At least ten current references including at least six academic sources. At least ten current references Less than six academic references. Less than ten current references. None or only one or two academic references. Some errors in APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list. Errors with APA referencing style. Inconsistent with APA referencing style. Some citations and/or references missing. Incomplete reference list. References not cited properly in text. Problems with citations and references.

References (2):In-text citations and reference list. (3 marks) More than ten current references (up to 15) including more than six academic references; More than ten current (up to 13) references including at least six academic references. Thorough referencing. Citations and reference list accurate and consistent with APA referencing style. A few inaccuracies with APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list. All citations/references listed. All citations/references listed.

Basic research; weaknesses evident in analysis. Little or no evidence of research and analysis of information. Little evidence of analysis and evaluation of information; recounted and described. Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to topic, or inappropriately repetitive. Neglected important references. Simplistic or undeveloped support for the ideas. Used relevant references but lacked in variety of references and/or the skilful combination of references. Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact. Combined material from a few sources. Overused quotations or paraphrasing to substitute writer’s own ideas. Quotations and paraphrases may be too long or not well integrated into the text. Mostof the references did NOT conform to the Triple R framework or were NOT recent (older than the last 5 years). Possibly used source material without acknowledgement. Selected references did NOT conform to the Triple R framework or were much older than the last 5 years. Some or all references were falsified.

Research was generally thorough; analysis was generally well done; integrated into discussion. Some evidence of research; basic analysis; some integration into discussion. Analysed and evaluated information in considerable depth. Analysed and evaluated information in reasonable depth, some description. Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas. Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas. Combined material from a variety of sources. Combined material from a few sources. Did not overuse quotes. Most references conformed to the Triple R framework and all were recent (within the last 5 years). Did not overuse quotes. Most references conformed to the Triple R framework and recent (within the last 5 years).

References (1): Evidence of research and analysis of the references based on the ARE framework. Selection and use of references based on the Triple R framework. (3 marks) Thorough research indicated; clear well-thought out analysis clearly integrated into discussion. Analysed and evaluated information in great depth. Used references to support, extend, and inform, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas. Combined material from a variety of sources. Did not overuse quotes. All references conformed to the Triple R framework and recent (within the last 5 years).

Report Layout: - Title page; and - length and formatting. (2 marks) Title page contained all necessary information: unit code, assessment number, report title, assessment due date, word count, student name, student number, email address, campus lecturer/tutor, and unit coordinator. Title page contained all necessary information. Title page contained all necessary information. Correct length (close to 2500 words) Mostly correct length (2250-2750 words) Reasonable length Tidy final version - including no, track changes or unnecessary spacing or indentations, correct alignment of sections. Mostly tidy final version Tidy final version Formatted using Times New Roman 12 point font, 1.5 line spacing and margins of 2.54 cm. Formatted correctly. Some minor formatting errors.

Some signs of logical organisation. May have had abrupt or illogical shifts and ineffective flow of ideas. Some awkward sentences; paragraphs not well linked. Paragraph structure not well integrated; contained extraneous information. Some major grammatical or proofreading errors (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, sentence fragments, word form errors, etc.). Language frequently weakened by inexact word choices. Spelling errors Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made repeated errors.

Organisation supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report. Sequence of ideas could be improved. Good sentence structure. Linkages between paragraphs were mostly appropriate. A few errors in grammar (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, etc.). Made occasional problematic word choices or syntax errors. A few spelling or punctuation errors. Observed professional conventions of written English and report format; made a few minor or technical errors.

Organisation and structure: - ideas/main points; - grammar, punctuation and spelling; and - structure of sentences; and paragraphs. (3 marks) Organisation fully supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report. Sequence of ideas was effective. Excellent sentence structure. Well-constructed paragraphs; clear linkages between paragraphs. Written expression was clear and correct; Grammar excellent; correct use of punctuation; minimal or no spelling errors; and evidence of thorough proof-reading. Observed professional conventions of written English and report format.

Recommendations (2 marks) Suggested specific actions to address the problem. Most suggested actions were relevant to the problem. Suggested actions were somewhat relevant to the problem. Suggested some actions. Not all actions were relevant to the problem. Actions were clearly based on the findings of the report. Actions were based on the findings of the report. Not all actions were based on the findings of the report. Not all actions were based on the findings of the report. Correctly formatted recommendations based on report writing guidelines. Correctly formatted recommendations. Recommendations not presented effectively in line with the report writing guidelines. Descriptions of possible actions but no specific actions proposed or not formatted in line with the report writing guidelines.

Conclusion (2 marks) Problem restated clearly, main points and supporting arguments summarised. The conclusion contained the proper parts but did not include enough detail. The conclusion had parts which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail. The conclusion lacked clarity and had incomplete or missing parts. It did not clearly conclude the report. The conclusion is missing or was a repeat of the executive summary. It did not clearly conclude the report. Stated the significance of the findings and that the objectives of the report had been met. No new material. May have included some new material. May have included some new material. Included new material. No new material.

