Assignment 1

by IRAM MALIK

Submission date: 11-Mar-2020 01:23PM (UTC+0000)

Submission ID: 121731224
File name: Assignment_1_192728_1825746765.docx (355.93K)
Word count: 4968
Character count: 27100
1
2
K10

K2
Assignment 1
GRADEMARK REPORT

FINAL GRADE GENERAL COMMENTS

Instructor

57
well done on completing your first essay.

- I can see that you have worked hard to develop your

/100
key ideas and have used appropriate literature to
substantiate your work

- please look at the rubric for pass on analysis and

evaluation, at the moment you are just about working at
this level where the balance of your work describes
rather than evaluates literature.

- you spend a lot of time describing research and then

you do not link it back to the knowledge components.
You need to focus on this components no matter what
essay title you have chosen.

- please see the comment at the start in the text

regarding your introduction.

PAGE 1

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

Comment 1
This is very short as an introduction?

refer to the handbook and the hub for examples.

PAGE 4
 Comment 2
where did you get this definition from? or is it your own?

you need to make it clear, otherwise it becomes an unsubstantiated conclusion.

PAGE 5

PAGE 6

PAGE 7

PAGE 8

PAGE 9

PAGE 10

PAGE 11

PAGE 12

PAGE 13

PAGE 14

PAGE 15

PAGE 16

QM K10
Demonstates a knowledge of organisational / team dynamics and how to build engagement and
develop high performance, agile and collaborative cultures.

QM K2
The role that organisational structures plays in supporting the relationship between people and
performance

PAGE 17

PAGE 18

PAGE 19

PAGE 20

PAGE 21
PAGE 22
RUBRIC: LEVEL 7 MA RUBRIC 3.40 / 6

DEVELOPMENT (20%) 4/6

Development of ideas & synthesis: Conceptual depth

NOT EVIDENT Too much lacks relevance to award credit

(0)

FAIL Ideas are hardly relevant or focused in response to question / prompt. Presents no
(1) coherent argument

MARGINAL FAIL Some ideas are relevant, but not all, and mostly lack focus in response to the question /
(2) prompt. Presents little argumentative development

PASS Points and ideas are relevant and mostly focused in response to question / prompt.
(3) Presents a superficial argument that lacks rigour at times, but evidence is used to inform
judgements. There is some evidence that information can be synthesised, but may be
overly descriptive at times

GOOD Points and ideas are relevant and well-focused in response to the question / prompt.
(4) Presents a coherent and informed argument backed up with sound evidence that is
informed by research. Information is synthesised effectively

EXCELLENT Points and ideas raised are carefully chosen and focused in response to question /
(5) prompt. Presents a sustained, coherent and convincing argument that is well-informed
and based on academically substantiated evidence and highly effective synthesis of
extensive research

**EXCEPTIONAL Originality in concepts and development of ideas with coherent arguments that are
(6) substantiated with clear evidence of extensive study and evidence that is expertly
synthesised and presented with academic rigour and flair

ANALYSIS (20%) 2/6

Critical analysis: examination & explanation of key concepts

NOT EVIDENT No evidence of critical analysis

(0)

FAIL Very little critical ability. Poor and inconsistent analysis. Overly descriptive
(1)

MARGINAL FAIL Demonstrates limited critical analysis with some significant inconsistencies which affect
(2) the coherency of points being made. Very descriptive

PASS Demonstrates sound analysis that shows some critical awareness and has ability to
(3) evaluate not describe

GOOD Demonstrates good critical analysis of ideas presented. Able to present key points
(4) systematically and coherently

EXCELLENT Demonstrates excellent and insightful critical analysis that evaluates complex concepts
(5) systematically with fluency and in an original way
**EXCEPTIONAL Demonstrates exceptional ability to analyse critically and appraise key issues with
(6) originality and creative flair. Fluent and highly persuasive synthesis of complex information
that challenges established knowledge

EVALUATION (20%) 3/6

Critical evaluation: Intellectual depth & academically robust assessment of concepts presented

NOT EVIDENT No evaluative ability

(0)

FAIL Shows very little intellectual depth and arguments are weak or rarely supported
(1)

MARGINAL FAIL Shows little if any intellectual depth or sense of independent judgement. No
(2) counterargument

PASS Shows some intellectual depth and there is evidence of some counterargument being
(3) used to show critical balance

