Digital Marketing

6MARK015W

Timed Assessment

Rubric

Criteria

(weighting)

80

-

100 An

outstanding piece of

work

.

70

-

79 An excellent

piece of work

.

60

-

69 A good piece

of work

.

50

-

59 A sound

piece of work

.

40

-

49 An adequate

piece of work

.

30

-

39 FAIL2: An

inadequate piece

of work

.

0

-

29 FAIL: A poor

piece of

work

.

Knowledge and

understanding:

Comprehension of the

implications of the question

and extensive and accurate

knowledge and

understanding.

Technical vocabulary used

appropriately.

(

4

0%)

Outstanding

understanding of

topics

, clear

identification of

strands to be linked.

All process aspects

dealt with very

confidently.

Sophisticated

use of

technical vocabulary.

Excellent

understanding of

topics, clear

identification of

strands to be linked.

All process aspects

dealt with ver

y

confidently.

Appropriate use of

technical vocabulary.

Good understanding

of topics, identification

of strands to be

linked. Process

aspects dealt with

confidently. Technical

vocabulary employed.

Sound understanding

of topics, identification

of some

strands which

may not all be linked.

Process aspects dealt

with in the main.

Some technical

vocabulary employed.

Adequate

understanding of key

topic, strands may not

all be identified or

linked. Process

aspects may not all be

dealt with. Technical

vocabula

ry employed

to an extent.

Inadequate

understanding of

topic, few strands

identified or linked.

Few process

aspects are dealt

with.

Limited

t

echnical

vocabulary.

Inadequate

understanding of topic,

few or no strands

identified. Lack of

linking. Few or no

pro

cess aspects dealt

with. Very limited

technical vocabulary.

Argument:

Awareness of underlying

theoretical and

methodological issues,

showing an understanding of

how they link to the question.

Critical, analytical argument,

demonstrating independent

thinki

ng, sensibly structured

and supported.

Knowledge of relevant

theories and models,

demonstrating the ability to

be selective in the range of

material used, and the

capacity to synthesise rather

than describe.

(

4

0%)

Outstanding

con

t

extualisation

of

key issues

.

I

ndependent thought

and s

ynthesis of

theory and models in

critical evaluation.

Creative and critical

analysis of complex

material.

Outstanding

introduction, body and

conclusion

, structured

by very clearly

signpost

ed

argument.

S

trong

, well

-

l

inked

paragraphs including

topic sentences,

development of points

and summar

ies

.

Excellent

contextualisation

of

key issues. Synthesis

of theory and models

in critical evaluation.

Insightful analysis of

the material.

Excellent

introduction, body and

conclus

ion

. Clearly

structured by

the

argument. S

trong

,

well

-

linked,

paragraphs includ

e

topic sentences,

development of points

and summar

ies

.

Good identification of

key issues.

Confident

s

ynthesis of theory

and models.

Confident

and critical analysis of

the

material.

Good

introduction, body and

conclusion

,

developing the

argument in a very

structured way

.

In all

cases p

a

ragraphs link,

develop points and

include summaries.

Sound identification of

key issues.

Independent

s

ynthesis

of theory and models.

Clear un

derstanding

of the material.

Sound

introduction, body and

conclusion

,

developing the

argument

in a

structured way

.

In

most cases,

paragraphs link,

develop points and

include summaries.

Adequate

identification of key

issues. Limited

synthesis of theory

and

models.

Descriptive

understanding of the

material.

Adequate

introduction, body and

conclusion

with some

evidence of structured

argument

development

. In

some

cases, paragraphs

link, develop points

and include

summaries.

Inadequate

identification of key

issu

es.

Inadequate

knowledge

of theory

and models.

Some

weaknesses and

omissions.

Inadequate structure

with poorly

developed

introduction, body

and conclusion with

little argument

development.

Inadequate

paragraph

construction, little or

no linking.

Inadequate

identification of key

issues.

Misunderstandings or

flaws

in knowledge of

theory and models.

Significant

weaknesses and

omissions.

Inadequate

structure with very

poorly developed

introduction, body and

conclusion with little or

no argument

development.

Ina

dequate paragraph

construction, no

linking.

Presentation:

No significant grammatical or

spelling errors;

written

/presented

clearly and

concisely; consistent

referencing meeting

Westminster Harvard style.

(

2

0%)

Outstanding academic

writing

/presentation

with no grammatical or

typographical errors.

Extensive research

using a range of

authoritative sources

and references

meeting Harvard

Westminster style

.

Excellent academic

writing

/presentation

with no grammatical or

typographical errors.

Extensive research

using a range of

authoritative sources

and references

meeting Harvard

Westminster style

.

Good academic

writing

/presentation

which may have very

few if any grammatical

or typographical

errors.

Systematic

research using mainly

authoritative sources

an

d references

meeting Harvard

Westminster style.

Sound academic

writing

/presen

tation

which may have

occasional

grammatical or

typographical errors.

Sound research using

mainly given sources

and references

meeting Harvard

Westminster style

.

Adequate academic

writing

/presentation

whi

ch may have some

grammatical or

typographical errors.

Minimal research

using given sources

and references mainly

meeting Harvard

Westminster style.

Inadequate

academic

writing

/present

ation

which may have

frequent

grammatical or

typographical errors.

