ASSESSMENT RUBRIC – Summer 2023
QUESTION 1
Fail Below expectation Satisfactory Very good Excellent Outstanding
Introduction (×1 weighting) Unfocussed introduction.
Fails to identify any useful
concepts. There is little, if
any, evidence of
understanding (1)
Mostly unfocussed
introduction. Few key
concepts identified. Major
errors identified throughout
(2)
Somewhat focussed and
engaging introduction.
Identifies some useful key
concepts but some minor,
with occasional major errors
are evident (3)
Mostly focussed and
engaging introduction.
Relevant key concepts are
clearly identified with the
occasional minor error
evident (4)
Well-focussed and well
engaging introduction. Most
key concepts are clearly
identified (5)
Highly focussed and highly
engaging introduction. All key
concepts are identified and
summarised (6)
Ideas (×1 weighting) Ideas developed and
presented in a disconnected
manner, limited ideas and
omission of key information.
Serious irrelevance (1)
Ideas developed and
presented mostly in a
disconnected manner,
vagueness, some irrelevant
information (2)
Ideas are presented
somewhat in a connected
manner. Good ideas with
some development. Good
use of relevant information
(3)
Ideas developed and
presented mostly in a
connected manner. Properly
developed idea. Adequately
argued but includes some
careless analysis (4)
Ideas developed and
presented in a connected
manner, generally well
argued but some arguments
require more careful
clarification (5)
Ideas developed and
presented are highly
innovative. Rigorously
argued, very high standard of
critical thinking. Substantial
concept used (6)
Content (×1 weighting) Content is irrelevant to the
question. Failed to
demonstrate the
understanding pertinent to
the analysis and
recommendation. Lack of
arguments and evidence (1)
Content is mostly irrelevant
to the question. Progression
of content inconsistent or
repetitious. Provide some
arguments, however, lack of
focus on some paragraphs
(2)
Content is somewhat
relevant to the question.
Mostly logical progression of
content. Adequate arguments
and evidence (3)
Content is mostly relevant to
the question. Logical
progression of content.
Although the discussion is
engaging however, at times it
lacks critical thinking and
convincing arguments (4)
Content is relevant to the
question. Discussion is
engaging and demonstrate
critical thinking, convincing
arguments. Ample evidence.
Logical progression of
content leading to fluency (5)
Content is highly relevant to
the question, content is
unique to the questions
asked and clear arguments
on the reasons of
restructuring plans,
objectives, and
recommendation, which
makes the discussion highly
relatable. Content delivers a
high- quality professional
perspective. Logical
progression of content
leading to fluency (6)
Language/effective
communication (×1
weighting)
Unclear explanation with
little, if any, reference to
relevant assumptions, data
and evidence. Work is poorly
sequenced, with numerous
grammatical and spelling
errors affecting readability (1)
A somewhat confusing
explanation, with some major
errors in use of assumptions,
data and/or evidence. There
are major grammatical and
spelling errors which impact
on the readability and
sequence of your work (2)
A mostly clear explanation,
with some useful
assumptions, data and/or
evidence considered from the
case or external sources.
Though there are some
grammatical and spelling
errors, it doesn't impact too
greatly on the readability and
sequencing of your work (3)
Clear explanation, with useful
assumptions, data and
evidence considered from the
case or external sources.
Your work is logically
sequenced, clear and easy to
read, with only minor
grammatical and/or spelling
errors (4)
Relevant and clear
explanation, with relevant
assumptions, data and
evidence considered from the
case or external sources.
Your work is clear and easy
to read, with a highly logical
sequence and very few (if
any) grammatical/spelling
errors (5)
Highly relevant and clear
explanation, with highly
relevant assumptions, data
and evidence considered
from the case or external
sources. Language is very
potent and constructive. Your
work shows highly logical
sequence and appropriate
vocabulary and sentence
structure (6)
Conclusion (×1 weighting) Unclear and mostly do not
follow from preceding
paragraphs. Provides no
future research directions
and policy implications (1)
Conclusions somewhat follow
from preceding paragraphs.
Provides vague future
research directions and
policy implications (2)
Conclusions mostly follow
from preceding paragraphs.
Provides some future
research directions and
policy implications (3)
Conclusions follow from
preceding paragraphs with
some minor errors. Provides
useful future research
directions and policy
implications (4)
Conclusions follow the major
themes of the essay and are
very well supported from
preceding paragraphs.
Provides sensible and
insightful future directions
and policy implications (5)
Conclusions summarize the
connections between the
information discussed in the
preceding paragraph and the
paragraph’s controlling idea
and leaves the reader with
highly insightful and critically
thought provoking future
research directions and
policy implications (6)
2
QUESTION 2
Fail Below expectation Satisfactory Very good Excellent Outstanding
Introduction (×1 weighting) Unfocussed introduction.
Fails to identify any useful
concepts. There is little, if
any, evidence of
understanding (1)
Mostly unfocussed
introduction. Few key
concepts identified. Major
errors identified throughout
(2)
Somewhat focussed and
engaging introduction.
