|
GRADE
|
Scenario Planning Diagram
(20%)
|
Leadership Critique
(20%)
|
Scholarly & Presentation
(2 x 5%)
|
|
A
|
General:
Exceptional communication/ presentation skills, appropriate to audience, and demonstrating excellent ability in relation to accuracy, clarity and judgement in conveying understanding and meaning. Exceptional demonstration of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills in managing and developing own learning and making decisions in complex contexts.
Specific:
The organisational scenarios are original, highly detailed demonstrating extensive understanding of the internal and/or external pressures at play. There are excellent creative insights into the possible alternative directions of the organisation. The diagram is imaginatively produced to make an intriguing and compelling set of scenarios
|
General:
Exceptional breadth and depth of knowledge together with very strong clear independent critically evaluative understanding. Significant ability to construct and sustain evidence-based arguments, through excellent synthesis and critical interpretation of scholarly reviews and/or primary evidence. Authoritative grasp of disciplinary concepts and analysis to issues and problems.
Specific:
The leadership critique is excellent and demonstrates deep learning and subsequent understanding of the topic. The leadership debate is consistently aligned to the chosen organisational scenario. The debate shows extensive knowledge of the impact and tensions of leadership in driving organisational performance including the effect on the followers.
|
General:
Goes well beyond what is taught in reading/researching and use of academic sources and references to inform independent insight and understanding.
Accurate, clear, concise and correct Harvard method used for all references drawn from a range of high-quality sources. Research is evaluated and structured to support the whole work. High quality expression and presentation.
|
|
B
|
General:
Very good communication/ presentation skills, appropriate to audience to convey meaning, demonstrating strong competence, accuracy, clarity and judgement. Very good demonstration of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills in managing and developing own learning and making decisions in relatively complex contexts.
Specific:
The organisational scenarios are original, detailed demonstrating full understanding of the internal and/or external pressures at play. There are good creative insights into the possible direction of the organisation. The diagram is well crafted to make an intriguing and interesting set of scenarios.
|
General:
Knowledge demonstrates thorough depth and breadth of learning together with independent critically evaluative understanding. Arguments logically constructed, coherent and evidence-based on synthesis of scholarly review of a range of academic sources and critical insight. Ability to relate facts/disciplinary concepts together and apply good disciplinary analysis to issues and problems.
Specific:
The leadership critique is very good and demonstrates considerable understanding of the topic. The leadership debate is aligned to the chosen organisational scenario. The debate shows wide ranging knowledge of the impact and tensions of leadership in driving organisational performance including the effect on the followers, but this is less well developed than an ‘A’ grade.
|
General:
Evidence of insight in selection and use of material to go beyond what is taught
Specific:
Accurate, clear, concise and correct Harvard method used for all references drawn from a range of quality sources. Research is evaluated and structured to support most of work. Good quality expression and presentation.
|
|
C
|
General:
Communication/ presentation of information/ evidence to convey understanding and meaning demonstrates competence, accuracy and clarity. Sound demonstration of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills outside of areas in which first studied.
Specific:
The organisational scenarios are good demonstrating sound understanding of the internal and/or external pressures at play but could be more detailed. There are good insights into possible directions of the organisation, but these could be wider ranging or imaginative. The diagram is produced well and provides an interesting set of scenarios.
|
General:
Knowledge demonstrates good depth and breadth of learning together with emerging independent critically evaluative understanding. Logically constructed coherent argument, using scholarly review of academic sources, with some insight but possible weaknesses in structure/evidence. Responses are relevant to subject matter and show evidence of disciplinary analysis albeit with some limitations.
Specific:
The leadership critique is good and demonstrates understanding of the topic. The leadership debate is aligned to the chosen organisational scenario overall, but this could be more consistent in places. The debate shows knowledge of the impact and tensions of leadership in driving organisational performance, but these insights could be strengthened. Some inclusion of the wider impact such as followers but again this could be increased to create more depth of insight.
|
General:
Good breadth of understanding of taught content and set reading/ references
Specific:
Mostly accurate, clear, concise and correct Harvard method used for all references drawn from a limited range of high-quality academic sources. Research is partly presented and may be unstructured. Some expression issues and possible presentation errors.
|
|
D
|
General:
Competent accurate communication/ presentation of information/ evidence to convey understanding, possibly with some minor weaknesses. Adequate demonstration of application of relevant technical/ creative/ transferable skills outside of areas in which first studied.