Inadequate researc

h

using minimal

sources

and

referencing

.

Inadequate academic

writing

/

presentation

which may have many

grammatical or

typographical errors.

Inadequate research

using inadequate

sources

and

referencing

.

6MARK015W Timed Assessment Rubric

Criteria (weighting) 80-100 An

outstanding piece of

work.

70-79 An excellent

piece of work.

60-69 A good piece

of work.

50-59 A sound

piece of work.

40-49 An adequate

piece of work.

30-39 FAIL2: An

inadequate piece

of work.

0-29 FAIL: A poor

piece of work.

Knowledge and

understanding:

Comprehension of the

implications of the question

and extensive and accurate

knowledge and

understanding.

Technical vocabulary used

appropriately. (40%)

Outstanding

understanding of

topics, clear

identification of

strands to be linked.

All process aspects

dealt with very

confidently.

Sophisticated use of

technical vocabulary.

Excellent

understanding of

topics, clear

identification of

strands to be linked.

All process aspects

dealt with very

confidently.

Appropriate use of

technical vocabulary.

Good understanding

of topics, identification

of strands to be

linked. Process

aspects dealt with

confidently. Technical

vocabulary employed.

Sound understanding

of topics, identification

of some strands which

may not all be linked.

Process aspects dealt

with in the main.

Some technical

vocabulary employed.

Adequate

understanding of key

topic, strands may not

all be identified or

linked. Process

aspects may not all be

dealt with. Technical

vocabulary employed

to an extent.

Inadequate

understanding of

topic, few strands

identified or linked.

Few process

aspects are dealt

with. Limited

technical

vocabulary.

Inadequate

understanding of topic,

few or no strands

identified. Lack of

linking. Few or no

process aspects dealt

with. Very limited

technical vocabulary.

Argument:

Awareness of underlying

theoretical and

methodological issues,

showing an understanding of

how they link to the question.

Critical, analytical argument,

demonstrating independent

thinking, sensibly structured

and supported.

Knowledge of relevant

theories and models,

demonstrating the ability to

be selective in the range of

material used, and the

capacity to synthesise rather

than describe. (40%)

Outstanding

contextualisation of

key issues.

Independent thought

and synthesis of

theory and models in

critical evaluation.

Creative and critical

analysis of complex

material. Outstanding

introduction, body and

conclusion, structured

by very clearly

signposted argument.

Strong, well-linked

paragraphs including

topic sentences,

development of points

and summaries.

Excellent

contextualisation of

key issues. Synthesis

of theory and models

in critical evaluation.

Insightful analysis of

the material. Excellent

introduction, body and

conclusion. Clearly

structured by the

argument. Strong,

well-linked,

paragraphs include

topic sentences,

development of points

and summaries.

Good identification of

key issues. Confident

synthesis of theory

and models. Confident

and critical analysis of

the material. Good

introduction, body and

conclusion,

developing the

argument in a very

structured way. In all

cases paragraphs link,

develop points and

include summaries.

Sound identification of

key issues.

Independent synthesis

of theory and models.

Clear understanding

of the material. Sound

introduction, body and

conclusion,

developing the

argument in a

structured way. In

most cases,

paragraphs link,

develop points and

include summaries.

Adequate

identification of key

issues. Limited

synthesis of theory

and models.

Descriptive

understanding of the

material. Adequate

introduction, body and

conclusion with some

evidence of structured

argument

development. In some

cases, paragraphs

link, develop points

and include

summaries.

Inadequate

identification of key

issues. Inadequate

knowledge of theory

and models. Some

weaknesses and

omissions.

Inadequate structure

with poorly

developed

introduction, body

and conclusion with

little argument

development.

Inadequate

paragraph

construction, little or

no linking.

Inadequate

identification of key

issues.

Misunderstandings or

flaws in knowledge of

theory and models.

Significant

weaknesses and

omissions. Inadequate

structure with very

poorly developed

introduction, body and

conclusion with little or

no argument

development.

Inadequate paragraph

construction, no

linking.

Presentation:

No significant grammatical or

spelling errors;

written/presented clearly and

concisely; consistent

referencing meeting

Westminster Harvard style.

(20%)

Outstanding academic

writing/presentation

with no grammatical or

typographical errors.

Extensive research

using a range of

authoritative sources

and references

meeting Harvard

Westminster style.

Excellent academic

writing/presentation

with no grammatical or

typographical errors.

Extensive research

using a range of

authoritative sources

and references

meeting Harvard

Westminster style.

Good academic

writing/presentation

which may have very

few if any grammatical

or typographical

errors. Systematic

research using mainly

authoritative sources

and references

meeting Harvard

Westminster style.

Sound academic

writing/presentation

which may have

occasional

grammatical or

typographical errors.

Sound research using

mainly given sources

and references

meeting Harvard

Westminster style.

Adequate academic

writing/presentation

which may have some

grammatical or

typographical errors.

Minimal research

using given sources

and references mainly

meeting Harvard

Westminster style.

Inadequate

academic

writing/presentation

which may have

frequent

grammatical or

typographical errors.

Inadequate research

using minimal

sources and

referencing.

Inadequate academic

writing/presentation

which may have many

grammatical or

typographical errors.

Inadequate research

using inadequate

sources and

referencing.