Topic: case study question and answers

WEIGHTING

CRITERIA FOR MARKING

Excellent

Q1: > 8 marks

Q2: >11.1 marks

Q3: > 6.5 marks

Q4: >6.5 marks

All elements of the question are accounted for in a relevant, correct and concise response which evidences clear understanding of content matter and the relationship between the elements. Required aspects are presented in balance, any content gaps evident are minor and do not detract from the overall comprehensive nature of the response. A concept map may be provided* which clearly supports reasoning and relates to the written response. Ideas are presented in paragraph form in a coherent (logical) and cohesive (linked) manner and response falls within designated word count range**. Applies APA conventions appropriately and accurately in text and post text; in text citations match Reference List, number required is evident. Message is clear and for the most part expression, grammar and language use is error free.

Good

Q1: 6.5 – 8 marks

Q2: 9.1 - 11.1 marks

Q3: 5.3 - 6.4 marks

Q4: 5.3 - 6.4 marks

Elements of the question are mostly present in a relevant response, though some content gaps might be evident in that some parts may be missing or less developed giving a sense of imbalance, minor inaccuracies may be evident or relationship between elements may have needed to be explored more. A concept map* may be evident but may be slightly unclear in parts or there is a sense it may have been more developed, detailed or accurate. Ideas are presented in paragraph form in a generally coherent (logical) and cohesive (linked) manner, and response falls within 10% of the designated word count range**. Applies APA conventions in text and post text, though issues may be evident with use of sources, e.g. mis-citation, cited source not in Ref List, procedural errors in Ref list. Message is generally clear, some expression, grammar and language issues may be evident though not overly distracting.

Satisfactory

Q1: 5.1 - 6.4 marks

Q2: 7.1 - 9.0 marks

Q3: 4.1 - 5.2 marks

Q4: 4.1 - 5.2 marks

Response has been attempted and broadly covers required aspects though there are clear content gaps with some parts underdeveloped or missing. Answer may display content/accuracy issues or some relationships between elements are not explored. A concept map* may be evident but is clearly underdeveloped, simplistic or may display content accuracy or interpretation issues. Ideas are presented mostly in paragraph form with some listing of ideas, and are generally logical and cohesive, though at times expression or content choices may cause strain on the reader’s accessing of message and may be distracting. Response may be slightly out of word count range** or at the minimum. APA conventions attempted though errors/inaccuracies or gaps may be evident and of a frequency which detracts from the value of the paper.

Not Satisfactory #

Q1: 0 - 5.0 marks

Q2: 0 - 7 marks

Q3: 0 – 4 marks

Q4: 0 – 4 marks

Response has been attempted but answer contains irrelevant or inaccurate information or may display clear and major gaps or imbalance in the information provided. Logic to the response may not be evident or difficult to follow; cohesive elements are lacking that cause the response to read like a list rather than a linked paragraph. Answers may be provided in bullet-list form. A concept map* may be provided but has clear errors or displays a lack of engagement with or understanding of question. APA referencing may not be evident or what has been presented displays clear and frequent issues in application, accuracy or relevance. Word count** may be clearly outside 10% requirement.

# A non-attempt at a response or evidence of academic misconduct will gain 0 marks.