MGTS1601 Individual and Team Profile Report Marking Rubric
Below Expectations Meets Expectations Very Good Outstanding
Criterion 1
Introduction (5%)
You have not provided a satisfactory explanation of
the importance of understanding your personality and
role in a team, or there is inadequate support from
scholarly literature. You have not stated the aim and
structure of the report or this section is missing.
Overall, the Introduction is inadequate.
You have provided a satisfactory explanation of the
importance of understanding your personality and role in
a team, with some support from scholarly literature. You
have stated the aim and structure of the report, although
these could be improved.
You have provided a clear and convincing explanation of
the importance of understanding your personality and role in
a team, drawing on relevant scholarly literature. You have
clearly stated the aim of the report. You have provided an
appropriate description of the structure of your report.
You have provided a very clear and convincing explanation
of the importance of understanding your personality and
role in a team, drawing on relevant scholarly literature. You
have clearly stated the aim of the report. You have provided
an entirely appropriate description of the structure of your
report.
Criterion 2
Description of Personality (5%)
You have struggled to effectively describe your Big
Five Personality survey results, and/or the results are
absent. You have not cited any relevant literature, or
citations are inappropriate.
Your scores on the Big Five Personality survey are
presented in a mostly appropriate way. Greater
elaboration of these results and support from literature
would improve your description.
You have clearly presented and described your scores on the
Big Five Personality survey, with appropriate citations to
scholarly literature.
You have clearly presented and comprehensively described
your scores on the Big Five Personality survey, with
appropriate citations to scholarly literature.
Criterion 3
Analysis of Personality and Implications for
Teamwork (20%)
Analysis of your personality is lacking in relevant detail
and/or is more descriptive than analytical. You have
not considered implications of your personality traits
for your own behaviour and performance in the team
in a meaningful way. You have struggled to use
appropriate peer-reviewed literature to support your
points.
There is some useful analysis of your personality,
however better selection of literature to support your
points would strengthen this analysis. Though not
always relevant, you have considered some useful
implications of your personality traits for your own
behaviour and performance in the team.
Analysis of your personality is clear and while your chosen
literature is relevant, better integration in some places would
strengthen this section. You have considered the
implications of your personality traits for your own behaviour
and performance in the team in a mostly logical way.
Analysis of your personality is clear, logical and supported
by evidence from at least four relevant peer-reviewed
journal articles. You have thoughtfully considered the
implications of your personality traits for your behaviour
and performance in a team.
Criterion 4
Description of Individual Roles in Team
(5%)
You have not adequately described your survey results
about your top three strongest roles in a team, or the
results are absent. You have provided little, if any,
consideration of the implications of your top three
team role scores for your own behaviour and
performance in a team.
You have presented and adequately described the survey
results about your top three strongest roles in a team.
Though you have provided some consideration of the
implications of your team role scores for your own
behaviour and performance in a team, this is superficial in
places.
You have presented and clearly described the survey results
about your top three strongest roles in a team. In most
instances, you have carefully considered the implications of
your team role scores for your own behaviour and
performance in a team.
You have clearly presented and thoughtfully described the
survey results about your top three strongest roles in a
team, as well as any low or missing roles. You have very
convincingly considered the implications of your team role
scores for your own behaviour and performance in a team.
Criterion 5
Team Role Profile (10%)
You have not adequately described each team
members' team role survey results, or the description
is missing.
While the team roles of all members have been
described, a more insightful comparison between team
members would enhance this section. Overall, you have
provided a generally clear profile of your team.
You have appropriately described the team role results of all
team members, which included some useful comparisons.
Overall, you have provided a mostly clear and logical profile
of your team.
Your description of your team based on the team role
results of all team members was very comprehensive,
including some exceptionally insightful comparisons.
Overall, you have provided a clear and logical profile of
your team.
Criterion 6
Analysis of Team Strengths and
Weaknesses (15%)
You have not adequately analysed the strengths
and/or weaknesses of your team based on your team
role profile, or the analysis is missing.
In presenting the strengths and weaknesses of your team
based on your team role profile, you provided some
useful insights. However, your analysis was unconvincing
in some places.
You have clearly stated your team's strengths and
weaknesses based on your team role profile. The analysis is
clear and logical on the whole.
You have clearly stated your team's strengths and
weaknesses based on your team role profile. The analysis is
clear, logical and comprehensive.
Criterion 7
Quality of Solutions (20%)
You did not draw adequately on your previous
analysis to address the weaknesses in your team, and
your solutions are inadequate or missing and/or are
not supported by relevant literature.
Based on your previous analysis, you have identified
some solutions to address the identified weaknesses in
your team. While lacking depth in places, most of the
proposed solutions are appropriate and are supported
by the literature.
Based on your previous analysis, you have identified mostly
appropriate solutions to address each of the identified
weaknesses in your team, supported by good evidence from
relevant peer-reviewed journal articles.
Based on your previous analysis, you have proposed
appropriate and persuasive solutions to address each of the
identified weaknesses in your team, supported by evidence
from at least four relevant peer-reviewed journal articles.
Criterion 8
Conclusion (5%)
Your conclusion is generally clear and concise,
although there is some room for improvement. You
have summarised the major findings of your report.
Your conclusion is generally clear and concise, although
there is some room for improvement. You have
summarised the major findings of your report.
Your conclusion is clear and concise. You have appropriately
summarised the major findings of your report.
Your conclusion is exceptionally clear and concise. You have
appropriately summarised the major findings of your
report.
Criterion 9
Writing (10%)
The structure of your report is poorly planned and/or
sequenced. Your writing is highly disjointed with poor
sentence structure. Your tone is not professional.
There are numerous spelling, punctuation and
grammatical errors which makes your writing confusing
and difficult for the reader to follow.
The structure of your report reflects evidence of planning
and sequencing ability. A generally appropriate tone is
used, though there are some disruptions to the fluency of
your writing. A sound attempt to correctly use
punctuation, grammar and spelling, with minor errors
and the occasional major error.
The structure of your report shows strong planning and
sequencing abilities. Your writing is mostly fluent and the
report is written in an appropriate professional tone. Mostly
correct punctuation, grammar and spelling are used
throughout, with only the occasional minor error.
The structure of your report shows very strong planning
and sequencing abilities. Your writing is exceptionally fluent
and the report is written in an appropriate professional
tone. Correct use of punctuation, grammar and spelling
enhances the readability of your report.
Criterion 10
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 or no survey results are
included, or are presented inappropriately.
Though not entirely professional in its presentation, the
report is presented with a title page, page numbering,
relevant sub-headings, double-spacing and margins. A
single 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 survey results, but
this could be enhanced via a more appropriate format.
Your report is professionally presented with a title page, page
numbering, relevant sub-headings, double-spacing and
appropriate margins. A single 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 survey results in an
appropriate format.
The professional presentation of your report is flawless,
complemented by a title page, page numbering, relevant
sub-headings, double-spacing and appropriate margins. A
single 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 survey results in an entirely appropriate
appendix format.