STUDENT NAME:
Student number:
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA RUBRIC FOR TASK 2 – MGT726
Task 2
The purpose of this task is to outline your progress to date and indicate the analysis and evaluation to be integrated in the final report.
Product: Written Progress Report: 2500 words
Marks possible: 100 (weighted at 50% of final grade)
Learning Outcomes
• Examine a specialist area of professional management practice.
• Develop skills to analyse, evaluate and reflect critically on complex information, problems, concepts and theories in order to devise recommended solutions to a management issue.
• Effectively communicate implications and conclusions to specialist and non-specialist audiences.
Assessment Criteria
1. Definition and justification of the management problem, statement of research question and research objective, taking on feedback from Task 1.
2. Identification and application of relevant theory and secondary sources to address the research objectives.
3. Identification and justification of research methodology
4. Outline of data analysis plan
5. Communication and referencing

Criteria HD DN CR P F
Marks possible 10 9 — 10 8 7 5 — 6 5
Definition and justification of the management problem, statement of research question and research objective, taking on feedback from Task 1.
Management problem is well articulated and clearly justified. The background to the problem has been critically analysed including most factors/issues leading up to the problem and consequences of not addressing the problem are well articulated.
The research question has been clearly stated and logically links to the management problem.
Research objectives are fully developed and clearly linked to the research question and management issue.
All feedback from task 1 has been fully incorporated Management problem is clearly stated and justified. The background to the problem has been analysed including most factors/issues leading up to the problem and consequences of not addressing the problem are articulated.
The research question has been clearly stated and logically links to the management problem.
Research objectives are well developed and clearly linked to the research question and management issue.
Feedback from task 1 has been incorporated Management problem is clearly stated.
The background to the problem has been discussed including factors/issues leading up to the problem. Some of the consequences of not addressing the problem are articulated.
The research question has been discussed and links to the management problem.
Research objectives are clearly linked to the research question and management issue and are stated, but could be refined to be more focussed.
Most feedback from task 1 has been incorporated Management problem is stated but lacks clarity.
An explanation for the management problem including description of some factors leading to the problem has been provided.
A research question based on the management problem has been stated and explained.
Research objectives that link to the research question have been presented but need refinement.
Some feedback from Task 1 has been incorporated. Management problem is unclear or has not been stated.
An explanation for the management problem is unclear or has not been stated.
The research question is unclear or has not been stated.
Research objectives are not clearly linked to the research question and management problem or have not been stated.
Little/no attempt to incorporate feedback from task 1.
Mark awarded
Marks possible 40 36 — 40 30 — 35 26 — 29 20 — 25 20
Identification and application of relevant theory and secondary sources to address the research objectives. Identifies and critically evaluates highly relevant theory to inform the research objectives.
Critically evaluates highly relevant information from a range of industry and academic research to provide a very strong foundation for the research.
Synthesises and integrates theory and previous research to arrive at a coherent, well developed review. Identifies and analyses relevant theory to inform the research objectives but could demonstrate stronger relevance.
Analyses relevant industry and academic research to provide a solid foundation for the research.
Integrates the theory and previous research to arrive at a coherent, well developed review. Identifies and discusses relevant theory that sheds some light on the research objectives but could demonstrate relevance.
Discusses relevant industry and academic research to provide a foundation for the research.
Adequate integration of the theory and previous research.
Discussion is more analytical than descriptive. Identifies and explains theory that is somewhat related to research objectives but need to discuss relevance.
Explains some relevant industry and academic research to provide a foundation for the research.
Limited integration of theory and previous research.
Discussion is descriptive rather than analytical. Does not identify relevant theory or identifies an unrelated theory.
Inadequate use of industry or academic research or use of irrelevant information.
Does not integrate the theory or previous research.
Discussion is descriptive.
Marks awarded

Marks possible 30 26 — 30 22 — 25 19 — 21 15 — 18 15
Identification and justification of research methodology
Research design is highly appropriate and clearly discussed.
Research design is fully justified in relation to the research objectives.
Highly appropriate method(s) for data collection are discussed, fully detailed and justified, and clearly linked to research objectives.
Sampling plan is clearly and comprehensively detailed and justified. Research design is appropriate and discussed.
Research design is justified in relation to the research objectives.
Appropriate method(s) for data collection are discussed, detailed and justified and linked to research objectives.
Sampling plan is clearly outlined and justified. Research design is explained.
Research design is mostly justified in relation to the research objectives.
Method(s) for data collection are explained with adequate justification and discussion of links to research objectives.
Sampling plan is discussed and adequately justified. Research design is identified.
Research design is partially justified in relation to research objectives.
Methods for data collection are described but lacks supporting details and/ or links to research objectives.
Sampling plan is explained but with limited justification. Research design has not been identified or is not appropriate.
Research design is not explained or justified adequately.
Limited information about proposed methods for data collection.
Sampling plan is not identified or not clearly explained.
Marks awarded
Marks Possible 10 9 — 10 8 7 5 — 6 5
Outline of data analysis plan
Comprehensive plan for analysis of data is discussed and justified for each research objective based on consideration of type and level of data. A range of examples of how results will be presented are discussed. Detailed plan for analysis of data is discussed and mostly justified in relation to each research objective. Examples of how results will be presented are discussed. Plan for analysis of data is discussed and explained but needed to be more fully discussed in relation to each research objective.
Examples of how results will be presented are explained. Plan for analysis of data described but not fully explained or linked to research objectives. Limited examples of how results will be presented are provided. Details of proposed analysis is either not provided or inappropriate.
Marks awarded
Marks Possible 10 9 — 10 8 7 5 — 6 5
Communication and Referencing.
Exceptionally high standard
Error free
Professional presentation, well written, appropriate use of Harvard style referencing and a complete List of References. Comprehensive Executive Summary. High standard
Very few errors
Well presented, mostly clear expression, appropriate use of Harvard style referencing and a complete List of References.
Good Executive Summary. Good standard
A few minor errors
Scope to improve presentation and communication.
Minor errors in Harvard style referencing and List of References.
Executive Summary could be improved. Satisfactory
Several errors
Scope to improve presentation, expression poor in places.
No/incorrect referencing.
Executive Summary does not summarise all areas of the report. Unsatisfactory
Numerous errors
Poorly presented, difficult to follow, with no/incorrect referencing.
No Executive Summary provided/ or very poor summary.
Marks awarded
Total
Further feedback: