COMPONENT UNACCEPTABLE (FAIL) 0-10% Executive summary Literature search Executive summary sufficiently detailed, but still brief and concise Included most of the required elements Did not exceed 300 words limit Few sound revisions to the executive summary and tracked revisions Updated executive summary poorly and reflect only some of the sections added to the second report Many sound revisions to the executive summary and tracked revisions Updated executive summary well to reflect the sections added to the second report Limited or no sound revisions to the executive summary and/or no tracked revisions Updated executive summary did not reflect the sections added to the second report Very poor or vague description of the literature search undertaken None or few of the key elements of the literature search included Sources used of very poor quality Used very few source Poorly structured literature section Demonstrated very poor competencies conducting the literature search Ignored 250 words limit No or limited sound revisions and/or id not track revisions made Updated literature section did not reflect well how search was expanded for the second report 0 marks Open Rubric OUTSTANDING +75% Executive summary limited and incomplete Included some of the required elements of an executive summary Exceeded 300 words limit 1-2 marks GOOD PASS 50-70% Executive summary not presented Vague statements or not a summary Did not include any of the required elements of an executive summary Ignored 300 words limit 0 marks CLOSE TO FAIL 20-40% Limited or incomplete description of literature search Some elements of literature search described, but not very well done Most sources used are of poor quality Some structure in the literature search section Used insufficient number of sources (less than 15 sources) Demonstrated limited competencies conducting the literature search Exceeded 250 words limit Executive summary is very detailed, but still brief and concise Included all of the required elements Did not exceed 300 words limit Very sound revisions to the executive summary and tracked revisions Updated executive summary very well to reflect the sections added to the second report 3-4 marks 4-5 marks Literature search is sufficiently described All required elements of the literature search included Most sources used of good quality Good structure in the literature search section Used sufficient number of quality sources (at least 15 sources used) Demonstrated good competencies conducting the literature search Slightly exceeded 250 words limit Max 5 Very detailed, clear and concise literature description given All of the required elements of search indicated: period of search, key terms used, search engine and/or databases used, number of articles found/read or abstracts read Literature search section very well structured High number of high quality sources used (15 or more sources used). Demonstrated very good competencies conducting the literature search Did not exceed 250 words limit Few sound revisions and/or tracked only some revisions made Updated literature section to poorly reflect how search was expanded for the second report 1-2 marks MARK Many sound revisions and tracked clearly all revisions made Updated literature section to reflect well how search was expanded for the second report 3-4 marks Very sound revisions and tracked clearly all revisions made Updated literature section to reflect very well and in detail how search was expanded for the second report 4-5 marks Max 5 Resource appraisal Vague or very poor evaluation of the key resources identified Very poor analysis process followed. Only one or two of the VIRO criterion is used No balance of theory and contextualisation Strategic implications drawn for management action not sound Demonstrated very poor insight into the application of the resource-based theoretical perspective Few statements of facts supported with references. Interpretations or vague statements presented rather than factual evidence Few of the references used are recent Few quality/scholarly references used Very poor or no structuring of arguments Ignored 1000 words limit 0-3 marks Poor or limited evaluation of the key resources identified Poor analysis process followed. Only some of the VIRO criterion is used Poor balance of theory and contextualisation Few or weak strategic implications drawn for management action sound Demonstrated some insight into the application of the resource-based theoretical perspective Some statements of facts are supported with references Some of the references used are recent Some quality/scholarly references used Poor structuring of arguments Exceeded 1000 words limit 4-9 marks Good evaluation of the key resources identified Analysis process clear and sound evaluation using VIRO criterion Good balance of theory and contextualisation Most strategic implications drawn for management action sound Demonstrated good insight into the application of the resource-based theoretical perspective Most statements of facts are very well supported with references Most of the references used are recent Most of the sources are quality/scholarly Good structuring of arguments Slightly exceeded 1000 words limit 10-15 marks Very good evaluation of the key resources identified Analysis process very clear and sound evaluation using VIRO criterion Very good balance of theory and contextualisation Very strong strategic implications drawn for management action Demonstrated very good insight into the application of the resourcebased theoretical perspective All statements of facts are very well supported with references References used are recent Quality/scholarly references used Very good structuring of arguments Did not exceed 1000 words limit 16-20 marks Max 20 Challenges trading internationally Vague or very poor evaluation of comparative advantages and resource endowments that underpin a comparative advantage in different locations Very poor evaluation of whether a comparative advantage is fixed or not No balance of theory and contextualisation Implications drawn for management action are not sound Demonstrated no or very limited insight into the application of classic and/or modern trade theories Statements of facts are not supported with references Presented interpretations without any supporting evidence Very poor or no structuring of arguments. Statements as oppose to arguments made Ignored 1000 words limit 0-1 mark Poor or limited evaluation of comparative advantages and resource endowments that underpin a comparative advantage in different locations Poor evaluation of whether a comparative advantage is fixed or not Some balance of theory and contextualisation Weak implications drawn for management action Demonstrated some insight into the application of classic and modern trade theories Some statements of facts are supported with references/sources Some of the references/sources used are recent Poor structuring of arguments Exceeded 1000 words limit 2-4 marks Good evaluation of comparative advantages and resource endowments that underpin a comparative advantage in different locations Good evaluation of whether a comparative advantage is fixed or not Good balance of theory and contextualisation Most implications drawn for management action are sound Demonstrated good insight into the application of classic and/or modern trade theories Statements of facts are supported with