The document outlines the assignment requirements for a case study on 'Sharpshape Fitness Club' due on August 29, 2016. It specifies the structure, word count, theory support, referencing format, and marking criteria for the submission. Students must analyze the case using strategic tools like PESTEL and Porter's Five Forces, and accurately integrate theory from scholarly sources.

1. 1
Assignment: Case Study
Description Marks out of Wtg (%) Due date
Case Study (2000 words) 40 40 29 August 2016
Please see the case titled‘SharpShape FitnessClub’inthe assignmentforumonstudydesk. This
case isapplicable toboth the Case Studyand the examinationatthe endof the semester. Youare
requiredtoanalyse thiscase andanswerthe questionsbelow.
Important instructions:
A. The format of presentingthe case studyanswersisindicatedinthe assignmentquestions
below. Please note thatneitherareportformatnor essayformatis required;justfollow the
formatand instructionsinthe assignmentquestionsbelow. A general introductionand
conclusiontothe case studyshouldnotbe included.
B. Word count:The wordcount is 2,000 words. A word countbetween1,800 and 2,200 (10%
+/- 2,000) isacceptable. If the wordcount isexceeded,onlythe first2,200 wordswill be
marked. The word countexcludesthe title page,wordsinthe figuresandtablesandthe List
of References. In-textreferencesare includedinthe wordcount.
C. Theorysupport: As indicatedinthe case studyquestionsbelow,youare requiredtosupport
your views withtheory. Toensure depthandcredibility of yourwork,youneedto
demonstrate thatyoureadwidelyonthe theory topicbyincludingthe viewsof awide range
of theorysources. Theory sources includescholarlyjournal articlesresearchedthroughthe
USQ Library databases. The prescribedtext(Grantetal.2014) as well asthe course readings
mustalso be includedastheorysupport.Onpostgraduate level itisexpectedthatresearch
include aboutfifteenjournalarticles(excludingthe course readings andtext).
D. References:Pleasenote thatinformationobtainedfromthe case studyshouldnotbe
referencedasthe case studyisthe base source of informationforyourassignment. If you
use informationfromthe course StudyBook,youshouldfindthe original source (see Listof
referencesatthe endof each module) andreference the original source of theory.All ideas
and data presentedin-text,mustbe referencedaccordingtothe Harvard AGPS method.
The full reference of eachsource mustbe presentedinthe Listof Referencesatthe endof
your document.Pleasesee the USQLibrarywebsite forhelponhow touse the Harvard
AGPSmethod:http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide
E. Marking criteriasheet: Itisimportantthat youread throughthe markingcriteriawhen
preparingyourassignmenttonote the criteriathatassignmentswill be evaluatedagainst.
Please insertacopyof thiscriteriasheetatthe endof yourdocument. Please insertapage
breakat the endof your assignmentbefore copyingthe markingcriteriasheetonthe next
page.
F. Submission: Onlyone documentinMicrosoftWord(.docor .docx) can be submitted. Please
make sure that you submitthe correctfile andthe final versionof yourassignment. It
createsunnecessaryproblemsif yousubmitthe wrongfile andwe have toresetyour
submissionpage.

2. 2
G. The due date isMonday, 8am AEST, 29 August2016. Penaltieswill be appliedforlate
submission. Please seethe USQpolicyonassignmentsubmission,Point4.2.4 ‘Late
submissionof assignments’ http://policy.usq.edu.au/documents/14749PL#4.2_Assignments.
Extensiontothe due date can onlybe consideredif the guidelinesinthe policyare followed.
H. If you have questionsaboutthe assignment, please postthemonCase Study Discussion
Forumon StudyDesk. Evenif youdon’thave questions,itisimportantthatyoufollow the
discussionsonthisforumtomake sure that youare on the right track withyourresponses
to the case studyquestions.
Assignment questions:
Afterreadingandanalysingthe case SharpShape FitnessClub carefully,please respondtothe
followingquestions. Use the headingsandsubheadingsasshown below topresentyouranswers.
