literature Review

A. Content

(weight = 25% of marks)

1) Unsatisfactory. Much of the information on Organisational Commitment (OC) is inaccurate or the level of detail is insufficient to demonstrate a basic level of understanding.

2) Pass. The review reflects a basic understanding of OC and the strategies that can contribute to its development. Extending the scope of the review will help to demonstrate a deeper level of knowledge.

3) Credit. The review scope is sufficiently broad and a good understanding of OC is demonstrated. At times the specific focus of your review (what you want to say about OC) is unclear or changes tack.

4) Distinction. The review effectively describes OC and its influence on positive organisational outcomes. Further analysis of the key concepts will help to support the particular focus of your review.

5) HD. The review reflects an extremely strong understanding of OC and its influence on positive organisational outcomes. Your strong analysis gives the review a unique and purposeful quality.

B. Writing Quality

(weight = 25% of marks)

1) Unsatisfactory. The writing is ineffective due to numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors.

2) Pass. Proof-read the final document to identify and correct minor errors in spelling and grammar. Plan for and undertake additional drafts as this will help to improve the quality of your written work.

3) Credit. A good standard of writing is provided (no spelling errors) however there is room for improvement in terms of higher-order writing skills (e.g. vocabulary and sentence structure).

4) Distinction. Higher-order writing skills are evident in parts. Greater consistency will improve the overall quality of your work.

5) HD. The quality of writing in the report is exceptional. Well done.

C. Use of academic Sources

(weight = 25% of marks)

1) Unsatisfactory. Information which clearly comes from other published sources is not cited or information that is cited makes no meaningful contribution to the discussion. This can include instances where information attributed to a particular source is false (i.e. the source does not discuss or cover the nominated information).

2) Pass. The information in your review is appropriately cited however too much of it is simply replicated from the original source. Work on developing your paraphrasing skills by contextualising the information; i.e. explicitly link it to the focus of your discussion.

3) Credit. A good effort has been made to synthesise information from different sources to support or explain a particular point. Work on further developing the quality and/or consistency of this strong academic work.

4) Distinction. Information from academic sources are effectively weaved into the discussion, thereby helping to fully describe the concept of OC and its relationship with Organisational outcomes.

5) HD. In addition to the Distinction qualities, a strong effort has also been made to cite empirical research findings that support and complement the discussion.

D. Referencing and Formatting

(weight = 25% of marks)

1) Unsatisfactory. The assignment document is unprofessionally presented and/or the required number of appropriate references are not provided.

2) Pass. The assignment document meets a satisfactory standard of presentation but several (at least 2) formatting features have not been adopted and there are errors with the referencing style.

3) Credit. Several (at least 2) formatting features have not been adopted or there are errors with the referencing style.

4) Distinction. One formatting feature has not been adopted or there is a notable error with the referencing style.

5) HD. The assignment document adopts all the required referencing and formatting features and is professionally presented.

U

P

C

D

HD

A.

0-1

2.5 - 3

3.5

4

4.5 -5

B.

0-1

2.5 - 3

3.5

4

4.5 -5

C.

0-1

2.5 - 3

3.5

4

4.5 -5

D.

0-1

2.5 - 3

3.5

4

4.5 -5