Specific:
The organisational scenarios are quite basic and lack the breadth or depth of understanding of the internal and/or external pressures at play. The insights into possible directions of the organisation are satisfactory but could be much improved. The diagram is not very clearly presented and lacks intrigue and interest
|
General:
Knowledge sufficient to demonstrate sound learning with some standard critically evaluative understanding. Logically constructed coherent argument, using scholarly review of academic sources, with some insight but possible weaknesses in structure/evidence. Responses are relevant to subject matter but balanced towards descriptive rather analytical.
Specific:
There is an understanding of the role of the leader in organisations, but this is quite generalised and lacks criticality. There is a sense of the organisational context, but this is quite vague and lacks specificity. There is little consideration of wider impacts such as followers. The critique is limited.
|
General:
Relies on adequate selection of set materials/standard readings and references
Specific:
Inconsistent Harvard method used for references and/or references drawn from more general sources as opposed to high-quality academic sources. Basic research is partly presented and may be unstructured. A number of expression issues and presentation errors.
|
|
E
|
General:
Communication is inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise problematic in conveying understanding. Weak evidence of relevant skills development or application.
Specific:
The diagram is not well designed and doesn’t demonstrate the necessary understanding of scenario planning and/or the organisational context to meet the learning outcome.
|
General:
Weak or insufficient knowledge and understanding to demonstrate effective learning. Argument/ explanation is weak and poorly constructed, and/or unsubstantiated. Little evidence of ability to apply disciplinary conceptual understanding.
Specific:
There is a lack of critique of leadership and/or this does not take account of the organisational context. The work does not demonstrate enough understanding of the topic to meet the pass grade.
|
General:
Limited evidence of use of set materials/relevant academic sources and references
Specific:
Inaccurate Harvard method referencing and/or poor-quality references. Weak, if any research is presented and is unstructured. Many expression issues and presentation errors.
|
|
F
|
General:
Communication is inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise problematic in conveying understanding. Weak evidence of relevant skills development or application.
Specific:
The diagram is not well designed and doesn’t demonstrate the necessary understanding of scenario planning and/or the organisational context to meet the learning outcome.
|
General:
Weak or insufficient knowledge and understanding to demonstrate effective learning. Argument/ explanation is weak and poorly constructed, and/or unsubstantiated. Little evidence of ability to apply disciplinary conceptual understanding.
Specific:
There is a lack of critique of leadership and/or this does not take account of the organisational context. The work does not demonstrate enough understanding of the topic to meet the pass grade.
|
General:
Limited evidence of use of set materials/relevant academic sources and references
Specific:
Inaccurate Harvard method referencing and/or poor-quality references. Weak, if any research is presented and is unstructured. Many expression issues and presentation errors.
|
|
G
|
General:
Very poor communication indicating incoherence and/or seriously incomplete understanding. Seriously lacking in evidence of skills development or application.
Specific:
The diagram is not well designed and doesn’t demonstrate the necessary understanding of scenario planning and/or the organisational context to meet the learning outcome.
|
General:
Very poor knowledge and understanding indicating ineffective learning. Very poor argument/ explanation, lacking in logic and/or unsubstantiated. Very limited disciplinary conceptual understanding evidenced.
Specific:
There is a lack of critique of leadership and/or this does not take account of the organisational context. The work does not demonstrate enough understanding of the topic to meet the pass grade.
|
General:
Very little evidence of set materials/ relevant academic sources and references
Specific:
Inaccurate Harvard method referencing and/or poor-quality references. Weak, if any research is presented and is unstructured. Many expression issues and presentation errors.
|
|
H / NS
|
General:
Very poor communication indicating incoherence and/or seriously incomplete understanding. Seriously lacking in evidence of skills development or application.
Specific:
The diagram is not well designed and doesn’t demonstrate the necessary understanding of scenario planning and/or the organisational context to meet the learning outcome.
|
General:
Very poor knowledge and understanding indicating ineffective learning. Very poor argument/ explanation, lacking in logic and/or unsubstantiated. Very limited disciplinary conceptual understanding evidenced.
Specific:
There is a lack of critique of leadership and/or this does not take account of the organisational context. The work does not demonstrate enough understanding of the topic to meet the pass grade.
|
General:
Very little evidence of set materials/ relevant academic sources and references
Specific:
Inaccurate Harvard method referencing and/or poor-quality references. Weak, if any research is presented and is unstructured. Many expression issues and presentation errors.
|