Titlepage
The USQ Coversheetshouldnotbe included. The firstpage of yourassignmentmustbe a title page
where the followinginformationmustbe included:
 Assignmenttitle
 Full name andstudentnumber
 Actual wordcount
 Email addressor contact phone number(If there isaproblemwithyourassignment,itis
useful tohave yourdetailssothat I can contact you).
Please presentthe titlepage asa separate page.
1. Summarise the Industryand MarketInformation (+/-300words)
Basedon the informationprovidedinthe case,summarise the industryandmarketbackgroundfor
Sharp Shape FitnessClub. Presentthisinyourownwordsandoutline aspectssuchasthe industryin
general,currentindustrytrends,competitioninthe industry,the state of the global market,state of
the Australianmarket,andanyotherfact that mightbe relevantbackgroundthatcan be usedin
preparingfuture strategies.
2. Industryanalysis:PESTELAnalysis (+/-450words)
2.1 Introduction
Explainwhatthe PESTEL tool is usedfor and how it assistsinstrategydevelopment. Use theoryto
supportyourexplanations. Use yourtextbut alsoothertheorysources toadd depthto your
discussion.
2.2 Figure1: PESTELanalysis
Draw the PESTEL frameworkaspresentedinyourtext,(Grantetal.2014, p.115) and populate each
blockwithdata fromthe case, usingbulletpoints. The six elementsaswellasthe middle block, the
industryenvironment,mustbe populated.Make sure thatthe readerunderstandswhatthe case
studyfact isthat you are identifying,one wordinabulletpointmaynotbe sufficient. Foreach
element,identifyanumberof issues. The level of analysisof yourcase will be demonstratedinthe
populationof eachof the blocks.

3. 3
2.3 Element narrative
In thissection,eachof the elementsthatyoupopulatedwithcase studyfactsmustbe discussed.
Explainhow the environmentalconditionsmightinfluencethe organisation(SharpShape Fitness
Club) infuture andimpacton future strategicplanning. The overallindustryenvironment(the
middle blockof PESTEL) mustalsobe discussedintermsof the impactof the environmental
conditions onsuppliers,competitorsandcustomers andhow thisimpactsonfuture strategic
planning. Here youneedtoaddtheoryto supportyourviews(pleasesee PointC& D above inthe
‘ImportantInstructionssection).Make sure thatyouuse your theorycomponenttointegrate the
viewsandargumentsof otherauthors(journal articles) withyourownviewsratherthanusing
theoryonlyfordefinitionsof elements.
3. IndustryAnalysis:Porter’sFiveForces (+/-450words)
3.1 Introduction
ExplainwhatPorter’sFive ForcesFrameworkisusedfor andhow itassistsinstrategydevelopment.
Use theorytosupportyour explanations. Use yourtextbutalsoothertheorysourcesto add depth
to yourdiscussion.
3.2 Figure2: Porter’s fiveforces framework(extended version)
Draw ‘Porter’sFive ForcesFrameworkExtendedwithComplements’aspresentedinyourtext,
(Grant etal. 2014, p.134) and populate eachblockwithdatafromthe case,usingbulletpoints.
Make sure that the readerunderstandswhatthe case studyfact isthat you are identifying,one
wordin a bulletpointmaynotbe sufficient.
ReadGrant etal. (2014, pp.121 – 134) forinformationaboutwhateachforce entails. Note thatthe
case studyfactsshouldbe includedhere.Foreachelement,identifyanumberof issuesif applicable.
The level of analysisof yourcase will be demonstratedinthe populationof eachof the blocks.
3.3 Forces narrative
In thissection,eachof the forces that youpopulatedwithcase studyfactsmustbe discussed.
Explainhow the microenvironmental conditions (industryconditions) mightinfluencethe
organisation(SharpShape FitnessClub) infuture andimpactonfuture strategicplanning. Inthe
middle block,the Industrycompetitors,the rivalryamongexistingfirmsmustbe discussed.Here you
needtoadd theoryto supportyourviews(pleasesee PointC& D above in the ‘Important
Instructionssection).Make sure thatyou use yourtheorycomponenttointegrate the viewsand
argumentsof otherauthors(journal articles) withyourownviewsratherthanusingtheoryonlyfor
definitionsof elements.
