Innovation and Sustainable Business developmentIntegrated Marketing CommunicationsFinancial Modeling…

1
MGMT20132 Innovation and Sustainable Business development – Assessment 1 – Marking Rubric
Criteria
6 (Excellent)
5 (Very Good)
4 (Good)
3 (Satisfactory)
2 (Unsatisfactory)
1 (Poor)
0 (Not Shown)
Thorough understanding
of relevant innovation
management concepts,
principles, theories,
tools and models in
regards to the
assessment tasks.
60% weight
All key issues expertly
identified and canvassed.
Superior ability to reason
logically and impartially
from gathered information
and reach reliable and
trustworthy conclusions.
Highly proficient and
scholarly use of a wide
range of relevant sources
of knowledge and data.
Scholarly application of
relevant principles,
concepts, methods and
theories relevant to the set
task.
Most key issues identified.
Ability to reason logically
and impartially from
gathered information and
reach reliable and
trustworthy conclusions.
Scholarly use of a wide
range of sources of
knowledge.
Competent application of
relevant principles,
concepts, methods and
theories relevant to the set
task.
An acceptable number of
issues identified.
Reasons logically, skilfully
and impartially from
gathered information and
reaches logical
conclusions.
Good use of a range of
sources of knowledge.
Application of principles,
concepts, methods and
theories relevant to the set
task.
Some key issues
identified.
Reasons logically from
gathered information and
reaches logical
conclusions.
Good use of sources of
knowledge.
Application of some
principles, concepts,
methods and theories
relevant to the set task.
Few key issues identified.
Critical analysis below
standard.
Insufficient use of sources
of knowledge.
Some application of
principles, concepts,
methods and theories
relevant to the set task.
No key issues identified.
Critical analysis not
evident.
Limited use of sources of
knowledge.
Limited application of
principles, concepts,
methods and theories
relevant to the set task.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.
Appropriate and well
structured, concise and
clear expression of
innovation management
arguments.
10% weight
Well-structured and
concise written logical
arguments.
Arguments are developed
in a scholarly fashion
supported by clear
evidence.
Structured and logically
developed arguments.
Arguments are clearly
supported by evidence.
Structured and logically
developed arguments.
Arguments are supported
by evidence.
Some structure is evident.
Arguments are somewhat
developed.
Arguments are somewhat
easy to understand.
Arguments are somewhat
supported.
Structure and clarity is an
area needing
improvement.
Arguments are not well
developed.
Arguments are not easy to
understand.
Arguments are not well
supported.
Structure and clarity is an
area needing significant
improvement.
Arguments, if evidenced,
are not developed or
supported.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.
Clear flow of thought
throughout the paper
with a clear and succinct
purpose described in the
introduction and a clear
and succinct conclusion.
10% weight
Well-written with a clear
flow of thought, a pleasure
to read.
Excellent introduction,
providing a very clear
purpose which ensures all
areas relevant to the topic
are clearly outlined.
The assessment presents
an excellent summary of
the ideas presented,
drawing clear and well
thought-out conclusions.
The flow of thought is very
good.
Paragraphs are well linked.
Good introduction, the
purpose is clear and crisp.
The assessment presents
a very good summary of
the ideas presented;
drawing fairly clear and
well thought-out
conclusions.
The flow of thought is
good.
Paragraphs are reasonably
linked.
Ok introduction, the
purpose is clear.
The assessment presents
a fairly detailed and
focused summary of the
ideas presented, providing
some evidence of
conclusions.
The flow of thought is ok.
Paragraphs are reasonably
linked.
Fair introduction, the
purpose is somewhat
clear.
The assessment
somewhat provides
detailed and focused
summary of the ideas
presented, drawing limited
conclusions.
It is difficult to follow the
flow of thought.
The use of paragraphs is
insufficient.
Substandard introduction.
The purpose is unclear.
The assessment provides
limited evidence of the
ideas presented, drawing
no clear conclusions.
The flow of thought is a
significant improvement
area. The use of
paragraphs is a significant
improvement area.
Non-existent introduction.
The purpose is not
described.
The assessment fails to
provide any clear evidence
of the ideas presented,
drawing no clear
conclusions.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.
2
Criteria
6 (Excellent)
5 (Very Good)
4 (Good)
3 (Satisfactory)
2 (Unsatisfactory)
1 (Poor)
0 (Not Shown)
Critical review skills and
integration of relevant
academic and profession
literature. A minimum of
five (5) academic
journals must be used.
10% weight
Critical use of sources.
Excellent paraphrasing.
Utilises current,
appropriate and credible
sources which strongly
support the student’s
argument throughout.
Critical use of sources.
Good paraphrasing.
Utilises mostly current,
appropriate and credible
sources which mostly
support the student’s
argument throughout.
Mostly critical use of
sources.
Utilises some current,
appropriate and credible
sources which at times
support the student’s
argument throughout.
Somewhat critical use of
sources. Five (5) relevant
resources used.
Utilises few current,
appropriate and credible
sources which provide
limited support to the
student’s argument
throughout.
Uncritical use of resources.
Utilises few appropriate
and credible sources which
provide limited support to
the student’s argument
throughout.
Uncritical use of
resources.
Utilises no current,
appropriate and credible
sources.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.
Appropriate in text
referencing and
reference list. Adherence
to CQUniversity APA
Reference Style.
5% weight.
Superior skill
demonstrated in use of
correct referencing style.
Skills demonstrated in use
of correct referencing style.
Reasonable skills in use of
correct referencing style.
Some inaccuracies in use
of correct referencing style.
Referencing is insufficient.
Referencing contains
significant inaccuracies.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.
Clarity of expression,
grammar and spelling.
Appropriate presentation
format within (±10%) of
the word limit: 2000
words.
5% weight.
Scholarly use of correct
language throughout.
Correct grammar, spelling
and punctuation.
Report expertly and
scholarly set out.
Correct use of language.
Few grammar, spelling and
punctuation mistakes.
Report expertly set out.
Generally correct use of
language.
Few grammar, spelling and
punctuation mistakes.
Report well set out.
Generally, reasonably
correct use of language.
Frequent grammar,
punctuation and spelling
mistakes. Use of
inappropriate language.
Report set out in fair
manner.
Insufficient use of
language and syntax.
Several spelling mistakes.
Little evidence of proof
reading.
Report format inadequate.
Less than 1800 words.
Significant inaccuracies in
use of language and
syntax.
Many spelling mistakes.
No evidence of proof
reading.
Report format inadequate.
Less than 1800 words.
Non-existent or entirely
irrelevant or
incomprehensible.