GOOD Shows intellectual depth with clear evidence of some counterarguments being used to
(4) critically evaluate and present independent judgements

EXCELLENT Shows excellent intellectual depth navigating complex issues clearly with independent
(5) judgement rooted in deep critical evaluation and consideration of the validity of points by
evaluating supporting arguments and considering possible counterargument(s)

**EXCEPTIONAL Work displays exceptional intellectual depth through detailed evaluation of the central
(6) issues, complex problem-solving skills and a balanced assessment of arguments and
counter-arguments. Demonstrates personal interpretation and independent judgement
based on rigorous critical evaluation of valid evidence and academically robust research.
Shows clear ability to theorise and propose concepts that take the field forward and could
be developed in to further decorate-level study

REFERENCES (10%) 4/6

Use of source materials: academic credibility

NOT EVIDENT No evidence of relevant authors' contributions

(0)

FAIL Insufficient reference to authors’ contributions in a way that relates to the question /
(1) prompt. Inappropriate or missing referencing

MARGINAL FAIL Refers to very few relevant authors’ contributions, but there is some evidence of wider
(2) reading. Inconsistent or incorrect referencing that does not follow the Harvard conventions
and/or may be missing in-text citations

PASS Refers to and generally discusses some relevant authors’ contributions in support of
(3) arguments. Mostly follows Harvard style referencing throughout. If errors occur in
referencing they are at least consistent in the way they are presented. There may still be
some use of quotation rather than in-text references
GOOD Discusses a good range of relevant authors’ contributions and effective referencing
(4) throughout that follows the Harvard style of referencing, though there may be minor errors

EXCELLENT Effectively evaluates an excellent range of relevant authors’ contributions that

(5) demonstrate their validity and importance in support of key arguments. Excellent and
consistent use of Harvard referencing

**EXCEPTIONAL Discernment in selection of sources that are used effectively to support complex ideas
(6) and theories. References inform the writing and knowledge gained from extensive reading
is integrated throughout the text to reflect on and support arguments, form judgements
and conclusions. Excellent use of Harvard referencing throughout and references rather
than quotations are used to validate in a concise and logical manner

STRUCTURE (10%) 4/6

Structure & organisation: scholarly conventions & expression

NOT EVIDENT Inadequate structure and very poor organisation

(0)

FAIL Little or no organisational structure; sequencing of ideas is hard to follow

(1)

MARGINAL FAIL Unclear organisation; sequencing of ideas is difficult to follow at times but some fluidity in
(2) parts

PASS Unclear organisation at times, but some adequate sequencing of ideas and work is
(3) generally coherent overall and syntax is generally concise and succinct

GOOD Paragraphs are effectively and systematically structured with competent sequencing of
(4) ideas using transitions. Work is coherent overall, concise and easy to read

EXCELLENT Very well-structured paragraphs and effective sequencing of ideas using consistent
(5) transitional devices. Ideas are fluent, logical and easy to follow with highly effective and
concise expression

**EXCEPTIONAL Exemplary structure and organisation with exceptional development of conceptual

(6) structures and making consistent use of scholarly conventions. Demonstrates intellectual
originality and expression that is coherent, compelling and work is of publishable standard

ENGAGEMENT (20%) 4/6

Personal engagement &reflection

NOT EVIDENT No evidence of personal engagement or self-awareness

(0)

FAIL Displays a lack of self-awareness and inappropriate tone at times that may detract reader
(1) from purpose of assignment

MARGINAL FAIL Little evidence of examples from own practice and work is largely narrative and
(2) descriptive. A clear lack of personal engagement overall
PASS Some capacity to reflect and draw on personal experience that shows some self-
(3) awareness. Able to draw conclusions about effectiveness and own practice in light of
learning

GOOD Shows clear ability to reflect critically on own experience and link theory to practice by
(4) using evidence from practice to draw independent conclusions about the effectiveness of
own practice

EXCELLENT Excellent ability to self-evaluate and apply personal interpretation as well as own
(5) judgement to form conclusions. Links theory to practice by using evidence from own
practice and reflect on effectiveness in a way that shows what further developments can
be made

**EXCEPTIONAL Exceptional ability to reflect and self-evaluate. Theorisation is based on academic

(6) research and evidence based on own practice. Able to communicate implications for a
wider audience in educational theory and assess impact on teaching