|
Category
|
Less than 70%
|
70%-79%
|
80%-89%
|
90%-100%
|
|
Introduction and Background
|
Limited introduction on the topic and aims and objectives of the assignment
|
Focused topic, but incomplete aims and objectives. Context is incomplete
|
Aims and objectives clearly articulated in the introduction. Context very well-articulated
|
Excellent introduction. The aims, objectives and roadmap of the report provided
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding of key issues
|
Minimal understanding of the key issues surrounding the topic
|
Key issues identified, but are lacking in focus and development
|
Good understanding of the key issues; but, fail to contextualize the importance
|
Excellent understanding of the key issues and contextualizing the importance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence of Research
|
Little evidence of research other than citing the literature; important work not cited; key evidence ignored
|
Evidence of reading; Literature and key concepts applied, but not adequately developed
|
Very good use of the literature; use literature to analyze arguments and support the findings
|
Demonstrate high level of scholarship; engage critically with the literature; publishable report
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance Measures
|
Identification and application of the ratios are weak and lack awareness regarding the key aims and objectives
|
Identification and application of the ratios is reasonably researched covering the key ones with generally sound arguments
|
Identification and application of the ratios is well researched covering the key ones with informed and rationalised arguments
|
Identification and application of the ratios is critically researched with insightful arguments covering all key sources and arguments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analysis
|
Mostly descriptive; no analysis of the key issues; data analysis inaccurate
|
Some critical analysis; arguments contains inaccuracies
|
Relevant analysis; good use of the ratio measures in the analysis
|
Comprehensive analysis; utilized both the ratio measures and literature in the analysis
|
|
Presentation, evaluation of evidence, clarity, structure and conclusion
|
Some evidence provided; poor citation; lack of structure; grammatical mistakes
|
Appropriate evidence assessed critically; weak interpretation of the findings; reasonable and clear presentation; few grammatical mistake
|
Critical assessment of the selected literature; use literature to inform arguments; some evidence of independent thought; demonstrate good writing skills; accurate citation; very few grammatical errors
|
Excellent critical assessment of the literature; excellent use of literature to inform arguments; evidence of independent thought and insight; excellent writing skills; accurate citation; no grammatical errors
|