BUSS5020 – Essay 2 Rubric 2020 Semester 2
| HD 85% – 100% | D 75% – 84% | CR 65% – 74% | PASS 50% – 64% | FAIL 0 – 49% | |
| Research Depth, synthesis and application of relevant and quality research. 20% |
Extensive use and synthesis of relevant, quality peer-reviewed journal articles. Additional high quality and relevant research is evident. Source quality and credibility has been critically considered. |
Very good use and synthesis of relevant, quality peer-reviewed journal articles. Additional research is generally of a high quality and relevance. |
Shows a good understanding of the role of research and uses some quality peer-reviewed articles. There is some room for more relevant selection and application of research. |
Demonstrates some depth and application of relevant, quality research. Some use of quality peer-reviewed articles. However, in-depth use of quality research is lacking. There is significant room for more relevant selection and application of research. |
Research is consistently of very limited relevance and quality. |
| Depth of Critical Analysis Quality and depth of the analysis. 35% |
Excellent critical analysis displaying comprehensive evidence of examining or engagement with information given by the task. Consistent, logical, and showed awareness of hidden assumptions or potential bias. No improvement was needed. |
Very good critical analysis demonstrating very good evidence of examining or engagement with information given by the task. Mostly consistent, logical, and showed awareness of hidden assumptions or potential bias. But there were minor areas that could be improved. |
Good critical analysis demonstrating some evidence of examining or engagement with information given by the task. But there were some areas where the analysis was inconsistent. |
Reasonable critical analysis demonstrating some evidence of examining or engagement with information given by the task. But there were too many areas where the analysis was inconsistent. |
Limited critical analysis, demonstrating little or no evidence of examining or engagement with information given by the task. |
| Evaluation Quality and depth of the evaluation. 20% |
High quality, in-depth critical evaluation showing outstanding depth of insight into multiple perspectives on the different options and arrives at a synthesised and balanced overall recommendation or judgement. |
Good quality, in-depth critical evaluation showing considerable depth of insight into multiple perspectives on the different options and arrives at a synthesised and balanced overall recommendation or judgement. Some areas for improvement. |
Demonstrated a reasonable evaluation, where discussion on the different options was critically engaged, and a synthesised and reasonable overall recommendation or judgement was presented. Some areas for improvement. |
Generally basic critical evaluation. Discussion on the different options was presented, and a basic recommendation or judgement was arrived at. However, the overall recommendation or judgement was weakly justified and lacking in quality. Major areas for improvement remain. |
The level of evaluation was very limited. The paper failed to arrive at any overall judgement or addressing the task question. |
| Communication Quality and clarity of business or academic writing, presentation and structure 20% |
The work showed a near publishable use of business or academic writing style. Information was presented in flawlessly clear and organised manner. |
Very good presentation. Information was presented in a clear and organised and structured manner. |
The level of communication showed a good understanding of business or academic writing style. Information was appropriately categorised. |
The level of communication showed a basic understanding of business or academic writing style. |
The level of communication was not appropriate for an academic or business writing. There were frequent errors in spelling and grammar. The work caused significant strain on the reader. |
| Referencing Adherence to APA 6th edition referencing style. 5% |
Referencing was consistently accurate in content and style, adhering to the APA 6th edition. |
Referencing was very good in adhering to APA 6th edition, but there was one mistake which appeared consistently throughout the text. |
Good referencing, in adhering to APA 6th edition, but there were minor issues throughout the text. |
In-text and end of text referencing was present where required, but with errors. Did mostly adhere to APA 6th edition, but considerable room for improvement. |
Some in-text references missing, or some quotation marks missing. Some references that are occasionally inaccurate in content or some items missing from reference list. Did not adhere to APA 6th edition. |
Word Count Penalty
Where a student exceeds the word limit length, the student will lose 10% of the total marks. However, when the submission is 10% above the word length, they will lose 10% of the total mark, but for each 10% over,
they will lose a further 10% of the total marks.
Late Penalty
BUSS5020 – Essay 2 Rubric 2020 Semester 2
Late submission penalty will be 5% per day after the due date for up to 10 calendar days, after which a mark of zero is applied. The closing date is 10 calendar days after the due date.