Criteria 1: Structure and Content
|
Effective structure with a clear, logical flow. Command of written communication, use of vocabulary and grammar relevant to the form of the assignment. Presentation style is consistently appropriate to the assignment brief.
|
A structure with a coherent sense of direction. Effective written communication. Use of vocabulary and grammar relevant to the form of the assignment. Presentation style is appropriate, overall, to the assignment brief.
|
Acceptable structure and flow is demonstrated. Acceptable standard of vocabulary and grammar. Presentation style is generally appropriate to the assignment brief.
|
Some order and structure is demonstrated. Vocabulary and grammar may need attention. Presentation style lacks relevance to the assignment brief in some areas.
|
The work does not flow logically or smoothly. Poor and/or inappropriate use of vocabulary and grammar Presentation style is inappropriate.
|
Criteria 2: Operational Processes
|
A wide range of relevant and appropriate operational processes have been identified.
|
A range of relevant and appropriate operational processes have been identified.
|
Some relevant operational processes have been identified.
|
Limited identification of operational processes in the organisations
|
General lack of relevant operational processes identified.
|
Criteria 3: Evaluation and analysis
|
Demonstrates excellent analysis and evaluation relating to processes identified.
|
Sound analysis and evaluation relating to processes identified.
|
Adequate analysis and evaluation relating to processes identified.
|
Limited analysis and evaluation of processes identified.
|
General lack of, or ineffective, analysis and evaluation of identified processes.
|
Criteria 4: Theory and practice
|
Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of relevant theory and makes connections between this and examples of operational processes in the workplace.
|
Demonstrates good understanding of relevant theory and makes links between this and examples of operational processes in the workplace.
|
Demonstrates some understanding of relevant theory and makes limited links between this and examples of operational processes in the workplace.
|
Demonstrates minimal understanding of relevant theory and links between this and examples of operational processes in the workplace.
|
Demonstrates little or no understanding of relevant theory and links between this and examples of operational processes in the workplace are irrelevant or inappropriate.
|
Criteria 5: Recommendations
|
An excellent range of specific and relevant recommendations have been provided, which link clearly to evaluation and analysis of operational processes.
|
A range of relevant recommendations have been made, which make links to the evaluation and analysis of operational processes.
|
Some recommendations have been made which attempt to link to evaluation and analysis of operational processes.
|
Limited suggestions have been made with minimal links to evaluation and analysis of operational processes.
|
Largely absent or irrelevant recommendations, with poor links to evaluation and analysis of operational processes.
|
Criteria 7: Harvard Referencing
|
Correct Harvard referencing
|
Correct Harvard referencing
|
Some errors in referencing.
|
Some errors in referencing.
|
Incorrect or absent referencing.
|
Criteria 8: Reflection
|
Demonstrates excellent understanding and successful application of an appropriate theoretical model of reflection on action.
|
Demonstrates understanding and competent application of an appropriate theoretical model of reflection on action.
|
Demonstrates some understanding and application of reflective theory/ practice.
|
Limited evidence of understanding and application of reflective theory/ practice.
|
Little or no evidence of understanding or application of reflective theory/ practice.
|