ASSESSMENT CRITERIA RUBRIC FOR TASK 3 “ MGT726 Task 3 This task draws together/produces a synthesis of your analysis and evaluation of a specialist area, and provides conclusions and implications for practice. Product: Either written report (3000 words) or PowerPoint presentation (40 “ 60 slides) Marks possible: 100 (weighted at 60% of final grade) Learning Outcomes Examine a specialist area of professional management practice. Develop skills to analyse, evaluate and reflect critically on complex information, problems, concepts and theories in order to devise recommended solutions to a management issue. Effectively communicate implications and conclusions to specialist and non-specialist audiences. Assessment Criteria [content of Task 3 expands of these same criteria from Task 2 to a completion of your research project] 1. Problem definition: Research Objective(s) (RO) clearly defined and relevance for a managerial decision/issue explained. Practicality of the RO(s). 2. Literature review clearly identifies relevant theories that are explained and correctly referenced. A minimum of 5 academic sources and 3 from industry. 3. Research design (RD) and method identified (qualitative, quantitative or mixed) and explained. 4. Process for the analysis of data defined. 5. Communication and professional presentation (check Module 6: Final Submission for Style Guide checklist/and-or PowerPoint Presentation guide). Rubric for Assessment Criteria: Task 3 “ MGT726 Criteria HD DN CR P F 1. Problem definition: Research Objective(s) (RO) clearly defined and relevance for a managerial decision/issue explained. Practicality of the RO(s). Same DN, explanation is supported with models (including tables where appropriate). Same as CR, issue is clearly contemporary, or emerging, in the field of this research project. Practicality is explained with supporting material and examples (e.g. references from either industry AND academic sources). All feedback from Task 2 applied. Problem and RO explained. The management decision/issue is clearly defined and relevant. Practicality is explained with supporting material (e.g. references from either industry or academic sources). Most feedback from Task 2 applied. Problem is explained. RO is defined. Practicality of the RO is explained. Some feedback from Task 2 applied. Problem and RO have not been identified. No indication of the practicality of the research. Feedback from Task 2 not applied Mark / 10 9 10 8 7 5 6 <5 2. Literature review clearly identifies relevant theories that are explained and correctly referenced. These are a minimum of 5 academic sources and minimum of 3 from industry. Same as DN, however explanation is supported with models and the number of sources used is twice the minimum number and all are relevant. Same as for CR, however explanation is in more detail. All feedback from Task 2 applied. Same as for P, but has explained the theories and why they are relevant. Has used more than the minimum number of sources required. A comprehensive and correctly formatted Reference List. Most feedback from Task 2 applied. Literature review meets the minimum standard of sources. Theories have been identified. Some feedback from Task 2 applied. Literature review has not been included or mentioned; or has not met the minimum number of sources required. Feedback from Task 2 not applied Mark /40 36 40 30 35 29 26 20 25 < 20 3. Research design (RD) and method identified (qualitative, quantitative or mixed) and their suitability for the RO explained. Same as DN, explanation supported with models. Same as CR, explanation supported with references. All feedback from Task 2 applied. Same as for P; RD, method and suitability clearly explained. Sampling and respondent numbers not at a minimal level. Most feedback from Task 2 applied. RD and method identified, attempt made to explain suitability. Sampling size and selection of respondents at a minimal number (refer to Sect 8 BUS703 Handbook). Some feedback from Task 2 applied. RD has not been addressed. NO explanation about suitability of RD. Method has not been identified or explained. Feedback from Task 2 not applied Mark / 30 26 30 22 25 21 19 18 15 < 15 Rubric for Assessment Criteria: Task 3 “ MGT726 Criteria HD DN CR P F 4. Process for the analysis of data defined. Same as DN, explanation supported with models. Same as CR, explanation supported with references. All feedback from Task 2 applied. Same as PS, with explanation. Most feedback from Task 2 applied. Process has been identified. Some feedback from Task 2 applied. Process has not been identified or discussed. Feedback from Task 2 not applied Mark / 10 9 10 8 7 5 6 <5 5. Communication and professional presentation. Same as for DN, however is error free. Has been developed to a potentially publishable standard. Same as for CR, minimal errors and generally well proofread. Submission has complied with the guide requirements. Submission has been well written/designed, easy to comprehend discussion. Some errors, overall formatted well. Has applied Style Guide checklist/guidelines for PPTs. Submission (PowerPoint or essay) has grammatical and spelling errors. Little evidence of proofreading before submitting. If PowerPoint: has not applied advice from guidelines for PPTs (see Learning Module 6: Final Submission/Resources/PowerPoint Presentation Guide) If written essay: has not applied Style Guide Checklist requirements (see Blackboard “ Assessment and Learning Module 6: Final Submission). Submission (PowerPoint or Essay) has not been proofread, discussion is consistently poor and difficult to understand, with consistently poor and difficult to understand with several errors in grammar, spelling and expression. Submission has not provided adequate reasons for being lodged outside the required deadlines. Mark / 10 9 10 8 7 5 6 <5 Total Further feedback:
