ASSESSMENT CRITERIA RUBRIC FOR TASK 3 – MGT726, S1 2018
Task 3
The purpose of this task is to provide an overview of the management problem, research question and objectives and methodology taking on board feedback from Task 2, with the primary focus being to present the findings and provides conclusions and implications for practice.
Product: PowerPoint presentation (40 – 60 slides) – equivalent to 2000 words
Marks possible: 100 (weighted at 40% of final grade)
Learning Outcomes
- Examine a specialist area of professional management
- Develop skills to analyse, evaluate and reflect critically on complex information, problems, concepts and theories to devise recommended solutions to a management
- Effectively communicate implications and conclusions to specialist and non-specialist
Assessment Criteria
- Presentation of a concise background to the research and statement of the managerial problem, research question and research objectives
- Summary of the literature review including a concise synthesis of previous research and relevant secondary data search leading to the research gap
- Identification and concise justification of the methodology
- Presentation of results linked to each research objective
- Presentation of limitations and identification of areas for future research
- Presentation of recommendations and managerial implications
- Communication and referencing
| Criteria | HD | DN | CR | P | F |
| Presentation of a concise background to the research and statement of the managerial problem, research question and research objectives taking on board feedback from Task 2.
(5%) |
Provided a concise and succinct background to the research.
Cleary articulated a pertinent management problem. Clearly articulated a highly appropriate research question and well-developed research objectives. Took on board all the feedback from Task 2. |
Provided a concise background to the research.
Cleary articulated a relevant management problem. Clearly articulated appropriate research question and well-developed research objectives. Took on board most the feedback from Task 2. |
Provided a solid background to the research.
Stated a useful management problem. Stated well-formulated research question and research objectives. Took on board some of the feedback from Task 2. |
Presented an adequate background to the research.
Stated the management problem. Stated appropriate research question and research objectives. Took on board limited feedback from Task 2. |
Did not present an adequate background to the research.
Did not state the management problem clearly. Did not state the research question and/or research objectives clearly. Did not take on board feedback from Task 2. |
| Mark ( /5) | Comment: | ||||
| Summary of the literature review including a concise synthesis of previous research and relevant secondary data search leading to the research gap taking on board feedback from Task 2.
(10%)
|
Presented a concise, critical and well synthesized review of highly relevant literature and secondary sources, culminating in an insightful evaluation of the research gap leading to the research question. Took on board all the feedback from Task 2. | Presented a concise, critical and synthesized review of relevant literature and secondary sources, culminating in a discussion of the research gap leading to the research question. Took on board most the feedback from Task 2. | Presented a brief review of the relevant literature and attempted to integrate relevant sources of theory and secondary sources to identify the research gap leading to the research question.
Took on board some of the feedback from Task 2. |
Presented an adequate summary of the literature, but could have been more critical and better integrated. Explained the research gap leading to the research question.
Took on board limited feedback from Task 2 |
Did not present a review of the literature or did not identify and discuss relevant literature and /or secondary sources.
Did not identify the gap in the literature. Did not take on board feedback from Task 2. |
| Mark: ( /10) | Comment: | ||||
| Identification and concise justification of the methodology taking on board feedback from Task 2.
(10%)
|
Concisely articulated and justified a highly appropriate methodology for addressing the management problem.
Took on board all the feedback from Task 2. |
Concisely and clearly justified an appropriate methodology for addressing the management problem. Took on board most the feedback from Task 2. | Clearly discussed the method used to address the management problem.
Took on board some of the feedback from Task 2. |
Explained the method used to address the management problem. Some lack of clarity.
Took on board limited feedback from Task 2 |
Did not discuss the methods used to address the management problem or presented very limited coverage of methods used.
Did not take on board feedback from Task 2. |
| Mark: ( /10) | Comment: | ||||
| Criteria | HD | DN | CR | P | F |
| Presentation of results linked to each research objective
(50%)
|
Provided a highly professional presentation of results linked to each research objective.
Closely linked the findings to previous research. Used a range of effective and professionally developed tables, figures, charts etc. to present the findings in a user-friendly manner. Ended with a very clear and concise summary of how the research question has been answered. |
Provided a professional presentation of results linked to each research objective.
Linked the findings to previous research. Effectively used tables, figures, charts etc. to present the findings in a user-friendly manner. Ended with a very clear summary of how the research question has been answered. |
Provided a clear presentation of results linked to each research objective.
Discussed some of the results in the light of previous research. Made some use of tables, figures, charts etc. to present the findings. Ended with a clear summary of how the research question has been answered. |
Presented the results but did not adequately link results to each research objective.
Used some tables, figures, charts etc. to present the findings. Provide an adequate explanation of how the research question has been answered. |
Did not provide a clear presentation of the results linked to each research objective.
Did not make use of tables, figures, charts etc. to present the findings. Did not provide a summary of how the research question has been answered. |
| Mark: ( /50) | Comment: | ||||
| Presentation of limitations and identification of areas for future research
(5%)
|
Critically evaluated the research to identify limitations and discussed highly pertinent areas for future research. | Evaluated the research to identify limitations and discussed valuable areas for future research. | Discussed the research to identify limitations and relevant areas for future research. | Described the research limitations and identified limited areas for future research. | Did not discuss the limitations of the research or provided an inadequate discussion of limitations.
Did not identify relevant areas of future research. |
| Mark ( /5) | Comment: | ||||
| Presentation of recommendations and managerial implications
(10%)
|
Presented a compelling set of fully justified recommendations based on the research objectives and critical and insightful interpretation of the results focused on how to effectively address the management problem. | Presented a strong set of justified recommendations linked to the research objectives and based on careful interpretation of the results, with a clear focus on how to effectively address the management problem. | Discussed recommendations that were linked to the research objectives and findings which would assist management to solve the management problem. | Presented recommendations but needed to be more closely linked to the research objectives and findings and/or more closely matched to the management problem. | Did not present recommendations or provided inappropriate or limited number of recommendations to address the management problem. |
| Mark ( /10) | Comment: | ||||
| Communication and referencing
(10%) |
Presented a highly professional PowerPoint presentation. Used highly appropriate font, bullet points, relevant imagery, effective use of white space, etc.
Harvard style, error free referencing both on the slides and in the list of references. Error free. |
Presented a professional PowerPoint presentation. Used appropriate font, bullet points, relevant imagery, effective use of white space, etc.
Harvard style, mostly error free referencing both on the slides and in the list of references. Mostly error free. |
Presented an effective PowerPoint presentation. For the most part, used appropriate font, bullet points, imagery, etc.
Harvard style referencing both on the slides and in the list of references. Limited spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors. |
Presented an acceptable PowerPoint presentation. At times did not make adequate use of appropriate font, bullet points or imagery.
Referencing provided both on the slides and in the list of references. Some referencing missing or incorrect. Some errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar. |
Did not use PowerPoint format or presented a PowerPoint that was not in correct presentation format (e.g. presented long sentences and entire paragraphs rather than bulleted points, did not use any visuals, used too small font size, etc.)
Numerous errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar. |
| Mark ( /10) | Comment: | ||||
| Total Mark | General Comment:
|
||||
