MGMT5050 | Marking Rubric: Assessment 2: Report | 2025 Term 2, V1.0 Page 1 of 2
1. Demonstrates knowledge of Tractor Supply and the selected critical issue using the 5W framework
Level
Description
Unsatisfactory
Demonstrates little or no knowledge of Tractor Supply and the selected critical issue. Lacks details and context. No use of the 5W framework.
Below Expectation
Knowledge of Tractor Supply and the critical issue is weak and superficial. Limited or incorrect use of the 5W framework. May include factual inaccuracies.
Pass
Shows basic knowledge of Tractor Supply and the critical issue, though the analysis is generic. Evidence is correct with no major errors, but application of the 5W framework may be limited.
Credit
Shows solid understanding of the facts surrounding Tractor Supply and the critical issue, with appropriate and accurate evidence. The 5W framework is adequately applied.
Distinction
Demonstrates a thorough grasp of Tractor Supply and the critical issue, showcasing a comprehensive understanding of the topic’s complexities. The 5W framework is applied effectively, and evidence presented is both appropriate and extensive.
High Distinction
Develops an insightful and comprehensive discussion of Tractor Supply and the critical issue, fully integrating the 5W framework. Evidence is not only appropriate and extensive but also demonstrates original insights, showing a deep understanding of the issue’s nuances.
Marks
0, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10
2. PESTEL analysis and summary of the selected critical issue
Level
Description
Unsatisfactory
PESTEL analysis is missing.
Below Expectation
PESTEL analysis is incorrectly or poorly applied. It is applied generically without focus on the critical issue. Summary is generic.
Pass
PESTEL analysis is largely applied correctly but may be generic. Summary shows some understanding but lacks depth.
Credit
PESTEL analysis is correctly applied. Summary demonstrates some depth of understanding of the critical issue.
Distinction
Uses the PESTEL analysis in an appropriate manner. Summary shows critical thinking about the critical issue.
High Distinction
Uses the PESTEL analysis in an appropriate manner. Summary shows critical thinking of the critical issue, creating deep insights.
Marks
0, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10
3. Analysis of key ethical/sustainability concerns
Level
Description
Unsatisfactory
Fails to incorporate SDGs, ethical framework(s) and other course concepts in the analysis of the ethical issue.
Below Expectation
Incorporates SDGs, ethical framework(s), or course concepts, but the connection to the ethical issue is unclear, underdeveloped, or lacks critical insight. The analysis remains superficial, and additional sources are minimal.
Pass
Incorporates relevant SDGs, ethical framework(s), or other course concepts in the analysis, though the discussion may be surface-level or lacking complexity. Uses fewer than three additional academic sources.
Credit
Demonstrates a clear and competent use of SDGs, ethical framework(s), and other course concepts. Draws on course concepts and at least 3 additional academic sources. The analysis is mostly well-developed.
Distinction
Provides a detailed and insightful analysis of the ethical issue, with strong integration of SDGs, ethical framework(s), and other course concepts. Draws on at least 3 additional academic sources. Demonstrates understanding of complexity.
High Distinction
Offers a sophisticated and in-depth analysis that fully integrates SDGs, ethical framework(s), and other course concepts. Demonstrates deep understanding, critical insight, and originality. At least 3 academic sources are expertly used.
Marks
0, 9, 15, 21, 24, 30
MGMT5050 | Marking Rubric: Assessment 2: Report | 2025 Term 2, V1.0 Page 2 of 2
4. Recommendations
Level
Description
Unsatisfactory
No recommendations proposed.
Below Expectation
Proposes recommendations, but they are minimal, vague, impractical, or irrelevant to the critical issue.
Pass
Provides 2-3 reasonable recommendations that address the critical issue. Risks are identified but may not be fully explored. Mitigation strategies may lack detail. OR only provides a single, well-developed recommendation.
Credit
Offers 2-3 clear and relevant recommendations that are well-aligned with the critical issue. Risks are identified and discussed with some depth. Mitigation strategies are feasible.
Distinction
Proposes 2-3 strong, well-justified recommendations. Risks are clearly identified and discussed in detail with practical mitigation strategies.
High Distinction
Provides 2-3 insightful, innovative, and highly relevant recommendations. Risks are comprehensively identified and critically analysed. Creative and highly effective mitigation strategies proposed.
Marks
0, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15
5. Reflection on learning
Level
Description
Unsatisfactory
Reflection is absent, generic, or unrelated. Lacks personal insight or engagement.
Below Expectation
Minimal self-disclosure. Connections to experiences are superficial. Reflection lacks depth and may be factually incorrect.
Pass
Attempts to connect personal experiences to course concepts. Limited analysis and critical approach.
Credit
Connects course concepts to personal growth. Some concrete examples used. May lack depth.
Distinction
Demonstrates open, reflective, and thoughtful self-appraisal. Concrete examples show learning and development.
High Distinction
Provides deep, insightful reflection with strong self-appraisal. Critically engages with personal experience and integrates course concepts.
Marks
0, 6, 10, 14, 16, 20
6. Structures text logically and communicates clearly and professionally
Level
Description
Unsatisfactory
Poor structure. Inappropriate formatting, excessive quotes, grammar issues. Unprofessional and outside word limit.
