case study

MNG93002: Assessment 3 Marking Criteria

Assessment criteria Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction

KNOWLEDGE 30%

Substandard (poor, limited,

confused) knowledge of

case study industries and

strategy concepts. Scant

evidence of wide reading

and research.

Satisfactory knowledge of

case study industries and

strategy concepts. Limited

evidence of wide reading

and research.

Sound knowledge of case

study industries and strategy

concepts. Some evidence of

wide reading and research.

Superior knowledge of case

study industries and strategy

concepts. Clear evidence of wide

reading and research.

Superlative knowledge of case

study industries and strategy

concepts. Substantial evidence

of wide reading and research.

APPLICATION 30%

Substandard synthesis of

knowledge in addressing

task. Limited/incoherent

analysis that does not relate

to and/or inform

discussion. Scant

application of strategic

concepts.

Satisfactory synthesis of

knowledge in addressing

task. Analysis is adequate

and partially applied to

discussion. Limited

application of strategic

concepts.

Sound synthesis of

knowledge in addressing

task. Analysis is sound and

appropriately applied to

discussion. Some application

of strategic concepts.

Superior synthesis of knowledge

in addressing task. Analysis is

sound, informed and clearly

applied to discussion. Clear

application of strategic concepts.

Superlative synthesis of

knowledge in addressing task.

Analysis is sound, informed,

cogent and clearly applied to

discussion. Substantial

application of strategic concepts.

JUDGEMENT 20%

Substandard evaluation of

case study industry

evidence and analysis.

Answer to research

question is not provided,

incoherent and/or

unsupported by analysis.

Satisfactory evaluation of

case study industry evidence

and analysis. Answer to

research question is

coherent and partially

supported by analysis.

Sound evaluation of case

study industry evidence and

analysis. Answer to research

question is coherent, useful

and appropriately supported

by analysis.

Superior evaluation of case

study industry evidence and

analysis. Answer to research

question is coherent, feasible and

clearly supported by analysis.

Superlative evaluation of case

study industry evidence and

analysis. Answer to research

question is coherent, feasible,

thoughtful and manifestly

supported by analysis.

COMMUNICATION 10%

Substandard writing skills

demonstrating little clarity,

coherence and cogency.

Frequent grammar,

spelling, punctuation and

formatting errors and poor

report format and

presentation.

Satisfactory writing skills

demonstrating adequate

clarity, coherence and

cogency. Minor grammar,

spelling, punctuation and

formatting errors and

satisfactory report

presentation.

Sound writing skills

demonstrating moderate

clarity, coherence and

cogency. Minimal grammar,

spelling, punctuation and

formatting errors and

competent report

presentation.

Superior writing skills

demonstrating consistent clarity,

coherence and cogency.

Virtually no grammar, spelling,

punctuation and formatting

errors and high-quality report

presentation.

Superlative writing skills

demonstrating sustained clarity,

coherence and cogency. No

grammar, spelling, punctuation

and formatting errors.

Professional quality report

presentation.

REFERENCING 10%

Substandard sourcing of

material and formatting in

Harvard style. Less than 5

credible sources.

Satisfactory sourcing of

material and formatting in

Harvard style. At least 5

credible sources.

Sound sourcing of material

and formatting in Harvard

style At least 7 credible

sources.

Superior sourcing of material

and formatting in Harvard style.

At least 9 credible sources.

Superlative sourcing of material

and formatting in Harvard style.

More than 10 credible sources.