MGMT5050 | Marking Rubric: Assessment 2: Report | 2025 Term 2, V1.0
Page 1 of 2
1. Demonstrates knowledge of Tractor Supply and the selected critical issue using the 5W framework
| Level |
Description |
| Unsatisfactory |
Demonstrates little or no knowledge of Tractor Supply and the selected critical issue. Lacks details and context. No use of the 5W framework. |
| Below Expectation |
Knowledge of Tractor Supply and the critical issue is weak and superficial. Limited or incorrect use of the 5W framework. May include factual inaccuracies. |
| Pass |
Shows basic knowledge of Tractor Supply and the critical issue, though the analysis is generic. Evidence is correct with no major errors, but application of the 5W framework may be limited. |
| Credit |
Shows solid understanding of the facts surrounding Tractor Supply and the critical issue, with appropriate and accurate evidence. The 5W framework is adequately applied. |
| Distinction |
Demonstrates a thorough grasp of Tractor Supply and the critical issue, showcasing a comprehensive understanding of the topic’s complexities. The 5W framework is applied effectively, and evidence presented is both appropriate and extensive. |
| High Distinction |
Develops an insightful and comprehensive discussion of Tractor Supply and the critical issue, fully integrating the 5W framework. Evidence is not only appropriate and extensive but also demonstrates original insights, showing a deep understanding of the issue’s nuances. |
| Marks |
0, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 |
2. PESTEL analysis and summary of the selected critical issue
| Level |
Description |
| Unsatisfactory |
PESTEL analysis is missing. |
| Below Expectation |
PESTEL analysis is incorrectly or poorly applied. It is applied generically without focus on the critical issue. Summary is generic. |
| Pass |
PESTEL analysis is largely applied correctly but may be generic. Summary shows some understanding but lacks depth. |
| Credit |
PESTEL analysis is correctly applied. Summary demonstrates some depth of understanding of the critical issue. |
| Distinction |
Uses the PESTEL analysis in an appropriate manner. Summary shows critical thinking about the critical issue. |
| High Distinction |
Uses the PESTEL analysis in an appropriate manner. Summary shows critical thinking of the critical issue, creating deep insights. |
| Marks |
0, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 |
3. Analysis of key ethical/sustainability concerns
| Level |
Description |
| Unsatisfactory |
Fails to incorporate SDGs, ethical framework(s) and other course concepts in the analysis of the ethical issue. |
| Below Expectation |
Incorporates SDGs, ethical framework(s), or course concepts, but the connection to the ethical issue is unclear, underdeveloped, or lacks critical insight. The analysis remains superficial, and additional sources are minimal. |
| Pass |
Incorporates relevant SDGs, ethical framework(s), or other course concepts in the analysis, though the discussion may be surface-level or lacking complexity. Uses fewer than three additional academic sources. |
| Credit |
Demonstrates a clear and competent use of SDGs, ethical framework(s), and other course concepts. Draws on course concepts and at least 3 additional academic sources. The analysis is mostly well-developed. |
| Distinction |
Provides a detailed and insightful analysis of the ethical issue, with strong integration of SDGs, ethical framework(s), and other course concepts. Draws on at least 3 additional academic sources. Demonstrates understanding of complexity. |
| High Distinction |
Offers a sophisticated and in-depth analysis that fully integrates SDGs, ethical framework(s), and other course concepts. Demonstrates deep understanding, critical insight, and originality. At least 3 academic sources are expertly used. |
| Marks |
0, 9, 15, 21, 24, 30 |
MGMT5050 | Marking Rubric: Assessment 2: Report | 2025 Term 2, V1.0
Page 2 of 2
4. Recommendations
| Level |
Description |
| Unsatisfactory |
No recommendations proposed. |
| Below Expectation |
Proposes recommendations, but they are minimal, vague, impractical, or irrelevant to the critical issue. |
| Pass |
Provides 2-3 reasonable recommendations that address the critical issue. Risks are identified but may not be fully explored. Mitigation strategies may lack detail. OR only provides a single, well-developed recommendation. |
| Credit |
Offers 2-3 clear and relevant recommendations that are well-aligned with the critical issue. Risks are identified and discussed with some depth. Mitigation strategies are feasible. |
| Distinction |
Proposes 2-3 strong, well-justified recommendations. Risks are clearly identified and discussed in detail with practical mitigation strategies. |
| High Distinction |
Provides 2-3 insightful, innovative, and highly relevant recommendations. Risks are comprehensively identified and critically analysed. Creative and highly effective mitigation strategies proposed. |
| Marks |
0, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15 |
5. Reflection on learning
| Level |
Description |
| Unsatisfactory |
Reflection is absent, generic, or unrelated. Lacks personal insight or engagement. |
| Below Expectation |
Minimal self-disclosure. Connections to experiences are superficial. Reflection lacks depth and may be factually incorrect. |
| Pass |
Attempts to connect personal experiences to course concepts. Limited analysis and critical approach. |
| Credit |
Connects course concepts to personal growth. Some concrete examples used. May lack depth. |
| Distinction |
Demonstrates open, reflective, and thoughtful self-appraisal. Concrete examples show learning and development. |
| High Distinction |
Provides deep, insightful reflection with strong self-appraisal. Critically engages with personal experience and integrates course concepts. |
| Marks |
0, 6, 10, 14, 16, 20 |
6. Structures text logically and communicates clearly and professionally
| Level |
Description |
| Unsatisfactory |
Poor structure. Inappropriate formatting, excessive quotes, grammar issues. Unprofessional and outside word limit. |
| Below Expectation |
Weak structure. Poor paragraph development, weak transitions, frequent grammar errors. Meets word limit. |
| Pass |
Adequate structure with weak transitions. Minor spelling/grammar issues. Readability may be impacted. |
| Credit |
Well-organized sections. Clear language, mostly error-free. Complex ideas explained reasonably well. |
| Distinction |
Well-sequenced, engaging structure. Effective transitions. Complex ideas expressed clearly with minimal errors. |
| High Distinction |
Publishable quality. Engaging, fluent, and accurate expression. Professional tone. |
| Marks |
0, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 |
7. References sources using Harvard referencing system
| Level |
Description |
| Unsatisfactory |
Inaccurate or no references. |
| Pass |
Demonstrates some referencing proficiency. |
| High Distinction |
Error-free use of Harvard referencing system. |
| Marks |
0, 3, 5 |
Let me know if you’d like this in Word or PDF format too.