|
PG
|
Communication skills and structure
|
Content
|
Referencing
|
Analysis /Critical evaluation/ Discussion of outcomes
|
Justification
|
|
Task details
|
This involves communicating your ideas clearly following a clear and coherent structure
|
Demonstration and explanation of your aims, objectives/research questions, methodology including sample, data collection and analysis techniques, ethical strategy and expected outcomes.
|
Reference (including all the recommended articles and relevant chapters of the recommended textbook) to key literature and listing of the literature used.
|
Line of argument and, development of discussion with clear alignment between case, literature and anticipated outcomes
|
Explanation for techniques and methods
|
|
90 - 100
Outstanding
|
Outstanding: exceptional communication skills. Extremely articulate and fluent; language is clear, concise and appropriate without grammatical errors.
|
Outstanding exploration of topic/question showing excellent knowledge and understanding through thorough and appropriate research.
Impressive choice and range of appropriate content.
|
Outstanding business insight and application.
Breadth, depth and integration of extremely wide variety of vital literature/data into work.
|
Outstanding level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation. Highly developed/ focused work with original and realistic recommendations for the future.
|
Outstanding level of thorough in-depth reflection undertaken and extremely valuable insights into the process of learning recorded. Clearly linked relevant future action plan included.
|
|
80 - 89
Excellent
|
Excellent: extremely articulate and fluent; language is clear, concise and appropriate.
Only a couple of minor errors.
|
Excellent level of knowledge and understanding of topic/question demonstrated.
Evidence of appropriate research
Covers all relevant points and issues.
|
Excellent business insight and application.
Breadth, depth and integration of very wide variety of appropriate literature/data into work.
|
Excellent level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation clearly developing points in the appropriate way with thorough consideration of all possibilities.
|
Excellent reflective narrative with clear understanding of the process of learning. Clearly linked relevant future action plan included.
|
|
70 - 79
Very Good
|
Very good: fluent and clear communication with very few grammatical errors/ hesitations/ mistakes.
|
Very good level of knowledge and understanding of topic/question demonstrated.
Covers most relevant points and issues. Few errors / omissions in content/calculations.
|
Very good business insight and application. Breadth, depth and integration of a wide variety of literature/data into work.
|
Very good level of discussion/ analysis/ critical evaluation and appropriate recommendations. Few points need further development or evaluation/comparison.
|
Very Good reflective narrative, showing a clear level of understanding of the process of learning. Clearly linked relevant future action plan included.
|
|
60 - 69
Good
|
Good, clear competent communication with mainly logical progression of thoughts but with some grammatical errors/hesitations /mistakes.
|
Good grasp of topic/question and some of its implications presented.
Knowledge and understanding is demonstrated. Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations.
|
Good business insight and application.
Some variety of breadth, depth and integration of literature/data into work.
|
Good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation and appropriate recommendations but more ideas/points could be addressed /developed further.
|
Good reflective narrative with understanding of the process of learning. A good level of reflection and changes/actions planned.
|
|
50 - 59
Clear Pass
|
Satisfactory: Basic appropriate communication skills in evidence but not always clearly expressed – in terms of correct grammar or use of words or delivery.
See CASE with feedback
|
Satisfactory: Basic content / level of knowledge of topic/question. Addresses part of the task - some errors / omissions/ misconceptions in content/ calculations. May benefit from further research.
|
Satisfactory business insight and application.
Limited integration with literature/ data. Use of literature/data but limited in breadth OR depth.
See Information Managers (LRC) with feedback
|
Satisfactory: Basic evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation and some recommendations. More development and comment needed on superficial points.
See CASE with feedback
|
Satisfactory: Simple record of content with some basic reflection. Some evidence of understanding of the process of learning having taken place and actions planned.
|
|
40 - 49
Marginal Fail
|
Weak: poor communication skills with a number of errors, hesitations and / or poor exchange of ideas.
Must see CASE with feedback
|
Weak: Limited content / knowledge/ calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question. Does not meet all the learning outcomes.
|
Weak: Unsatisfactory evidence of business application and insight.
Work needs to show better links between practical application and theory.
Must see Information Managers (LRC) with feedback
|
Weak: Limited evidence of discussion/analysis/critical evaluation and/or recommendations. Development and comment needed rather than description. Must see CASE with feedback
|
Weak: Poor record of content or a simple diary with insufficient reflection or action planning.
|
|
20 – 39
Clear Fail
|
Inadequate communication skills. Very poor use of language, little fluency or logical progression of thought. Rambling speaking style.
Must see CASE with feedback
|
Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge/calculations. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes.
|
Inadequate: Lacks evidence of business application and insight. Some literature irrelevant to topic.
Must see Information Managers (LRC) with feedback
|
Inadequate: Lacking / inadequate level of discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation and recommendations. Too anecdotal or descriptive.
Must see CASE with feedback
|
Inadequate or incomplete reflective work, or a descriptive diary without reflection on learning and/or action planning.
|
|
0 – 19
Little or Nothing of merit
|
Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory, incomprehensible incomplete or inappropriate communication.
Must see CASE with feedback
|
Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of knowledge demonstrated.
Content irrelevant / not appropriate to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes.
|
Nothing of merit: No evidence of appropriate business application and insight or use of literature.
Must see Information Managers (LRC) with feedback
|
Nothing of merit: No evidence of appropriate discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation and/or recommendations.
Must see CASE with feedback
|
Nothing of merit: Little or no attempt to submit appropriate log with reflection.
|
|
KEY ACTIONS
To achieve a higher grade, next time you need to… (Where to go?) Who can help?)
|
1.
2.
3.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