Selected adequate amount of material. Selected adequate amount of material not all of it relevant. Selected too little material or material that is irrelevant. Some or all Information based on falsified references. Some development of ideas; not much original reasoning. Not much development of ideas. Very little original reasoning. Only a few tasks were addressed. No development of ideas or original reasoning. Minimal addressing of tasks related to the report topic. Some of the tasks in the specifications were addressed. Offered somewhat obvious support that may be too broad. Offered simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic support for the ideas. Assumptions are not always recognised or made explicit. Most Key terms were defined. Contains some appropriate details or examples. Some Key terms defined. Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to problem, or inappropriately repetitive. No Key terms defined. Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact.

Body of report: Selection and sequencing of subject material; including evidence. (8 marks) Selected exact amount of relevant material that supports argument with no contradictions. Selected large amount of relevant material. Substantial, logical, & concrete development of ideas. Arguments were logical and clear. Offered solid development of ideas but less original reasoning. All tasks in the specifications addressed. Most of the tasks in the specifications were addressed. Assumptions were made explicit. Key terms were defined. Details were germane, original, and convincingly interpreted. Assumptions were not always recognised or made explicit. Key terms were defined. Contained some appropriate details or examples.

MarkingCriteria This assessment is criterion referenced which means your work is assessed against the criteria in the marking rubric below. Criteria Quality High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail Executive summary (3 marks) The executive summary contained: The executive summary contained the proper sections but did not include enough detail. The executive summary had sections which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail. The executive summary lacked clarity and has incomplete or missing sections. It did not clearly explain the problem, how it was investigated and your recommendations. Entire sections of the executive summary are missing. There is a lack of detail and the problem is not well explained. - a brief description of the purpose of the report - the definition of the problem, key issues explored, and how they were investigated - a summary of what you found and what you concluded - overview of your recommendations - meets recommended length Table of contents (1 mark) Lists the report topics using decimal notation. Includes meaningful main headings and subheadings with corresponding page numbers.

Note that all the references you choose to use should be evaluated using the Triple-R framework in the research stage of preparing your Report (do NOT include this evaluation in the Report). You must have a minimum of ten (10) current references in your reference list. At least six (6) of these references should be from refereed academic journals and books. Other references could be sourced from industry websites and magazines. All sources should be current that is, dated 2013 or later. Minimum requirements relate to a Pass mark. You are encouraged to use more than the minimum requirements for a better quality outcome to your report through improving the quality of your analysis.

Note: Additional information regarding this assignment may be placed on the Moodle Unit website as required. Check the Moodle Unit website at least once a week for further information relating to the report. Regular access to the Moodle Unit website is a requirement of this Unit. Other Assessment Requirements Your response should be structured as a report (chapter 5 of textbook), written in accordance with standard academic writing principles (chapter 4 of textbook). The report must be written using your own words with any in text citations clearly marked (see Referencing Style subsection below). You may discuss the assessment task with other students and the lecturing staff but you must WRITE the report YOURSELF in your own words. You will need to conduct research to support your arguments using at least ten (10) but no more than 15 current references.

The length of the report must be within the recommended range. If the report exceeds the maximum word count the marker will stop marking after 2750words. Moodle auto-submits draft files that are in Moodle at the originally set deadlines. Files that are auto-submitted will not be reverted to draft status except in extenuating circumstances (evidence required). It is your responsibility not to leave draft assessments in Moodle at the due date and time if the files are not ready to be submitted for marking. However, late submissions may attract penalties.

Assessments provide the opportunity for students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills to achieve the required standard. To do this, assessment responses need to be both clear and easy to understand. If not, the University cannot determine that students have demonstrated their knowledge and skills. Assessments will, therefore, be marked accordingly including the potential for 0 (zero) marks where relevant. The report must focus on the case studyscenario given in the Assessment Task section. Any assessment items that do not address the case study scenario maybe awarded0 (zero) marks. If you use Track Changes when writing your report you must ensure that the submitteddocument isthe finaland correctversion of the document. That is, if your submitted report contains Track Changes or Comments or any other editing marks itmay be awarded0 (zero) marks. It is your responsibility to submit the final and correct version of your report.

You will need to follow the ARE process described in chapters 2 and 3 of Your Business Degree2(prescribedtextbook for COIT20249)to analyse the assessment task, research relevant information and evaluate the information you find. This information should be used to write an academic report in which you present your findings or outcomes and make recommendations for future practice Professional writing and writing reports are described in chapters 4 and 5 of Your Business Degree2.This assessment task will assess your skills in critical thinking, researching information, forming an opinion, academic writing, logical ordering of ideas and your ability to support your arguments with quotes from literature.These objectives will be measured by the ‘closeness of fit’ to meeting the assessment task, assessment requirements and markingcriteria Please note that there is a wealth of material available on the Moodle Unit websitethat you should use to help you through the process of searching for andgatheringrelevant information,evaluating that informationand writing yourreport.

Please refer to the UnitProfile to see how this assessment item relates to the UnitLearning Outcomes. This assignment is designed to stimulate critical thinking outside of the classroom by requiring students to write a formal academic report as the Supplementary Assessment for those students who met the criteria to be eligible for a Supplementary Assessment in COIT20249.