Case Study) Marking Criteria and Range
CRITERIA
/ A [A/A+]* (70% - 100%) / B+ [B/B+]* (60%-69%) / B [C/C+]* (50%-59%) / C [D/D+]* (40%-49%) / R/Fail (30%-39% / 0% -29%)Extent to which the student has addressed the issues raised by the questions (20%) / The student has a perceptive understanding of the issues and addressed them
comprehensively and imaginatively / The student has understood the issues and addressed them properly / The student has addressed most of the issues but in a simple manner / The student has limited understanding of the questions and/or has missed many issues / The student has failed to appreciate the question and/or understanding is suspect/ Failure can arise from insufficient evidence of study; seriously defective knowledge or understanding, failure to meet presentation requirements, illiterate writing, or inability to plan and execute data collection to the minimally acceptable competence level
Use of theory (20%) / Innovation and criticality in the selection and
integration of theory / Purposeful selection and integration of theory in key areas / Some theories are included in a simple manner / Limited use of theory but that used is appropriate / No theoretical concepts used and/or theory wrongly used / Failure can arise from insufficient evidence of study; seriously defective knowledge or understanding, failure to meet presentation requirements, illiterate writing, or inability to plan and execute data collection to the minimally acceptable competence level
Use of case study evidence, data and company examples gathered independently for substantiation purposes (25%) / The student has demonstrated innovation and criticality in the selection and integration of case study evidence, data and/or examples / Insightful selection of case study evidence, data and/or examples / Some evidence, data and/or examples are included in a simple manner / Limited use of case study evidence, data and/or examples but those used are relevant / No use of case study evidence, data and/or examples / Failure can arise from insufficient evidence of study; seriously defective knowledge or understanding, failure to meet presentation requirements, illiterate writing, or inability to plan and execute data collection to the minimally acceptable competence level
Degree of synoptic capacity and criticality shown in the development of arguments (25%) / Lucid synoptic analysis well grounded in theory and relevant literature with
elements of originality and critical thought / Evidence of synoptic capacity and good analytical development shown in the presentation of arguments / Some evidence of synoptic analysis and critical thought / Limited evidence of integrative analysis and/or critical thought / No evidence of synoptic analysis and/or critical thought / Failure can arise from insufficient evidence of study; seriously defective knowledge or understanding, failure to meet presentation requirements, illiterate writing, or inability to plan and execute data collection to the minimally acceptable competence level
Structure and readability of the answers (10%) / Polished and imaginative. Logical flow of arguments. Accurate writing and spelling / Logically organised. Fluent writing. Accurate grammar and spelling / Coherent. Writing mainly fluent with reasonable grammar and spelling / Some attempt to organise logically. Meaning apparent but some presentational errors / Disorganised and incoherent. Meaning often unclear. Frequent presentational errors / Failure can arise from insufficient evidence of study; seriously defective knowledge or understanding, failure to meet presentation requirements, illiterate writing, or inability to plan and execute data collection to the minimally acceptable competence level