Management of Technology and Innovation (Apple): Rubric
| Criterion | NNN | Pass | Credit | Distinction | High Distinction | |
| Content and application of design thinking.
60% |
Content does not adequately demonstrate a postgraduate standard of detail and thought.
No evidence of design thinking (<30) |
Content somewhat superficial or with some gaps in understanding.
Some evidence of design thinking. (30) |
Good coverage of the topic with clearly articulated explanation of the topic. Reasonable fit between theory and practice.
Limited application of design thinking. (36) |
Thorough coverage of the topic. Good application of theory. Good use of credible sources.
Good understanding and application of design thinking. (42) |
Comprehensive understanding; insightful discussion; excellent and relevant application of theory. Multiple and credible references used.
Comprehensive understanding and application of total design thinking model. (>48) |
|
| 60 | ||||||
| Structure
20% |
Reader cannot understand the foundations of the topics from the information provided. Poor logic. No evidence provided to support arguments.
Unclear conclusions and recommendations (<10) |
Basic intent covered; analysis and arguments could be more convincing with some evidence provided.
Generic or somewhat irrelevant conclusions and recommendations (10) |
Reader understands the arguments presented through focused analysis and evidence.
Relevant conclusions and recommendations which are a mix of generic and specific. (12) |
Reader has a good sense of the analysis and evidence which is well discussed in argument. Insights are drawn from synthesised information.
Relevant and specific conclusions and recommendations (14) |
Readers’ understanding of the analysis and arguments is clear; logical and well organised; detailed and insightful analysis; structured arguments; synthesis.
Insightful conclusions and recommendations drawing well from the discussion (>16) |
|
| 20 | ||||||
| Writing mechanics
10% |
Layout is confusing. Logic, flow & use of language difficult. Many spelling/ grammar errors.
(<5)
|
Layout is adequate with acceptable logic flow and use of language. Some misspellings grammatical errors.
(5) |
Overall presentation is easy to digest; language succinct and well chosen. Less than four errors.
(6)
|
Good presentation, content and language easy to read and draw conclusions. No more than two errors.
(7) |
Overall style and use of language encourages ease of comprehension and insightful conclusions. (>8) | |
| 10 | ||||||
| Evidence and referencing
10% |
No evidence provided to support arguments. Sources don’t support the research question.
(<5) |
Arguments could be more convincing; some evidence provided. Appropriately and well referenced with credible resources.
(5) |
Reader understands arguments presented through focused evidence. Range of high quality resources to support evidence.
(6) |
Reader has a good sense of the evidence which is well discussed in argument. Thorough coverage of the topic, with references to support robust analysis.
(7) |
Readers’ understanding of the evidence and arguments is clear. Comprehensive coverage of the topics supported by references well used in the structure of the argument. Creative and engaging.
(>8) |
|
| 10 | ||||||
| 100 | ||||||
| Out of 20 | ||||||
