CIS8500

CIS8500_Assignment1_MarkingCriteria-2018S11.docx

Home >Information Systems homework help >CIS8500

CIS8500 Assignment 1 Marking Scheme

Student Name:		Student ID:
Marker Initials:		Date Marked:

This document is intended to both grade and provide feedback on CIS8500 Assignment 1. Please note the mark given for each activity and the areas that were of issue in your submission.

Marking summary

Report: Structure and Presentation		/ 5
Report: Introduction		/ 5
Report Section 1 – Critical Review		/ 25
Report Section 2 – Additional References		/ 15
Report Section 3 – Literature Gap		/ 15
Report: Conclusions		/ 5
Report: Referencing and Appropriateness of Sources		/ 10
Appendix 1 Critical Review Journal and Reflection Report		/ 20

Final Mark	0	/ 100

Note: Major Academic Misconduct will incur loss of all marks for the assignment and may lead to failure of the course.

CIS8500 – Assignment 1 – Marking Criteria

Report: Structure and Presentation

5	4	3.5	2.5	1.5	0
Report Structure shows professional presentation of material resulting in clarity of message and information.	Report Structure carefully and logically organised.	Report Structure shows organisation and coherence.	Report Structure shows some attempt to organise in a logical manner.	Report Structure is Disorganised / incoherent.	No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.
Excellent clarity of expression. Grammar and spelling accurate suitable tone and style for target audience.	Expression fluent. Grammar and spelling accurate except for minor lapses in target audience focus.	Grammar and spelling mainly accurate at times language is unclear and/or unsuitable for target audience.	Grammar and/or spelling contains errors. Language is poorly executed or uses too much jargon.	Frequent mistakes in grammar and/or spelling. Style not appropriate for target audience.
Title page and table of contents / list of tables / list of figures accurate and show professional appearance.	Title page and table of contents / list of tables / list of figures accurate.	Adequate title page and table of contents / list of tables / list of figures.	Some flaws in title page and/or table of contents / list of tables / list of figures.	Poor formatting, or missing title page, table of contents / list of tables / list of figures.
Appendices are clearly labelled and referenced.	Appendices used to provide appropriate supporting material	Adequate use of appendices to improve report readability.	Appendices not clearly identified or referenced.

Report: Introduction

5	4	3.5	2.5	1.5	0
Introduction professionally developed and broken into logical sections. Clearly provides some background information for the report context, state the purpose of the report, clarify key terms and indicate the scope of the report.	Introduction mostly professionally developed and broken into logical sections. Clearly provides some background information for the report context, state the purpose of the report, clarify key terms and indicate the scope of the report.	Introduction broken into logical sections. Mostly provides some background information for the report context, state the purpose of the report, clarify key terms and indicate the scope of the report.	Some flaws in the Introduction structure, background information for the report context, the purpose of the report, key terms and the scope of the report.	Poor formatting, or missing elements in the Introduction, background information for the report context, the purpose of the report, key terms and the scope of the report.	No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Report Section 1 – Critical review

25	21	17	13	9	0
Provides excellent critical review following the guidance provided by Lee (1995) – mainly suggestions 1.1, 1.5 and 1.6; and clearly answering the given questions to synthesize information from the allocated research article.	Clearly presents critical review following the guidance provided by Lee (1995) – mainly suggestions 1.1, 1.5 and 1.6; and answering the given questions to synthesize information from the allocated research article.	Adequate demonstration of the critical review following the guidance provided by Lee (1995) – mainly suggestions 1.1, 1.5 and 1.6; and answering the given questions to synthesize information from the allocated research article.	Limited demonstration of the critical review following the guidance provided by Lee (1995) – mainly suggestions 1.1, 1.5 and 1.6; and answering the given questions to synthesize information from the allocated research article.	Incomplete or inappropriate demonstration of the critical review following the guidance provided by Lee (1995) – mainly suggestions 1.1, 1.5 and 1.6; and answering the given questions to synthesize information from the allocated research article.	No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Report Section 2 – additional references

15	13	10	8	5	0
Provides excellent discussion of the three relevant article references with an account of how those articles are relevant to the allocated research paper.	Clearly discusses the three relevant article references with an account of how those articles are relevant to the allocated research paper.	Adequate discussion of the three relevant article references with an account of how those articles are relevant to the allocated research paper.	Limited discussion of the three relevant article references with an account of how those articles are relevant to the allocated research paper.	Incomplete or inappropriate discussion of the three article references with an account of how those articles are relevant to the allocated research paper.	No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Report Section 3 – LITerature gap

15	13	10	8	5	0
Provides excellent discussion of literature gaps in the relevant research topic and a relevant research question for further investigation	Clearly discusses literature gaps in the relevant research topic and a relevant research question for further investigation	Adequate discussion of literature gaps in the relevant research topic and a relevant research question for further investigation	Limited discussion of literature gaps in the relevant research topic and a research question for further investigation	Incomplete or inappropriate discussion of literature gaps in the relevant research topic and a research question for further investigation	No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Report: Conclusions

5	4	3.5	2.5	1.5	0
Conclusions professionally developed. Clearly provides a summary of the main points or findings of the report, and relates to the objectives of the report.	Conclusions mostly professionally developed. Clearly provides a summary of the main points or findings of the report, and relates to the objectives of the report.	Conclusions mostly provides a summary of the main points or findings of the report, and relates to the objectives of the report.	Some flaws in the Conclusions’ summary of the main points or findings of the report, or relating to the objectives of the report.	Poor formatting, or missing elements in the Conclusions’ summary of the main points or findings of the report, or relating to the objectives of the report.	No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Report: Referencing and Appropriateness of Sources

5	4	3.5	2.5	1.5	0
In-text referencing fully compliant with Harvard AGPS referencing method.	In-text referencing compliant with Harvard AGPS referencing method with some minor lapses.	In-text sources are mostly referenced correctly. Minor errors in referencing method.	Gaps in in-text referencing – including incorrect structure and missing references included in the List of References.	Unsatisfactory in-text referencing. Few or no references or inconsistent reference method. *This may be the result of plagiarism.*	No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.
List of References fully compliant with Harvard AGPS referencing method.	List of References compliant with Harvard AGPS referencing method with some minor lapses.	List of References sources are mostly correct. Minor errors in referencing method.	Gaps in List of References – including incorrect structure and missing references included in the in-text references.	Unsatisfactory List of References. Few or no references or inconsistent reference method. *This may be the result of plagiarism.*
Wide range of appropriate sources (at least 4) appropriately analysed, applied and discussed.	Variety of appropriate sources (at least 4) appropriately analysed, applied and discussed.	Clear evidence of research and application of textbook concepts.	References are used in a purely descriptive way indicating limitations of understanding.	No evidence of research or irrelevant sources cited.

Report: Appendix 1 Journal and reflection report

Compelling and well- structured account

Activities clearly described. Initiative clearly demonstrated.

Good structure and comprehensive account of activities

Adequate structure and account of activities

Adequate structure but limited description of activities

Poor structure and/or inadequate list of activities. Incoherent account

No attempt made or diverse from what is acceptable.

Reflective writing is excellent in terms of description, self-evaluation and action plans

Reflective writing is good in terms of description, self-evaluation and action plans

Reflective writing is acceptable in terms of description, self-evaluation and action plans

Reflective writing is limited in terms of description, self-evaluation and action plans

Reflective writing is poor in terms of description, self-evaluation and action plans