Assignment Assessment Guides
MCD2040 Marker’s assessment of Assignment 1(a) - Annotated Bibliography
The annotated bibliography should be 400 words and include: • Includes a summary of the main arguments or ideas for each of four academic sources • Includes an in-text citation (direct quote) that does the work of presenting the main argument for each academic source • Includes a critique or evaluation of each source’s usefulness to the essay question. Comments on the source’s reliability, objectivity or bias and makes a comparison with other sources reviewed • Writing and presentation style (clarity, coherence, spelling, punctuation, grammar and format presented as per guidelines detailed in Unit Outline) • Lists the correct bibliographic information for the four academic sources as per the Q Manual (i.e., complete details for the author/s, year, title, and publication) Satisfactory 1% Unsatisfactory 0
1%
0
1%
0
1%
0
1%
0
MCD2040 Marker’s assessment of Assignment 2(a) - Plan of the Group Report
The plan of the report should be no more than one page long (approx 250 words) and include: • The purpose of the report • Background to the report (e.g. company information) • Sources of information • Proposed main findings • Proposed conclusions and recommendations Satisfactory 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 0 0
1
MCD2040 Marker’s assessment and feedback sheet for Assignment 1 (b) – Short Essay
Criteria Introduction and identification of managers’ roles Fail Less than 50% Inadequate description, explanation and identification of management roles Pass 50 – 59% Adequate description, explanation and identification of management roles Credit 60-69% Effective description and explanation of some theoretical concepts linked to management roles Distinction 70 – 79% Clear, detailed and consistent description and explanation of theoretical concepts linked to management roles Demonstrates evidence from the wider literature. Discussion supports a coherent line of reasoning, linking theory and practice Demonstrates evidence from the wider literature. Discussion supports a coherent line of reasoning, linking theory and practice Minor referencing errors. Citations used to good effect. Meets Q Manual requirements High Distinction 80 – 100% Excellent description, explanation and identification of management roles with key theoretical concepts and judicious use of examples Statements supported by clear and balanced reasoning and strong evidence of background reading Statements supported by clear and balanced reasoning and strong evidence of background reading Referencing is consistently accurate. Citations used well to support the essay’s rationale. Meets Q Manual requirements
Mark out of 10 Argument regarding the utility of Mintzberg’s theory with supporting examples Mark out of 20 Quality of analysis of the importance of interpersonal roles that managers are required to perform Mark out of 30 Citation of sources, referencing and their correct formatting using APA method shown in Q Manual
Discussion is not supported adequately either through reasoning, relevant theory or appropriate references May not have addressed this aspect of the question. Discussion is not supported adequately either through reasoning or appropriate references Insufficient number of citations and/or over-relies on direct quotations. Frequent errors in technical aspects of referencing. Must refer to the Faculty Q Manual Poor Not enough suitable reference sources Inappropriate language Frequent errors in grammar, punctuation and/or spelling. Poor
Discussion is adequate but limited to generalities. Uses some relevant references and linking of theory and practice Discussion is adequate but limited to generalities. Uses some relevant references, and linking of theory and practice Work over-relies on direct quotations. Some errors in technical aspects of referencing. May deviate from Q Manual requirements Satisfactory Uses text plus 2 relevant journal articles Adequate language Some errors in grammar, punctuation and/or spelling. Adequate
Mark out of 10 Essay structure Mark out of 10 Use of text and relevant journal articles Mark out of 10 Impact of language, grammar, punctuation and spelling Mark out of 5 Technical aspects Mark out of 5 Comments:
Effective discussion indicating some reasoning and analysis using relevant references, and linking of theory and practice Effective discussion indicating some reasoning and analysis using relevant references, and linking of theory and practice Quotations and referencing are mainly accurate. Work shows some integration of citations. Mostly correct application of Q Manual requirements Well presented Uses text plus 3-4 relevant journal articles
Well presented with strong line of reasoning Uses text plus 5 or more relevant journal articles
Effective language. Mainly accurate grammar, punctuation and/or spelling.
Includes Monash College coversheet, is word processed, size 12 font, 1.5 spacing, spaced between paragraphs with reference list on separate page.
2
Grade: Marker: Second marker (if necessary):
3
MCD2040 Marker’s assessment and feedback sheet for Assignment 2b - Final Group Report.
Criteria
Preliminaries: including title page, table of contents, and executive summary. Mark out of 10
Fail Less than 50%
Missing all/some of preliminary report elements: title page, table of contents and/or executive summary. Unfocused introduction which may be missing elements of the introduction.
Pass 50 – 59%
Contains required preliminary elements but executive summary may be poorly executed with missing components. Introduction may provide some idea as to the purpose of the report but may be missing an element such as the plan of the report.
Credit 60-69%
Contains required preliminary elements. Executive summary is adequate: it includes all components but could be more effectively written. Introduction contains all elements but could be more effectively written; it may, for example, have been presented in a disjointed manner or the purpose may be too generalised. Effective discussion indicating some reasoning and analysis, using relevant references linking theories and concepts to competing effectively. Headings are mainly meaningful. Clearly identifiable and linked to earlier section of report.
Distinction 70 – 79%
Preliminary elements contain few errors. Executive summary effectively summarises the purpose of the report, background, indicates the sources of information, main findings, conclusion and recommendations. Effective introduction that providing a clear indication of the contextual issues/events (background), the organisation and the relevant theories and concepts relating to management functions (scope, assumptions and limitations), the sources of information (methodology), and an overview of the report (plan). Discussion is well-structured to support a coherent analysis. Identifies key issues for management functions and uses evidence from the wider literature to link theories and concepts to competing effectively.
High Distinction 80 – 100%
Well-presented preliminary elements. Executive summary is excellent.
Introduction: indicates the purpose of report, introduces the organisation, identifies and briefly describes management concepts that assist an organisation to compete effectively in its market, and identifies the plan of the report. Mark out of 20 Discussion: identifies, discusses and evaluates a range of selected theories and concepts from management functions that address/respond to events/issues. Mark out of 40
Excellent introduction that justifies the importance of Virgin Blue competing effectively in its market, the scope of potential management theories and concepts management can use to address these issues/ events, and outlines the framework used to conduct the analysis. Analysis supported by clear and balanced reasoning and strong evidence of background reading of literature linking management function theories and concepts to competing effectively.
Conclusion: Draws logical deductions, sums up the main points, refers to underlying themes and may identify unresolved issues. Mark out of 10 Recommendations: Suggested course of action with clear and specific action statements (justification not needed here). Mark out of 10
Discussion is poorly structured; may not use appropriate headings; not adequately supported either through reasoning or appropriate references. Missing or unclear or tenuous.
Discussion is adequate but limited in range. Some evidence of relevant references linking management theories and concepts to competing effectively. Clearly identifiable
Clearly identifiable, strong line of reasoning supporting discussion.
Clearly identifiable and convincing line of reasoning supporting discussion.
Deviates significantly from criterion.
Some recommendations evident but may not be clearly linked to previous discussion.
Academic sources Mark out of 5 Language and grammar Mark out of 5 Comments:
Less than 2. Inappropriate/poor
Text plus 2 relevant journal articles. Satisfactory.
A number of recommendations made. May be too detailed or may contain elements of justification best presented in the Discussion section. Text plus 5 relevant journal articles. Effective.
Statements clearly linked to previous discussion and consistent with conclusion. Recommendations presented in order of importance.
Text plus 6 or more relevant journal articles.
4
Grade:
Marker:
Second marker (if necessary):
5 