Comprehension and analysis:
Report clearly analyses how 1 of Noe & Winkler’s 10 forces, along with evidence from Chapter 1 and 2 of the text, applies to the student’s own workplace.
Provides clear reasoning in regards to chosen focus area for project plan
50 marks
|
Draws from the text to integrate and deliver a clear, detailed application of critical thought and succinct analysis.
The analysis is accurate and provides logical and well-presented arguments.
Clear , detailed and logical choice of focus area for the project plan
|
Draws from the text to deliver clear, detailed application of critical thought or succinct analysis.
The analysis provides mostly logical and mostly well presented arguments.
The choice of focus area for the project plan is discussed in a mostly clear, detailed and logical manner.
|
Draws from the text to deliver an analysis that shows some evidence of critical thought.
Analysis demonstrates knowledge and provides some argument.
Clear, detailed and logical choice of focus area for the project plan but some gaps in the quality of the arguments.
|
Refers to the text, but with some errors or inconsistencies.
Discussion shows some evidence of critical thought and analysis, but tends to be descriptive.
Focus area for project plan is stated, but not discussed clearly.
|
Refers to the text but there are major errors or no attempt has been made to link discussion to the required text.
Arguments used are mainly descriptive and/or weak arguments.
Weak or no links for the choice of focus area.
|
Project Plan:
Detailed project plan that clearly outlines training/development program.
Successfully applies project plan template
40 marks
|
Highly comprehensive and clearly presented project plan that provides succinct details on chosen training/development program.
Content has been logically structured within the project plan format required.
|
A comprehensive and clearly presented project plan that provides detailed information on chosen training/development program.
Content has been logically structured within the project plan format required.
|
Clear and detailed project plan that mostly follows the format required but has some minor gaps in logic.
Content is mostly structured within the required project plan format.
|
Clear project plan that lacks some detail and logic.
An attempt has been made to structure plan in required project plan format, but with some errors and inconsistencies.
|
Weak, poorly developed or no plan.
Does not follow the project plan format required, or there are major errors.
|
Presentation:
Conforms to academic writing conventions in a report format (requirements as specified in the subject outline)
10 marks
|
The content has been logically and succinctly structure to create a cohesive and coherent analysis. Formal academic language and precise and correct discipline and professional terminology has been used to clearly communicate meaning. There is consistent adherence to grammatical conventions.
|
The content has been logically structured to create a cohesive and coherent analytical piece of work.
Formal academic language and precise and correct discipline and professional terminology has been used to clearly communicate meaning. There is consistent adherence to grammatical conventions.
|
The content has been logically structured to create a cohesive and coherent piece of work. Formal academic language has been used to clearly communicate meaning. There is mostly consistent adherence to grammatical conventions. Although some minor errors remain.
|
The content has been partially structured to create a predominately descriptive piece of work that lacks somewhat in coherency.
An attempt to use mostly formal academic language has been used to communicate meaning.
Grammatical conventions have been adhered to in some areas although there are minor errors.
|
The content has been partially structured to create a predominately descriptive piece of work.
Formal and informal language has been used to communicate meaning and, in many areas, the meaning is unclear.
The work includes multiple grammatical errors.
|