Grading Criteria Assessment Task 3a: 4-page Group Stakeholder Analysis (20%)
Criteria Excellent (A 80-100%) Very Good (B 70-79%) Good (C 60-69%) Pass (D 50-59%) Fail (N 0-49%)
Marks
Inquiry Research and
Problem-Solving (35%)
7 Marks
Aligns analytical process to
organisational objectives to derive
convincing evidence- based
outcomes.
Reliably interprets research
evidence about organisation given
an analytical process.
Some interpretation of
research evidence about
organisation given an
analytical process.
Poor interpretation of
research evidence about
organisation given a weak
analytical process.
Application of a poorly
researched analytical process
about the organisation has
produced inaccurate outcomes.
/7
Application of theory
(35%)
7 Marks
Excellent, logical, and relevant
application of subject theory and
knowledge. Generates a highly
developed, focused, and sustained
argument(s) related to the
Stakeholder Analysis.
Very good, logical, and relevant
application of subject theory and
knowledge. Generates developed
and focused argument(s) related
to the Stakeholder Analysis.
Uses somewhat logical
application of subject theory
and knowledge with some
errors. Generates few
developed and focused
argument(s) related to the
Stakeholder Analysis.
Poor application of subject
theory and knowledge. Poor
development and focus of
argument(s) related to the
Stakeholder Analysis.
Basic or underdeveloped
training stakeholder analysis.
Little or no evidence of theory.
Generates a series of
statements or claims without
connecting these to form a
clear, logical argument.
/7
Referencing (15%)
3 Marks
Employs an accurate academic
referencing convention citing
multiple, highly relevant sources.
Employs an accurate academic
referencing convention citing
multiple sources, with some
errors.
Employs a basic academic
referencing convention
appropriate to the discipline,
with an adequate number of
sources.
Employs a basic academic
referencing convention
appropriate to the discipline
Shows unfamiliarity with, and
inconsistent application of the
conventions of academic
referencing
/3
Collaboration and
Participation (15%)
3 Marks
An integrated contribution to the
stakeholder analysis, which reflects
critical assimilation of group
perspectives, reaching a balanced
and well-founded conclusion, set of
findings or recommendations.
A co-ordinated contribution to the
stakeholder analysis, which
reflects assimilation of group
perspectives, reaching a qualified
conclusion, set of findings or
recommendations.
A response to the stakeholder
analysis which attempts to
accommodate or draw upon
the group contribution in a
coherent and structured
fashion, reaching a tentative
conclusion, set of findings or
recommendations.
A response to the stakeholder
analysis which reflects group
contribution, and constructs a
less than coherent, but
plausible, conclusion, set of
findings or recommendations.
Response does not account for
group social contributions or is
unable to effectively include
other points of view to reach a
plausible conclusion.
/3
COMMENTS /20