|
CW2-Criteria
|
|
|
0 Fail
|
2 (1-29) Fail
|
3 (30-39) Fail
|
4 (40-49) Pass
|
5 (50-59) Pass
|
6 (60-69) Merit
|
7 (70-79) Distinction
|
8 (80-89) Distinction
|
9 (90-99) Distinction
|
10 (100) Distinction
|
|
Learning Pillars
|
Learning Objective
|
Weight
|
No attempt, No submission, Absent
|
Poor, unsatisfactory, weak
|
Inadequate, incomplete, limited
|
Basic, satisfactory, acceptable
|
Reasonable, fair, appropriate
|
Competent, commendable, effective
|
Strong, proficient, highly effective
|
Articulated, highly impressive, excellent
|
Superb, outstanding, original
|
Faultless, publishable, industry standard
|
|
Subject Knowledge for LO2:
Understand and explain the process of management decision making.
|
LO2
|
30%
|
No attempt, No submission, Absent
|
Incorrect understanding of the theory. Is not meeting the assignment criteria.
|
Limited evidence of understanding and explaining the process of management decision making.
|
There is a great deal of information that is not clearly meeting the criteria; however the learner is slightly meeting the criteria and there is slightly evidence of understanding.
|
The process of management decision making has been clearly addressed by the learner. Many good points made; but there is not any creative thinking.
|
Critical explanation based on independent sources; The learner selected / designed
and applied appropriate
methods and techniques.
|
Conclusions have been arrived at through synthesis of ideas and have been justified. The validity of results has been evaluated using defined criteria
|
Realistic improvements have been proposed against defined characteristics for success. Innovation and creative thought throughout.
|
The unforeseen has been accommodated. Superb work and evidence from the learner based on theories of decision making.
|
The learner has demonstrate convergent/ lateral/ creative thinking. Receptiveness to new ideas is evident. The work is publishable.
|
|
Subject Knowledge for LO4:
Understand the range of tools and techniques available as support for managerial decision making.
|
LO4
|
30%
|
No attempt, No submission, Absent
|
Incorrect understanding of the theory. Is not meeting the assignment.
requirements
|
Limited evidence of understanding the range of tools and techniques available as support for managerial decision making.
|
There is basic evidence of understanding. The learner provided some types of techniques and tools. Slightly is meeting the criteria.
|
There provided clear evidence of understanding. The learner presented tools and techniques available as support for managerial decision making.
|
Critical explanation based on independent sources; The learner selected / designed
and applied appropriate
methods and techniques.
|
Conclusions have been arrived at through synthesis of ideas and have been justified. The validity of results has been evaluated using defined criteria.
|
Realistic improvements have been proposed against defined characteristics for success. Innovation and creative thought throughout.
|
The unforeseen has been accommodated. Superb work and evidence from the learner based on frameworks and analysis.
|
The learner has demonstrate convergent/ lateral/ creative thinking. Receptiveness to new ideas is evident. The work is publishable.
|
|
Reflection to the Case Study:
Application of theory to a real business scenario/ decision.
|
LO2, LO4
|
25%
|
No attempt, No submission, Absent
|
No logical sequence of information
|
There is not any evidence of reflection and understanding.
|
Present the reflection in a basic -organised manner. Slightly meeting the criteria with basic reflection to the requested hotel.
|
Reasonable use of relevant, credible theories gathered from a range of sources to support learners reflection. Reflective conclusion has been applied.
|
Realistic improvements have been proposed against defined characteristics for success.
|
Strong reflection with a real case/scenario. Self-criticism of approach has taken place.
|
The learner has used critical reflection to evaluate own work and justify valid conclusions.
|
Demonstrate/convergent/lateral/ creative thinking/ Outstanding reflection has been provided.
|
The learner is meeting industry's standards. Receptiveness to new ideas is evident. The work is publishable.
|
|
Use of Academic Referencing and Assignment Structure:
Referencing and citations in line with Coventry University London Harvard guidelines.
Use of references to support the work presented.
Use of Academic References Breadth and depth of knowledge displayed, including relevant theories, supported by academic references.
|
LO2, LO4
|
15%
|
No attempt, No submission, Absent
|
Poor attempt to cite or reference any of the sources used. Very poor breadth and depth of research with no evidence provided of the relevant theories.
|
Incomplete referencing and citations, that are not in line with Coventry University London Harvard Referencing guidelines. Students have made little effort to support their work with very poor quality sources.
|
The presentation follows a referencing style that
mostly complies with the
Coventry University London Harvard Referencing, though the in text
citations are not made
purposefully.
|
Cited all sources of information and images accurately to demonstrate the credibility and authority of the information.
|
Effective referencing and citations in line with Coventry University London Harvard Referencing guidelines. Students work has been supported by a good range of adequate quality sources.
|
Use of references and quotes to evaluate or illustrate specific points of operations
|
Excellent referencing and citations in line with Coventry University London Harvard Referencing guidelines. Students work has been supported by an excellent range of adequate quality sources.
|
Near perfect referencing and citations in line with Coventry University London Harvard Referencing guidelines. Students work has been thoroughly supported by an excellent range of very high quality sources. Outstanding breadth and depth of research with evidence of innovative use of the relevant theories and evidence of wider reading.
|
Student gathered high quality of information form a variety of different sources, including books, journals, licensed, databases, websites and primary documents. Sources are relevant and an excellent evaluation of the websites using an accepted evaluation tool has taken place.
|
vandchuchu
Criteria.docx
0
