Você está na página 1de 3

Marking Criteria Workplace Report - 3008EHR 2012

Note: this assignment is being used to assess one of the program goals in the B.Bus., namely Understanding and application of major theories, models and tools for analysing and interpreting real world domestic and global issues, as part of the Griffith Business Schools commitments to assurance of learning and quality education. Criterion Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Theory and its Application (total 70 marks of 100)


Ability to identify and summarise the correct theory/ies and concepts in addressing the general questions on your topic (including the material in Week 2, as well as that relating to your specific topic). Max 24.5 Ability to apply the theory/ies and concepts to the relevant issue within the specific workplace circumstances. Presented the key concepts underpinning the theory/ies in a clear and concise manner. Presented most of the key concepts underpinning the theory/ies in a clear and concise manner. Identified most of the key concepts underpinning the theory/ies, but some problems with expressing concepts in a clear and concise manner. Identified some of the key concepts underpinning the theory/ies, but considerable problems with expressing the concepts in a clear and concise manner. Not identified the correct theory/ies; and/or not presented the concepts underpinning the theory/ies in a clear and concise manner.

21 or more Development of insightful and logical arguments in a concise and articulate manner. Arguments are excellent in terms of clarity and persuasiveness. 24 or more

18.5 to 20.5 Development of logical arguments in a concise and articulate manner. Arguments are generally clear and persuasive.

16 to 18 Most arguments are logically developed in a concise and articulate manner. Arguments lack clarity and persuasiveness some of the time.

12.5 to 15.5 A basic level of logical argument developed. Arguments lack clarity and persuasiveness in a number of areas.

12 or less Not developing logical arguments. Presenting arguments that are generally unclear and not persuasive.

Max 28

21 to 23.5

18 to 20.5

14 to 18

13.5 or less

Ability to reflect on the theory/ies in the context of a given scenario so as to make (a) rational, useful recommendation(s) for workplace change.

Deep reflection and complex links made from theory to the scenario, producing (a) particularly insightful, fully justified and highly practical recommendation/s targeted on specific workplace practices. 15 or more

Deep reflection and general links made from theory to the scenario, producing (a) workable, fully justified and practical recommendation/s targeted on specific workplace practices.

Reasonable reflection as demonstrated by the ability to reflect on the 'what' and 'why' of the scenario, producing (a) recommendation/s to effect some changes in the workplace.

Basic reflective skills as demonstrated by the ability to reflect on the 'what' but not 'why' of the scenario, producing (a) recommendation(s) to effect some changes in the workplace.

No demonstrated reflection of theory presented, and (a) recommendation(s) that are neither practical nor show any insights about the situation, and/or are much too generalised to be useful. 8.5 or less

Max 17.5

13.5 to 14.5

11.5 to 13

9 to 11

Writing, formatting, research and referencing conventions (total 30 marks of 100)


Ability to express yourself well, adhere to the conventions of the Report format, use referencing and citations correctly; and research at an appropriate depth. Excellent level of writing; strict adherence to Report formatting conventions; very few spelling and/or grammatical errors; excellent topic sentences, paragraphing and linkages; no referencing or citation errors; excellent breadth and depth of research. Very good level of writing; very minor deviations from Report formatting conventions; few spelling and/or grammatical errors; very good topic sentences, paragraphing and linkages; few referencing and/or citation errors; very good breadth and depth of research. 22.5 to 25 Good level of writing; some deviations from Report formatting conventions; some spelling and/or grammatical errors; good topic sentences, paragraphing and linkages; some referencing and/or citation errors; good breadth and depth of research. Basic level of writing; minor deviations from Report formatting conventions; spelling and/or grammatical errors on most pages; topic sentences, paragraphing and linkages not well done; some referencing and/or citation errors; acceptable breadth and depth of research (12 is minimum number of academic references). 15 to 19 Poor level of writing; major deviations from Report formatting conventions; numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors; topic sentences, paragraphing and linkages poorly done; numerous referencing and/or citation errors; poor breadth and depth of research.

Max 30

25.5 or more

19.5 to 22

14.5 or less

Markers comments

Total mark

/100