4. IndustryAnalysis:KeySuccessFactors(KSFs) (+/-450words)
4.1 Introduction
ExplainwhatKSFsare and howtheyare usedinstrategydevelopment. Use theorytosupportyour
explanations. Use yourtextbutalsoothertheorysourcesto add depthtoyour discussion.

4. 4
4.2 Table1: Key Success Factors
Draw up a KSFTable similartoTable 4.2 (Grant etal. 2014, p.145) for the Healthand Fitness
Industry. Identifythe externalforcesimpactingonthis industry,listthe likelyindustryresponsesas
a whole (howthe whole industryiscurrentlyrespondingtothese forces) andthenlistKeySuccess
Factors forthe industry. These are the characteristicsthatcompaniesinthisindustryshouldhave if
theywantto be successful andcompetitive. Payspecial attentiontohow youformulate these
successfactors(see Table 4.2 in Grant et al.2014 p.145 for examples) astheyplayanimportantrole
indevelopingarange of strategiesgoingforward.
4.3 KSFnarrative
From the listof KSFsthat you identifiedinthe table,choose five (5) of the mostimportantkey
successfactorsfor the industry. Explainwhyyouhave choseneachof these KSFsas mostimportant
inthe industry;whyare these factorscritical inthe Healthand Fitness industry?
Here you needtoadd theorytosupportyour views(please see PointC& D above inthe ‘Important
Instructionssection).Make sure thatyou use yourtheorycomponenttointegrate the viewsand
argumentsof otherauthors(journal articles) withyourownviewsratherthanusingtheoryonlyfor
definitionsof elements.
5. Discuss thevalueofthe rational models(suchasPESTEL,FiveForcesandKSFs) in
contemporarystrategicplanning.(+/-350words)
The Module 2 Readingsaddressthe use of strategictoolsinmodernstrategicplanning. Inthis
section,discussthe value androle of rational models inpractice. Concludewithyourpersonal view
aboutthe issue,whetherthese strategictoolsshouldbe usedornotinstrategydevelopment.
In Section2.3.2 StrategicToolsand theirUse in Practice of your StudyBook(Module 2, p.11) the use
of ‘technical rational’modelsisaddressed. Please donotcopyinformationfromthe studybookinto
your answerinthissection. Itisimportantthat youread the viewsof the authorsof the readings
(Module 2 Readings) anddevelopyourownopinionaboutthe usefulnessof these modelsin
practice. In thissection,additional theorysourcesare notrequired,onlythe relevantModule 2
readingsshouldbe used astheory tosupportyour discussion. Remembertoapply in-text
referencing(andof course full referencesinthe Listof References) whenyoupresentthe views
obtainedfrom these sources.
6. List ofReferences
Include here alistof full referencesof all the in-textreferencesthatyouincludedinyour
discussions. The case studyshouldnotbe referencedhere butyourtextandreadingsthatyou
referencedshouldappearhere. Make sure that youfollow the correctHarvard AGPS methodof
referencing. Pleasesee the USQLibrarywebsite forhelponhow touse the Harvard AGPS
method:http://www.usq.edu.au/library/referencing/harvard-agps-referencing-guide . The
CommunicationSkillsHandbookbySummersandSmith(anyof the editions) isalsoavery
valuable source of informationforreferencingandassessmentwritingingeneral.

5. 5
Marking Criteria Sheet (see next 3 pages)
The markingcriteriabelowwill be usedtoevaluate yourassignmentagainst. Pleasemake sure that
youread throughthe criteriasheettosee the expectationsonvariousgrade levels persectionof the
Case Study questions.
Please insertacopyof the full criteriasheetintoyourassignment. Thisshouldbe done byinserting
a page-breakafterthe Listof References,thencopy-and-pasteeachof the 3 pagesintoyourown
documenttodisplayaspresentedbelow.Thankyouforyourhelpinthis!
