Marking criteria |
Letter |
Mark |
|
grade |
recorded |
The work shows evidence of: |
70+ A
|
|
Explains in depths how content and process theories can be used to improve |
||
motivation and productivity in a team. |
||
Very good application of CVF, referring to own actions and behaviours in a very reflective manner. |
||
Describes very relevant and theoretically sound techniques to improve teamwork. |
||
Excellent structure, very coherent and logical, easy to follow through. |
||
Excellent referencing in text and list following Harvard system without mistakes. |
||
Evidence of very wide reading and research in recent publications, relevant books and journals. |
||
The work shows evidence of: |
B 60-69 |
|
Explains well how content and process theories can be used to improve motivation and productivity in a team. |
||
Good application of CVF, referring to own actions and behaviours. |
||
Describes relevant and good techniques to improve teamwork. |
||
Coherent and logical structure throughout. |
||
Good referencing in text and list following Harvard system with only minor mistakes. |
||
Evidence of wide reading and research in mostly highly relevant and recent publication. |
||
The work shows: |
C 50-59 |
|
Explain some aspects how content and process theories can be used to improve motivation and productivity in a team. |
||
The CVF is mentioned, but the link to own actions and behaviours is rather weak. |
||
Describes some techniques to improve teamwork. |
||
Coherent and logical structure in most parts provided. |
||
Attempt to use references in text and list, not always following Harvard system. |
||
Evidence of some reading. |
||
The work shows: |
D 40-49 |
|
Either content or process theories are discussed. The application to teamwork is very weak |
||
Own actions and behaviours have not been clearly embedded in the CVF. |
||
Limited description of techniques to improve teamwork. |
||
Some structure detectable, but not very coherent or logical. |
||
Follows Harvard system, but not throughout. |
||
Evidence of reading is limited. |
||
Does not address the task set. Presents minimal material related to the topic. Little evidence of understanding of the task set. Poor structure. Attempt to use source, referencing not used. |
0-39 F1
|
|
Fail – Non-submission. |
F3 |
0 |