Av Jenning: Marking Criteria and Standards

CRITERIA

FAIL

PASS

CREDIT

DISTINCTION

HIGH DISTINCTION

Presentation shows insight into Management Dynamics topic and concepts.  Able to research further into topics and concepts.

10%

Little or no understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Misinterprets information. No evidence of research beyond materials provided, e.g. annual reports.

A basic understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Little evidence of research beyond materials provided, e.g. annual reports.

A sound understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Evidence of some good additional research linked to the presentation topic.

A good understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Evidence of well targeted additional research which helps with development of the presentation topic.

A very good understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Evidence of excellent additional research which is very relevant to the presentation topic.

0-4.9

5.0-6.4  

6.5-7.4

7.5-8.4

8.5-10.0

Presentation covered all presentation issues and used the full range of information made available

30%.

Presentation focussed on a few issues and used only the most recent annual report.

Presentation focussed on some issues and only used some of the information available in the annual reports.

Presentation focussed on all issues but only used some of the information available in the annual reports.

Presentation focussed on all issues and used all of the information available in the annual reports.

Presentation focused on all issues and used all of the information available in the annual reports as well as additional information from other sources.

0-14.9

15.0-19.2  

19.3-22.2

22.3-25.2

25.3-30.0

Able to demonstrate independent critical analysis skills

30%.

Regurgitates information from annual reports. No evidence of critical thinking or analysis in the presentation.

A modest effort to include some critical thinking or analysis of the issues or themes associated with the presentation’s topic.

A sound level of critical thinking or analysis of the issues or themes associated with the presentation’s topic.

A good level of critical thinking or analysis of the issues or themes associated with the presentation’s topic. Insightful and critical reflections are evident.

An excellent level of critical thinking or analysis of the issues or themes associated with the presentation’s topic. Insightful and critical reflections are evident. Synthesises concepts and abstract ideas.

0-14.9

15.0-19.2  

19.3-22.2

22.3-25.2

25.3-30.0

Presentation highlighted relevant issues and demonstrated critical analysis of the topic

10%.

Presentation was disjointed, unfocused and poorly structured.  Very difficult to understand the presentation’s underlying issues or themes and so no real engagement evident.

Presentation was somewhat disjointed, unfocused and poorly structured.  Presentation still needed substantial improvement in order to understand the presentation’s underlying issues or themes.

Presentation was relatively clear; some improvement is still required to understand the presentation’s underlying issues or themes.

Presentation was clear and it was easy to understand the presentation’s underlying issues or themes.  However, only a moderate amount of audience engagement was evident.

Presentation was clear and it was very easy to understand the presentation’s underlying issues or themes.  In addition there was good audience engagement.

0-4.9

5.0-6.4  

6.5-7.4

7.5-8.4

8.5-10.0

Presentation was an effective communication process and engaging

10%.

The overall design and delivery of the presentation was very confusing and in many cases presentation contradicted itself.  No audience engagement.

The overall design and delivery of the presentation was confusing and at times presentation contradicted itself.  Very little audience engagement.

Overall design and delivery of presentation was somewhat clear; presentation was consistent and there was moderate audience engagement.

The overall design and delivery of the presentation was quite clear and consistent.  There was good audience engagement.

The overall design and delivery of the presentation was very clear and consistent, demonstrating a high level of professionalism.  There was very good audience engagement.

0-4.9

5.0-6.4  

6.5-7.4

7.5-8.4

8.5-10.0

Presentation was well organised

10%.

There was no attempt to ensure that the presentation met the required time limits.  Very illogical sequence of topics.

There was some attempt to ensure that the presentation met the required time limits.  Somewhat illogical sequence of topics.

The presentation met the required time limits but only focussed on a few required topics.  Logical sequence of topics.

The presentation met the required time limits but focussed on a moderate number of the required topics.  Good sequence to topics.

The presentation met the required time limits and focussed on all of the required topics.  Very good sequence to topics in presentation.

0-4.9

5.0-6.4  

6.5-7.4

7.5-8.4

8.5-10.0