Please postquestionsaboutthe Case Study inthe Study Deskforumtitled‘Case Study Discussion
Forum’.

6. 6
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50%
PASS
50%–64%
CREDIT
65%–74%
DISTINCTION
75%–84%
HIGH DISTINCTION
85% andup
TOT
AL
SUMMARISE
INDUSTRY
AND
MARKET
INFORMATI
ON
Lacks a demonstrated
understandingof the question
anddifferentiationbetween
industry andmarket is not clear.
Not all issues relevant to
question have been answered.
Misunderstoodthe case study
focus. Includedmostly irrelevant
material.
High degree of copy andpaste
from case.
Basic to fair understanding
of question.
May not have answeredall
the issues relevant tothe
question.
Includedsome irrelevant
material.
Some degree of copy and
paste fromcase.
Sound understandingof
the question
demonstratedin the
answer to the question.
Clear distinction
between industry and
market information.
Goodselection of
informationpresentedin
a structuredway.
Strongunderstanding
of the question.
Answers all parts of
the question; included
a broadselection of
relevant industryand
market information.
Well-constructed
answer, argument is
clear andreinforces
important key issues.
Unequivocal understanding
of question.
Excellent analysis of
relevant issues pertainingto
the question.
No irrelevant content.
Excellent development and
flowof argument.
MARK / 4 <2 2 – 2.6 2.6 – 3 3- 3.4 3.4- 4
PESTEL
ANALYSIS:
INTRODUCT
ION
No introductionorintroduction
without theory support.
Prescribedtext not used.
Introduction does not explainthe
link with strategy development.
Basic introduction,only
text usedas theory
support. Prescribedtext
not effectivelyused. Basic
explanation oflink with
strategy development.
Sound introduction,
some original sources
used as theorysupport.
Sound explanation of
link with strategy
development.
Clear introduction
demonstrating
research of the topic.
Link with strategy
development is well
researchedand
presentedclearly.
Original sources of
theoryapplied.
Excellent introduction,
concise, clear and
demonstratinga deep level
of understandingof the
topic. A range of original
sources of theoryapplied
PESTEL
ANALYSIS:
FRAMEWOR
K
No framework presentedor
presentedincorrectly. No case
facts only theory as bullet points.
Elements not populatedwith case
data. Irrelevant data included.
Elements populatedwith only
theory, nocase study data. Poor
selection ofcase data.
Misunderstoodthe requirements.
Insufficient case analysis.
Framework is presented
with bullet points from
case data but covers only
some issues, analysis is
incomplete.
Elements populated
insufficiently. Mostly
theory, insufficient case
study data. Basic level of
case analysis.
Framework is presented
with relevant bullet
points with case data;
most of the important
issues are included.
Elements are
sufficiently populated
with theoryandcase
data, satisfactorylevel
of case analysis.
Framework is
populatedwith
relevant and
significant case study
data demonstratinga
deep level of case
analysis.
Excellent population ofthe
framework withimportant
andrelevant case study data.
Original material is the result
of in depth investigation.
Excellent analysis of
sources.
PESTEL
ANALYSIS:
NARRATIVE
Lacks a demonstrated
understandingof the question.
Not all issues relevant to
question have been answered.
Misunderstoodthe case study
focus. Includedmostly irrelevant
material.
Poor structure: noparagraphs, no
logical progression ofargument.
No references. No integration of
theoryandapplication. No
theory, only application.Only
theory, noapplication. Course
materials and/or prescribedtext
not used. Only textbook noother
research. High degree of
paraphrasingor direct quotes.
Includedirrelevant sources (web
pages, study books, articles from
magazines) to support theory
component.
Basic to fair understanding
of question. May not have
answeredall the issues
relevant tothe question.
Might have some patches
of irrelevant material.
Some evidence of
structure andprogression
of argument.
Includedsome additional
references although
integrationof all or some
of these references need
improvement. Citations
were mostly fromthe text.
Includedsome irrelevant
sources (web pages, study
books, articles from
magazines) to support
theorycomponent.
