iRubric: MN30222 UG rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

MN30222 UG

Extended 5000 essay for undergraduates

Rubric Code: X5448B

By dmcmahon

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Business

Type: Assignment

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Dissertation BA4 Dissertation
	Poor (N/A)	Acceptable (N/A)	Fair (N/A)	Good (N/A)	Very Good (N/A)	Excellent (N/A)
Percentage band equivalent 0 %	Poor 39% and lower	Acceptable 40-49%	Fair 50-59%	Good 60-69%	Very Good 70-79%	Excellent 80% and up
ORIGINALITY 5 % Original in the sense of the application of an established perspective in a new setting, or combining established perspectives to look at a particular topic.	Poor No originality demonstrated in either topic choice, specific setting, themes or perspectives adopted.	Acceptable A little originality in setting but little in topic choice, themes & perspectives adopted.	Fair Some originality in setting and in topic choice, but little in the themes & perspectives adopted.	Good Considerable originality in setting & topic choice, some originality in the themes & perspectives adopted.	Very Good Good originality in the combination of setting, topic choice, themes & perspectives adopted.	Excellent Highly original in the combination of setting, topic choice, themes & perspectives adopted.
RESEARCH AIMS & OBJECTIVES 10 % A clear definition of the scope of your chosen issue. What you want to investigate/demonstrate/test and why you want to do it.	Poor No clear aims or objectives identifiable.	Acceptable Some aims or objectives identifiable in the work, although not explicitly stated.	Fair Some aims or objectives put forward explicitly but with insufficient clarity.	Good Aims and objectives put forward explicitly with sufficient clarity	Very Good Aims and objectives put forward explicitly with good clarity.	Excellent Aims and objectives put forward explicitly and very clearly.
USE OF ACADEMIC LITERATURE 15 % Academic literature should give you an insight into how the topic has been discussed in the past & give you ideas for an academic framework for your analysis.	Poor Limited to 5 or less academic references, mostly used lightly (e.g. with passing reference)	Acceptable Limited to 5 or less academic references but these are explained/ described a little. The references do not inform the research topic well.	Fair Between 6-9 academic references the most significant of which are explained/ described a little. The references inform the research topic to a small degree.	Good Between 6-9 academic references the most significant of which are explained/ described in some detail. The references inform the research topic well.	Very Good More than 10 academic references the most significant of which are explained/ described in considerable detail. The references provide good insight into the research topic.	Excellent More than 10 academic references the most significant of which are explained/ described in detail. The references provide excellent insight into the research topic.
CLEAR ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK 15 % There should be a justification for the framework employed based on solid academic foundations.	Poor No analytical framework identified. Just a series of issues/points presented in turn with no logic for the order.	Acceptable No analytical framework identified. Just a series of issues/points presented but in a logical order.	Fair Identification of analytical framework(s) from the literatures, but not well employed/ justified.	Good Identification of analytical framework(s) from the literatures, employed /justified to some extent.	Very Good Identification of analytical framework(s) from the literatures, employed & justified to a good extent.	Excellent Identification of analytical framework(s) from the literatures, strongly employed & justified.
ANALYTICAL INSIGHT 20 % The work should not be purely descriptive, but be critical, reflective, evaluative.	Poor No analytical content. Entirely descriptive and poorly desribed.	Acceptable Very little analytical content, largely descriptive with some flaws >4.	Fair Some analytical content but still overly descriptive although with a few flaws <4. Attempts a little criticism/ reflection/ evaluation	Good Descriptive and analytical content are in balance with a few inaccuracies <4. Some criticism/ reflection/ evaluation	Very Good A good balance of analytical content with a few inaccuracies < 4. Good criticism/ reflection/ evaluation.	Excellent An excellent balance of analytical content with no flaws or inaccuracies. Strong criticism/ reflection/ evaluation.
DETAIL, DEPTH AND ACCURACY 10 % You need to strike an appropriate balance between the breadth of the issues you consider and the depth into which you explore each one.	Poor Overly broad and shallow in content. No elaboration of points. OR Overly narrow in content, no appreciation for broader contextual or influential issues. Frequent lack of accuracy.	Acceptable Overly broad and shallow in content. A little elaboration of points. OR Narrow in content, with little appreciation for broader contextual or influential issues. Occasional lack of accuracy.	Fair Breadth balanced to a degree with depth in the presentation and discussion of issues for the chosen topic. Occasional lack of accuracy.	Good Breadth balanced to a degree with depth in the presentation and discussion of issues for the chosen topic. No lack accuracy.	Very Good Highly appropriate balance of breadth and depth in the presentation and discussion of issues for the chosen topic. Occasional lack of accuracy.	Excellent Highly appropriate balance of breadth and depth in the presentation and discussion of issues for the chosen topic. No lack accuracy.
LOGIC OF STRUCTURE 10 % Your structure should allow you to demonstrate your evolution of thought and understanding.	Poor Poor, random logic for the structure.	Acceptable Some implicit logic to the order of the issues identifiable.	Fair Some explicit logic to the order of the issues identifiable.	Good A sense of progression between issues is clear.	Very Good A good logical structure. A sense of progression between issues is very clear.	Excellent A good logical structure. A sense of progression or relatedness between issues is very clear.
CITATIONS AND REFERENCING 10 % These are a crucial tool in research. Your sources allow me to assess whether your work is credible; whether errors are yours or your source's.	Poor >4 citations omitted. >4 References given without full bibliographic details. Absence of internet sources details and access dates.	Acceptable <4 citations/ references omitted. <4 Citations given inaccurately (name, dates or format of citation) <4 references given without full bibliographic details. Internet sources details given in a broad web address only.	Fair Citations used accurately in the text but <4 missing corresponding references. Yet remaining references given are fully bibliographically detailed. All references given are fully detailed but <4 citations are missing in the text. Internet sources give details of title and a broad web address only.	Good Accurate citations, each with corresponding references, but some minor bibliographic details in the references missing. Internet sources give details of title and html link.	Very Good Perfect use of citations and full and detailed references given. But not in the Harvard Style. Internet sources give details of title and html link and a date accessed.	Excellent Perfect use of citations and full and detailed references given correctly formatted in the Harvard Style. Internet sources give details of title and html link and a date accessed.
GENERAL PRESENTATION & CARE 5 % This is an indicator as to the overall quality of the work. It considers typographical errors, non-deliberate font changes, inconsistent formatting, non labelling of diagrams, or non-identification of sources on Figures & Tables etc.	Poor >6 of the following type errors: typological errors, non-deliberate changes in font, misalignment of paragraphs, missing titles for figures & tables, failure to provide source of data in figures and tables.	Acceptable Lacks attention to detail in presentation. Between 4-6 of the following type errors: typological errors, non-deliberate changes in font, misalignment of paragraphs, missing titles for figures & tables, failure to provide source of data in figures and tables.	Fair Sufficient attention to detail in presentation. 1-3 of the following type errors: typological errors, non-deliberate changes in font, misalignment of paragraphs, missing titles for figures & tables, failure to provide source of data in figures and tables.	Good Good attention to detail in presentation. 1-3 typological errors.	Very Good Very good attention to detail in presentation.	Excellent Excellent attention to detail in presentation. Evidence of extra effort to enhance presentation appropriately.

Subjects:

Business

Types:

Assignment

Discuss this rubric