quality references Most references used are recent Good structuring of arguments Slightly exceed 1000 words limit 10-7 marks Very good evaluation of comparative advantages and resource endowments that underpin a comparative advantage in different locations Very good evaluation of whether a comparative advantage is fixed or not Very good balance of theory and contextualisation Very strong implications drawn for management action Demonstrated very good insight into the application of classic and/or modern trade theories All statements of facts are supported with references References used are recent Quality/scholarly references used Very good structuring of arguments Did not exceed 1000 words limit 16-20 marks Max 20 Foreign Direct Investment Vague or very poor evaluation whether FDI is justified in light of opportunities and constraints created by institutions Presented no sound evaluation whether FDI is justified in light of opportunities and constraints created by institutions No balance of theory and contextualisation Implications drawn for management action are not sound Demonstrated no or very limited insight into the application of the OLI paradigm Statements of facts are not supported with references or presented interpretations without any supporting evidence Very poor or no structuring of arguments. Statements as oppose to arguments are made Few of the references used are recent Ignored 1000 words limit 0-3 marks Conclusions Little or superficial improvements made to the fist report and/or did not tracked revisions Very poor update of conclusions section to reflect the work done in the second report Ignored 750 word limit 1 mark Revisions Demonstrated some insight into the application of the OLI paradigm Some statements of facts are supported with references Some of the references used are recent Poor structuring of arguments Exceeded 1000 words limit 4-9 marks Weak, vague or no sound conclusions drawn Conclusions derived from own interpretations Conclusions not supported by factual evidence Conclusions do not connect to the management problem identified Limited or poor evaluation whether FDI is justified in light of opportunities and constraints created by institutions Presented few sound arguments whether locations advantages is a good strategic fit for the MNE goals Some balance of theory and contextualisation Weak implications drawn for management action are sound Weak conclusion drawn Very little or “thin” factual evidence presented to support conclusions Few conclusions connect well to the management problem identified Demonstrated good insight into the application of the OLI paradigm Statements of facts are supported with references Most references used are recent Quality/scholarly references used Good structuring of arguments Slightly exceed 1000 words limit 10-15 marks Some improvements made to the fist report and tracked revisions Poor update of conclusions section to reflect the work done in the second report Poor planning in keeping to 750 words limit 2 marks Good evaluation whether FDI is justified in light of opportunities and constraints created by institutions Presented sound arguments whether locations advantages is a good strategic fit for the MNE goals Good balance of theory and contextualisation Most implications drawn for management action are sound 16-20 marks All of the conclusions are very strong conclusions drawn. Conclusions derived from very good and rich factual evidence presented in the report. All of the conclusions connect very well to management problem identified Substantive improvements made to the fist report and tracked all revisions made to the first report Very good update of conclusions section to reflect the work done in the second report Did not exceed 750 words limit Good improvements made to the fist report and tracked revisions Good update of conclusions section to reflect the work done in the second report Slightly exceeded 750 words limit 3 marks 4 marks Superficial revisions to and tracked some of the revisions made to the first report Some improvements to the first report Indicated why some of revisions were needed and/or how these revisions were addressed Sound revisions and tracked revisions made to the first report Good substantive improvements to the first report Indicated why most of revisions were needed and how these revisions were addressed Did not use a table, but mostly superficial revisions to the first report Little to no reflexivity demonstrated Used a table but presented few revisions to the first report that were wellstructured Some reflexivity demonstrated Used a table to present substantive revisions to the first report in a well-structured manner Good reflexivity demonstrated 2-4 marks Demonstrated very good insight into the application of the OLI paradigm All statements of facts are supported with references References used are recent Quality/scholarly references used Very good structuring of arguments Did not exceed 1000 words limit Most of the conclusions drawn are strong conclusion drawn Conclusions derived from factual evidence and rich factual evidence presented Most conclusions connect well to the management problem identified Very poor, superficial or no revisions and/or did not tracked revisions made As a whole, very little improvements to the first report Did not indicate why revisions were needed and/or how these revisions were addressed 0-1 mark Very good evaluation whether FDI is justified in light of opportunities and constraints created by institutions Presented very sound arguments whether locations advantages is a good strategic fit for the MNE goals Very good balance of theory and contextualisation Strong implications drawn for management action 5-7 marks Max 20 Max 4 Very sound revisions and tracked revisions made to the first report Substantive improvements to the first report Clearly indicated why all of the revisions were needed and how these revisions were addressed Used a table to present all the revisions to the first report in a substantive and well-structured manner Very good reflexivity demonstrated 8-10 marks Max 10 Technical requirements Subtotal Technical requirements Total No table of contents. Appropriate headings not created. Sections 0 not numbered or logically numbered. Poor grammar and spelling Table of contents and headings are used. Headings and subheading created and numbered logically. Acceptable grammar and spelling 1 Sources acknowledged in-text and aligns with the bibliography. Correct referencing technique is used. 1 Sources are not acknowledged/Incorrect referencing technique used 0 Bibliography included. At least ten sources included 2 Bibliography not included. Required minimum number of 15 sources not included. Sources used not reputable and scholary. Most sources are“Wiki-like” pages and/or online sources by anonymous authors. 0 Editing of an acceptable standard. Page numbers included and correctly reflected in the table of contents. 1 Editing of a poor standard. Page numbering not done or page numbers not correctly reflected in the table of contents 0 Percentage mark for Assignment 04 /84 /6 /90
0
advertisement
Download
advertisement
Add this document to collection(s)
You can add this document to your study collection(s)
Sign in Available only to authorized usersAdd this document to saved
You can add this document to your saved list
Sign in Available only to authorized users