MGTS1601 Team Evaluation Report
Marking Rubric
Below Expectations Meets Expectations Very Good Outstanding
Criterion 1
Executive Summary (10%)
The choice of content for your Executive Summary was not
appropriate and/or did not adequately reflect the purpose
of the report, the overall effectiveness of your team,
summary of your analysis, and/or recommendations for
improving the effectiveness of your team. The summary
was unclear and/or difficult to follow.
Though lacking focus in some places, your Executive
Summary touches on the purpose of the report, the overall
effectiveness of your team, a summary of your analysis, and
an overview of recommendations for improving the
effectiveness of your team. The summary was generally
clear.
Your Executive Summary addresses the purpose of the
report, the overall effectiveness of your team, a summary
of your analysis, and an overview of recommendations for
improving the effectiveness of your team. The summary
was generally clear and relatively succinct.
Your Executive Summary insightfully reflects the purpose of
the report, the overall effectiveness of your team, a
summary of your analysis, and an overview of key
recommendations for improving the effectiveness of your
team. The summary was clear, comprehensive and
succinct.
Criterion 2
Introduction (5%)
You have not provided a satisfactory summary of the
importance of teamwork in organisations. You have not
provided a summary of your team's effectiveness, or the
summary is missing or inappropriate. You have not
adequately summarised your argument or your argument is
missing. You have not provided a satisfactory description of
the structure of your report, or your argument needs
significant improvement.
You have provided a satisfactory summary of the
importance of teamwork in organisations, supported by
some scholarly sources. You have provided a clear context
to your report. You have provided a summary of your
team's effectiveness. You have summarised your argument
although it is unclear in places. You have provided a
satisfactory description of the structure of your report,
although this needs improvement.
You have provided a clear explanation of the importance of
teamwork in organisations, supported by useful
evidence/sources. You have provided a good context to
your report. You have provided a clear summary of your
team's effectiveness. You have provided a clear sentence
summarising your argument, including the factors that
facilitated and constrained your team's effectiveness. You
have provided a very clear and concise description of the
structure of your report.
You have provided a clear and convincing explanation of
the importance of teamwork in organisations, supported by
relevant scholarly sources. You have provided a persuasive
and well‐described context to your report. You have
provided a clear and comprehensive summary of your
team's effectiveness. You have provided a clear sentence
summarising your argument, including the factors that
facilitated and constrained your team's effectiveness. You
have provided a very clear and concise description of the
structure of your report.
Criterion 3
Analysis of the Effectiveness
of the Team (15%)
You have not provided an adequate description of your
team's effectiveness using a relevant model from the
academic literature. You have not provided a satisfactory
overall assessment of your team's effectiveness. There is
a lack of scholarly literature, evidence and/or examples to
support your analysis.
You have described your team's effectiveness across some
relevant criteria. A more thoughtful use of a model from
the academic literature would have enhanced your
analysis. You have provided a satisfactory overall
assessment of your team's effectiveness. Evidence and/or
examples are provided, though some of these were not
entirely relevant.
You have provided a clear description of your team's
effectiveness across at least three relevant criteria, based
on an appropriate model from the academic literature.
You have provided a generally good overall assessment of
your team's effectiveness. This analysis is supported by
useful evidence and/or examples.
You have provided a clear and comprehensive description
of your team's effectiveness across at least three relevant
criteria, based on a very appropriate model from the
academic literature. You have provided a convincing
overall assessment of your team's effectiveness. This
analysis is well‐supported by convincing evidence and/or
examples.
Criterion 4
Analysis of the Factors
Affecting the Team's
Effectiveness (30%)
You have been more descriptive, rather than analytical, in
discussing the factors contributing to and/or constraining
your team's effectiveness. There is a lack of any clear
evidence or examples to support your analysis, with little if
any linkages made between your personal team
experience and the scholarly literature. Overall, your
argument for your chosen factors lacks conviction.
You have provided some useful analysis of 2 factors
contributing to, and 2 factors constraining, your team's
effectiveness. Though too descriptive in places, your
analysis is supported by some relevant evidence and/or
examples from your own experience. You have highlighted
some appropriate linkages between your personal team
experience and the scholarly literature. Though not always
logical, your argument for your chosen factors is somewhat
convincing.
You have provided a clear and relevant analysis of 2 factors
contributing to, and 2 factors constraining, your team's
effectiveness. Your analysis is supported by useful scholarly
evidence and examples from your own experience. You
have demonstrated some independent thinking, providing
some sound linkages between your personal team
experience and the scholarly literature. Your argument for
your chosen factors is generally convincing.
You have provided a critical and comprehensive analysis of
2 factors contributing to, and 2 factors constraining, your
team's effectiveness. Your analysis is supported by highly
appropriate scholarly evidence and relevant examples from
your own experience. You have demonstrated original,
independent and insightful thinking, providing a logical link
between your personal team experience and the scholarly
literature. Overall, your argument for your chosen factors is
extremely convincing.
Criterion 5
Recommendations to
Improve Effectiveness (20%)
Your recommendations for improving your team's
effectiveness are either missing, inappropriate or not linked
to your earlier analysis.
While drawing on your own analysis, recommendations for
improving your team's effectiveness require a clearer link to
the scholarly literature. You have provided two feasible
recommendations for consideration, although these could
be improved.
Most recommendations for improving your team's
effectiveness are derived from appropriate scholarly
literature and your own relevant analysis. You have
provided two mostly feasible and practical
recommendations.
Recommendations for improving your team's
effectiveness are derived from highly relevant scholarly
literature and your own insightful analysis. You have
provided two or more logical, feasible and practical
recommendations.
Criterion 6 (5%)
Conclusion
Your conclusion is difficult to follow, poorly organised or
missing. You have not summarised the major findings of
your report or discussed appropriate lessons learnt from
your teamwork experience.
Your conclusion is generally clear and concise. You have
summarised the major findings of your report. You have
discussed one relevant lesson learnt from your teamwork
experience.
Your conclusion is clear and concise. You have
appropriately summarised the major findings of your
report. You have discussed two relevant and insightful
lessons learnt from your teamwork experience.
Your conclusion is exceptionally clear and concise. You
have appropriately summarised the major findings of your
report. You have discussed three particularly relevant and
insightful lessons learnt from your teamwork experience.
Criterion 7
Writing (10%)
Your points are not expressed fluently and concisely, your
tone is not professional and/or there are numerous
spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors which make
your writing confusing and difficult for the reader to
follow. The report is not structured logically and cohesively.
Overall, the report is poorly written.
Your writing is fluent overall and points are mostly
expressed in a professional tone. Your points are
generally expressed concisely with room for
improvement. Your structure is mostly cohesive and
logical. Punctuation, grammar and spelling are usually
used correctly, although some errors are present.
Your writing is fluent and concise, and the report is
written in an appropriate professional tone. Your report is
structured logically and cohesively. Mostly correct
punctuation, grammar and spelling are used throughout,
with only the occasional minor error.
Your writing is exceptionally fluent and concise, and your
report is written in a very appropriate professional tone.
Your report is structured very logically and cohesively.
The correct use of punctuation, grammar and spelling
enhances the readability of your report.
Criterion 8
Presentation (5%)
Overall, the report is poorly presented and lacks
professional insight. There are multiple, consistent errors in
the in‐text citations and/or Reference List, and the report is
substantially over or under the required word limit. Few to
no evidence is included to support your statements, or the
evidence is presented inappropriately.
Though not entirely professional in its look, the report is
presented with a title page, page numbering, double‐
spacing and appropriate margins. APA referencing style is
generally used throughout. Though there are some errors
in the in‐text citations and/or Reference List, the report is
within the required word limit (+/‐10%). You have included
some relevant evidence, but this could be
enhanced via a more appropriate format.
Your report is professionally presented with a title page,
page numbering, double‐spacing and appropriate margins.
APA referencing style is consistently used, with very few
errors to be found in the in‐text citations and/or Reference
List. Report is within the required word limit (+/‐10%). You
have included all relevant evidence in an entirely
appropriate appendix format.
The professional presentation of your report is flawless
complemented by a title page, page numbering, double‐
spacing and appropriate margins. APA referencing style is
consistently used throughout, with no errors in the in‐ text
citations and/or Reference List. Report is within the
required word limit (+/‐10%). You have included all
relevant evidence in an entirely appropriate appendix
format.
* Six peer‐reviewed journal articles dated between 2010‐2024 have been used in the report.