INTB864 Global Business in Asia
[ad_1]
INTB864 Global Business in Asia
Marking rubric for assignment ONE
Trimester 2, 2020
| Indicators of ACHIEVED WITH DISTINCTION |
Indicators of ACHIEVED WITH MERIT |
Indicators of ACHIEVED | Indicators of ACHIEVED NOT | |
| Marking Criterion 1 : 5 marks | ||||
| Discussion of the importance of the topic |
There was an excellent discussion of the importance of the topic. The student’s answer looked at the importance in a very holistic and strategic manner and this laid a solid stage for the rest of the report. |
There was a reasonably good discussion of the importance of the topic but there were some gaps. The student’s answer considered the matter of importance in a holistic and strategic manner but there were some deficiencies. |
There was an adequate discussion of the importance of the topic but there were obvious shortcomings and the treatment of this component of the report was adequate but light. |
There was either no discussion of the importance of considering the matter or the discussion was very limited and lacked holistic and strategic perspectives. |
| Marking Criterion 2 : 28 marks | ||||
| Critical analysis of the topic; identification and integration of relevant theories and concepts in the discussion of the subject matter and depth of research |
The student’s report demonstrated that there was a very high standard of critical analysis of the subject matter. Theories and concepts were very well identified and then integrated into the discussion. The student’s word demonstrated that the student had engaged in an excellent level of research (both depth and breadth) into the matter. |
Overall there was a good standard of critical analysis of the subject matter. Theories and concepts were identified and integrated into the discussion but some of the selected concepts/theories might not have been relevant to the subject matter. There was proof of reasonably good research into the subject matter. |
Overall there was adequate analysis of the subject matter but the level of critical thinking demonstrated was somewhat light. Theories and concepts were identified and integrated but in parts there was more theory inclusion rather than integration. The overall level of research into the subject matter was acceptable. |
The student’s answer did not meet with the level of critical analysis and theory integration expected. There was little proof of research and the work was largely descriptive. |
| Marking Criterion 3 : 5 marks | ||||
| Examples employed | Excellent and insightful examples were engaged to support the arguments raised. The examples were very well researched and were supported with relevant evidence. |
There were good examples provided but there were some gaps. |
Adequate examples were provided but there were deficiencies and obvious gaps in the manner that these examples were employed. |
Limited, no or poor examples were used and these were merely included without connecting them to the matter at hand. |
| Marking Criterion 6: 4 mark | ||||
| Formatting and presentation |
Excellent formatting and presentation. The report was very professionally presented. There were good headings, consistent use of fonts and other tools that make for a very good report format. |
The formatting and presentation of the report was reasonably good. |
Formatting and presentation were acceptable but the overall report would have benefitted from a more professional approach. |
Overall the report was poorly presented. There were formatting errors and inconsistencies in the use of fonts and headings. |
| Marking Criterion 7: 4 mark | ||||
| Correct English grammar, spelling and language usage |
Excellent use of the language with no (or very little) grammatical mistakes. |
Good and mostly correct English grammar, spelling and language usage. |
There were quite a number of spelling and grammatical errors in the manner in which the report was written. Punctuation marks need to be placed appropriately. |
Overall the report was poorly written and had a lot of English spelling and grammar mistakes. The student needs to be referred to Student Learning Center. |
| Marking Criterion 8: 4 mark | ||||
| Referencing | Excellent reference list and in text citations. Referencing was extensive and sources used were reputable. |
Good reference list and in text citations but there were a number of minor errors. Referencing was of an acceptable range and sources used were generally good. |
The reference list and in-text citations were made but there were many errors. Referencing was not very extensive and some of the sources used were not of high repute. |
Referencing was poor and there were many errors. The number of references were not up to expectations. |
[Button id=”1″]
[ad_2]
Source link
"96% of our customers have reported a 90% and above score. You might want to place an order with us."
