Unit Code: ISY2007 (ISY212 / ITM205)
Unit Name: Management Information Systems
Assessment Item 2: Case Study Report
Weighting: 25%
Type: Individual
You will:
Assessment | Fail | Competent | Good | Excellent |
Criteria | ||||
(10) | 0-4 | 5-6 | 7-8 | 9-10 |
Currency | The issue is no | The issue chosen for | The issue chosen | The issue chosen for |
/Appropriate | longer relevant / | discussion is current, | for discussion is | discussion is current |
choice of topic | i.e. published in 2009 | current, i.e. | Excellent choice | |
/ Word Limit | Inappropriate | or later / | published in 2009 | |
(2000 – 2200) | choice | Good choice | or later. | |
/ Too short or | Appropriate Limit | |||
exceeded. | / questionable | Satisfactory limit. | ||
(10) | 0-4 | 5-6 | 7-8 | 9-10 |
Format – | There is no clear | Introduction included | Effective | The introduction is |
Introduction | introduction. | but does not include | introduction | inviting, and provides |
effective overview or | including overview | an excellent overview | ||
scope of paper. | and scope of | and scope of the | ||
paper. | paper. | |||
(10) | 0-4 | 5-6 | 7-8 | 9-10 |
Content and | Does not answer | Basic answer to some | Very good | Insightful coverage of |
critical analysis | all parts of the | parts of the question. | development of an | all parts of the |
question or has | answer to all parts | question with | ||
been too | of the question | excellent examples | ||
descriptive and | with evidence of | which show evidence | ||
general. | critical thinking. | of critical thinking and | ||
analysis. | ||||
(10) | 0-4 | 5-6 | 7-8 | 9-10 |
Logical & | Main argument | Main argument lacks | Attention is given | Main argument is |
insightful | not addressed | clarity and/or may not | to the main | strong and referred to |
and/or | be appropriate, but | argument but not | throughout, | |
inappropriate | there is a planned | all information is | supported by relevant | |
argument used | approach. | appropriate and | sub-arguments that | |
and/or no planned | relevant. | are all logical and well | ||
approach. | developed. | |||
(10) | 0-4 | 5-6 | 7-8 | 9-10 |
Original | Not original. | Poor originality. | Some originality. | Highly original. |
discussion | ||||
TurnitIn originality | TurnitIn originality | TurnitIn originality | TurnitIn originality | |
index > 25% | index between 18% – | index between | index < 10% | |
25% | 10% – 17% | |||
(10) | 0-4 | 5-6 | 7-8 | 9-10 |
In-text citations/ | Poor use of | Some attempt at | Satisfactory use of | Correct and thorough |
use of academic | sources; | paraphrasing with | sources and in-text | in-text citation and |
evidence (Depth | inadequate in-text | some in-text errors. | citations and | paraphrasing with no |
of research) | citations; | Less than 4 academic | content is | errors. All sources are |
plagiarism at | in-text citations. | adequately | referenced. | |
times; no | paraphrased. At | |||
academic in-text | least 4 academic | Academic evidence | ||
citations. | citations. | |||
used (more than 4 | ||||
academic citations) | ||||