evaluate student work | My Assignment Tutor

RUBRIC DETAIL A rubric lists marking criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout. Content Top of Form Name: MGT603 Assessment 2 Marking Guide Grid ViewList View  Fail(Unacceptable)(0-49%)Pass(Functional)(50-64%)Credit(Proficient)(65-74%)Distinction(Advanced)(75-84%)High Distinction(Exceptional)(85-100%)Knowledge and understanding (technical and theoretical knowledge)Understands theoretical models and conceptsPoints Range:0 (0.00%) – 2.45 (12.25%) Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledgeKey components of the assignment are not addressed.Points:2.5 (12.50%) Points Range:2.5 (12.50%) – 3.2 (16.00%) Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline.Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas.Often confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.Points Range:3.25 (16.25%) – 3.7 (18.50%) Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials.Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.Points Range:3.75 (18.75%) – 4.2 (21.00%) Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s.Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts.Points Range:4.25 (21.25%) – 5 (25.00%) A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s.Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learningContext, Audience and PurposePercentage for this criterionPoints Range:0 (0.00%) – 2.45 (12.25%) Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. Rich picture does not show relevant stakeholders, goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy changeCATWOE and root definition are not written properlyPoints:2.85 (14.25%) Points Range:2.5 (12.50%) – 3.2 (16.00%) Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment Rich picture show some but not all relevant stakeholders. Goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are written but lack clarityCATWOE and root definition are written but are somewhat vaguePoints Range:3.25 (16.25%) – 3.7 (18.50%) Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment.Rich picture show all relevant stakeholders. Goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are written clearlyCATWOE and root definition are written clearlyPoints Range:3.75 (18.75%) – 4.2 (21.00%) Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment. Rich picture show all relevant stakeholders. Goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are written clearly in an integrated mannerCATWOE and root definition are written clearly integrating all the dimensions of CATWOEPoints Range:4.25 (21.25%) – 5 (25.00%) Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment. Rich picture show all relevant stakeholders. Goals, intended and unintended consequences of the policy change are written clearly in an integrated manner, demonstrating systematic and critical understanding of the context and purpose of the assessment.CATWOE and root definition are written properly, demonstrating systematic and critical understanding of the context and purpose of the assessment.Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledgePoints Range:0 (0.00%) – 2.45 (12.25%) Limited synthesis and analysis.Limited application/recommendations based upon analysis.Points:2.85 (14.25%) Points Range:2.5 (12.50%) – 3.2 (16.00%) Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application.Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature.Points Range:3.25 (16.25%) – 3.7 (18.50%) Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.Points Range:3.75 (18.75%) – 4.2 (21.00%) Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis.Points Range:4.25 (21.25%) – 5 (25.00%) Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge.Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases.Effective CommunicationPoints Range:0 (0.00%) – 1.47 (7.35%) Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence.Audience cannot follow the line of reasoning.Points:1.71 (8.55%) Points Range:1.5 (7.50%) – 1.92 (9.60%) Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical.Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow.Points Range:1.95 (9.75%) – 2.22 (11.10%) Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments.Line of reasoning is easy to follow.Points Range:2.25 (11.25%) – 2.52 (12.60%) Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented; the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence.Demonstrates cultural sensitivity.Points Range:2.55 (12.75%) – 3 (15.00%) Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments.Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivityEffective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics and multi-media.Correct citation of key resources and evidencePoints Range:0 (0.00%) – 0.98 (4.90%) Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.Points:1 (5.00%) Points Range:1 (5.00%) – 1.28 (6.40%) Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed.Points Range:1.3 (6.50%) – 1.48 (7.40%) Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.Points Range:1.5 (7.50%) – 1.68 (8.40%) Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements. Shows evidence of wide scope within the organisation for sourcing evidencePoints Range:1.7 (8.50%) – 2 (10.00%) Demonstrates use of high-quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows evidence of wide scope within and without the organisation for sourcing evidence The rubric total value of 10.91 has been overridden with a value of 11.00 out of 20. Name:MGT603 Assessment 2 Marking Guide Bottom of Form