MGTS7607 Case Analysis Marking Rubric
Case Analysis Marking Rubric
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: THEend8_
MGTS7607 Case Analysis Marking Rubric
Below Expectations Meets Expectations Very Good Outstanding
Criterion 1
Introduction
(5 marks)
You have not provided a satisfactory context to your report,
or the context is missing. Definitions of key terms are
missing. 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.
Your Introduction provides a satisfactory context to the
report, supported by some literature. Definitions of key terms
are included. You have stated the purpose of the report. You
have stated your argument and the structure of your report.
Your Introduction provides a clear context to the report,
supported by relevant and recent literature. Definitions of key
terms are included. You have stated the purpose of the report.
You have stated your argument and the structure of your
report.
Your Introduction provides a clear and convincing context to
your report, supported by highly relevant and recent literature.
Relevant definitions of key terms are included. You have clearly
stated the purpose of the report. You have clearly stated your
argument and the structure of your report.
Criterion 2
Case Summary
(5 marks)
You have not provided an adequate description of the
unethical behaviour/event(s), or the description is missing.
You have failed to appropriately describe the context where
the behaviour/event(s) occurred. You have not identified
appropriate stakeholders and/or explained the impact of
the unethical behaviour/events on stakeholders. You have
not supported your summary with appropriate sources.
You have provided an adequate description of the unethical
behaviour/event(s). You have described the context in which
the unethical behaviour/event(s) occurred, although there is
room for improvement here. You have identified some
stakeholders and explained the impact of the unethical
behaviour/event(s) on stakeholders, although these could be
addressed in more depth. In your summary, you have used
some relevant sources to support your points.
You have provided a comprehensive description of the unethical
behaviour/event(s). You have provided a description of the
context in which the unethical behaviour/event(s) occurred,
including the industry, organisation, and key individuals. You
have clearly identified all stakeholders and explained the impact
of the unethical behaviour/events on stakeholders. In your
summary, you have used relevant sources effectively to support
your points.
You have provided an exceptionally comprehensive description
of the unethical behaviour/event(s). You have provided a
detailed description of the context in which the unethical
behaviour/events occurred, including the industry, organisation,
and key individuals. You have clearly identified all stakeholders
and explained the impact of the behaviour/event(s) on
stakeholders. In your summary, you have used a range of
relevant sources very effectively to support your points.
Criterion 3
Case Analysis and
Evaluation from
Multiple Ethical
Decision-Making
Theories or
Frameworks (8 marks)
You have failed to identify and analyse the central ethical
issue(s) in the case. You have not accurately applied
relevant theories or frameworks. Descriptions of each
theory or framework are inadequate or missing. You have
not provided a satisfactory evaluation of the case.
You have identified and analysed the central ethical issue(s) in
the case, accurately applying at least two relevant theories or
frameworks. You have described each theory or framework
using appropriate scholarly literature. You have provided a
satisfactory evaluation of the case but this is superficial in
places.
You have identified and thoroughly analysed the central ethical
issue(s) in the case, accurately applying at least three relevant
theories or frameworks. You have clearly and accurately
described each theory or framework using appropriate scholarly
literature. Overall, you have provided a very good evaluation of
the case.
You have identified and thoroughly analysed the central ethical
issue(s) in the case, accurately applying at least four highly
relevant theories or frameworks. You have clearly and
accurately described each theory or framework using
appropriate scholarly literature. Overall, you have provided a
thoughtful, critical and persuasive evaluation of the case.
Criterion 4
Analysis of Factors
Contributing to the
Unethical Behaviour
(15 marks)
You have failed to provide a satisfactory analysis of the
factors that contributed to the unethical behaviour/event(s)
in your case. You have not applied theoretical concepts,
sources of evidence and integrated examples to support
your analysis. Most scholarly sources used are
inappropriate, or missing. You have not engaged in
satisfactory analysis of the evidence, or provided any
insights over and above the stated findings. You have not
made any attempt to analyse the relationship between your
chosen factors.
You have provided a satisfactory analysis of relevant factors
that contributed to the unethical behaviour/event(s) in your
case. You have applied some theoretical concepts, sources of
evidence and integrated examples to support your analysis.
Most scholarly sources used are recent and appropriate. You
have engaged in satisfactory analysis of the evidence, with
some insights over and above the stated findings. You have
attempted to analyse the relationship between your chosen
factors, although this could be improved in places.
You have provided a convincing analysis of relevant factors that
contributed to the unethical behaviour/event(s) in your case.
You have synthesised and applied a range of relevant
theoretical concepts, multiple sources of evidence and
integrated examples to support your analysis. Scholarly sources
used are recent and appropriate. You have provided a very
good analysis of the evidence, offering some insights over and
above the stated findings. You have analysed the relationship
between your chosen factors, with evidence to support your
assertions.
You have provided a thoughtful, convincing and rigorous analysis
of highly relevant factors that contributed to the unethical
behaviour/event(s) in your case. You have cleverly synthesised
and applied a range of highly relevant theoretical concepts,
multiple sources of evidence and integrated examples to support
your analysis. Scholarly sources used are recent and
appropriate. You have provided a convincing and original
analysis of the evidence, offering considerable insights over and
above the stated findings. You have critically analysed the
relationship between your chosen factors, with evidence to
support your assertions.
Criterion 5
Analysis of
Organisation's
Response and
Recommendations
(10 marks)
You have not offered an adequate description and
evaluation of how the organisation responded to the
unethical behaviour/event(s). You have not recommended
at least one way that the organisation could have responded
more effectively, or the recommendation is not supported
with appropriate academic evidence. The
recommendation(s) are illogical, lack feasibility, or are
missing.
You have offered a satisfactory description and evaluation of
how the organisation responded to the unethical
behaviour/event(s), although more appropriate sources could
have been used here. Based on academic evidence, you have
recommended at least one way that the organisation could
have responded more effectively. The recommendation could
have been more logical and/or feasible.
You have offered a very good description and evaluation of how
the organisation responded to the unethical behaviour/event(s),
supported by appropriate sources. Based on academic
evidence, you have recommended at least two ways that the
organisation could have responded more effectively. The
recommendations are generally logical and feasible. Your
analysis demonstrates some originality and independent
thinking.
You have offered a comprehensive description and evaluation of
how the organisation responded to the unethical
behaviour/event(s), supported by appropriate sources. Based
on academic evidence, you have recommended at least two
ways that the organisation could have responded more
effectively. The recommendations are highly logical and
feasible. Overall, your analysis demonstrates a high degree of
originality and independent thinking.