Identifies some useful key
concepts but some minor,
with occasional major errors
are evident (3)
Mostly focussed and
engaging introduction.
Relevant key concepts are
clearly identified with the
occasional minor error
evident (4)
Well-focussed and well
engaging introduction. Most
key concepts are clearly
identified (5)
Highly focussed and highly
engaging introduction. All key
concepts are identified and
summarised (6)
Ideas (×1 weighting) Ideas developed and
presented in a disconnected
manner, limited ideas and
omission of key information.
Serious irrelevance (1)
Ideas developed and
presented mostly in a
disconnected manner,
vagueness, some irrelevant
information (2)
Ideas are presented
somewhat in a connected
manner. Good ideas with
some development. Good
use of relevant information
(3)
Ideas developed and
presented mostly in a
connected manner. Properly
developed idea. Adequately
argued but includes some
careless analysis (4)
Ideas developed and
presented in a connected
manner, generally well
argued but some arguments
require more careful
clarification (5)
Ideas developed and
presented are highly
innovative. Rigorously
argued, very high standard of
critical thinking. Substantial
concept used (6)
Content (×1 weighting) Content is irrelevant to the
question. Failed to
demonstrate their
understanding pertinent to
the question. Lack of
arguments and evidence (1)
Content is mostly irrelevant
to the question. Progression
of content inconsistent or
repetitious. Provide some
arguments, however, lack of
focus on some paragraphs
(2)
Content is somewhat
relevant to the question.
Mostly logical progression of
content. Adequate arguments
and evidence (3)
Content is mostly relevant to
the question. Logical
progression of content.
Although the discussion is
engaging however, at times it
lacks critical thinking and
convincing arguments (4)
Content is relevant to the
question. Discussion is
engaging and demonstrate
critical thinking, convincing
arguments. Ample evidence.
Logical progression of
content leading to fluency (5)
Content is highly relevant to
the question, content
thoughtfully analyses market
reactions and clear argument
on the leadership of Sewing,
which make the discussion
highly relatable. Content
delivers a high-quality
professional perspective.
Logical progression of
content leading to fluency (6)
Language/effective
communication (×1
weighting)
Unclear explanation with
little, if any, reference to
relevant assumptions, data
and evidence. Work is poorly
sequenced, with numerous
grammatical and spelling
errors affecting readability (1)
A somewhat confusing
explanation, with some major
errors in use of assumptions,
data and/or evidence. There
are major grammatical and
spelling errors which impact
on the readability and
sequence of your work (2)
A mostly clear explanation,
with some useful
assumptions, data and/or
evidence considered from the
case or external sources.
Though there are some
grammatical and spelling
errors, it doesn't impact too
greatly on the readability and
sequencing of your work (3)
Clear explanation, with useful
assumptions, data and
evidence considered from the
case or external sources.
Your work is logically
sequenced, clear and easy to
read, with only minor
grammatical and/or spelling
errors (4)
Relevant and clear
explanation, with relevant
assumptions, data and
evidence considered from the
case or external sources.
Your work is clear and easy
to read, with a highly logical
sequence and very few (if
any) grammatical/spelling
errors (5)
Highly relevant and clear
explanation, with highly
relevant assumptions, data
and evidence considered
from the case or external
sources. Language is very
potent and constructive. Your
work shows highly logical
sequence and appropriate
vocabulary and sentence
structure (6)
Conclusion (×1 weighting) Unclear and mostly do not
follow from preceding
paragraphs. Provides no
future research directions
and policy implications (1)
Conclusions somewhat follow
from preceding paragraphs.
Provides vague future
research directions and
policy implications (2)
Conclusions mostly follow
from preceding paragraphs.
Provides some future
research directions and
policy implications (3)
Conclusions follow from
preceding paragraphs with
some minor errors. Provides
useful future research
directions and policy
implications (4)
Conclusions follow the major
themes of the essay and are
very well supported from
preceding paragraphs.
Provides sensible and
insightful future directions
and policy implications (5)
Conclusions summarize the
connections between the
information discussed in the
preceding paragraph and the
paragraph’s controlling idea
and leaves the reader with
highly insightful and critically
thought provoking future
research directions and
policy implications (6)
3
STRUCTURE, REFERENCE AND FORMAT
Fail Below expectation Satisfactory Very good Excellent Outstanding
Structure, Reference and
Format (×2 weighting)
Absence of references, non
compliant formatting, no
logical structure (0)
No logical structure, with
major referencing errors.
Formatting requirements
have been ignored (1)
Lack of logical structure with
some minor and major
referencing errors evident.
Formatting requirements are
mostly non-compliant (2)
A somewhat useful structure,
but there are minor errors in
referencing and formatting
requirements (3)
Well organised and clearly
structured work, with
appropriate sources correctly
referenced. The format
addresses task requirements,
with the occasional minor
error (4)
Highly organised and
logically structured work, with
relevant sources correctly
referenced. The format is
fully compliant with task
requirements (5)