Sound understandingof
the question
demonstratedin the
answer to the question.
All issues were
addressed.
Goodstructure and
progression oftheme.
Original material
obtainedandintegrated
in most instances.
Sources of theory
include scholarly journal
articles to support the
theorycomponent.
Strongunderstanding
of the question.
Answers all parts of
the question,
includingdiscussions
for each of the
elements.
Very goodstructure,
clear arguments and
progression of
argument.
Clear evidence of
wider reading.
References are well
integratedintothe
discussions. Good
balance of text,
journals, etc. Critical
analysis of sources.
Unequivocal understanding
of question. Excellent
analysis of relevant issues
pertainingtothe question.
Excellent critical analysis
anddiscussion.
Original material is the result
of in depth investigation.
Excellent critical analysis of
sources. References are
relevant andclearly
integrated.
MARK/9 <4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 - 9
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50%
PASS
50%–64%
CREDIT
65%–74%
DISTINCTION
75%–84%
HIGH DISTINCTION
85% andup
TOT
AL

7. 7
FIVE
FORCES:
INTRODUCT
ION
No introductionorintroduction
without theory support.
Prescribedtext not used.
Introduction does not explainthe
link with strategy development.
Basic introduction,only
text usedas theory
support. Prescribedtext
not effectivelyused. Basic
explanation oflink with
strategy development.
Sound introduction,
some original sources
used as theorysupport.
Sound explanation of
link with strategy
development.
Clear introduction
demonstrating
research of the topic.
Link with strategy
development is well
researchedand
presentedclearly.
Original sources of
theoryapplied.
Excellent introduction,
concise, clear and
demonstratinga deep level
of understandingof the
topic. A range of original
sources of theoryapplied.
FIVE
FORCES:
FRAMEWOR
K
No framework presentedor
presentedincorrectly. No case
facts only theory as bullet points.
Elements not populatedwith case
data. Irrelevant data included.
Elements populatedwith only
theory, nocase study data. Poor
selection ofcase data.
Misunderstoodthe requirements.
Insufficient case analysis.
Framework is presented
with bullet points from
case data but covers only
some issues, analysis is
incomplete.
Elements populated
insufficiently. Mostly
theory, insufficient case
study data. Basic level of
case analysis.
Framework is presented
with relevant bullet
points with case data;
most of the important
issues are included.
Elements are
sufficiently populated
with theoryandcase
data, satisfactorylevel
of case analysis.
Framework is
populatedwith
relevant and
significant case study
data demonstratinga
deep level of case
analysis.
Excellent population ofthe
framework withimportant
andrelevant case study data.
Original material is the result
of in depth investigation.
Excellent analysis of
sources.
FIVE
FORCES:
NARRATIVE
Lacks a demonstrated
understandingof the question.
Not all issues relevant to
question have been answered.
Misunderstoodthe case study
focus. Includedmostly irrelevant
material.
Poor structure: noparagraphs, no
logical progression ofargument.
No references. No integration of
theoryandapplication. No
theory, only application.Only
theory, noapplication. Course
materials and/or prescribedtext
not used. Only textbook noother
research. High degree of
paraphrasingor direct quotes.
Includedirrelevant sources (web
pages, study books, articles from
magazines) to support theory
component.
Basic to fair understanding
of question. May not have
answeredall the issues
relevant tothe question.
Might have some patches
of irrelevant material.
Some evidence of
structure andprogression
of argument.
Includedsome additional
references although
integrationof all or some
of these references need
improvement. Citations
were mostly fromthe text.
Includedsome irrelevant
sources (web pages, study
books, articles from
magazines) to support
theorycomponent.
Sound understandingof
the question
demonstratedin the
answer to the question.
All issues were
addressed.
Goodstructure and
progression oftheme.
Original material
obtainedandintegrated
in most instances.
Sources of theory
include scholarly journal
articles to support the
theorycomponent.
Strongunderstanding
of the question.
Answers all parts of
the question,
includingdiscussions
for each of the
elements.
Very goodstructure,
clear arguments and
progression of
argument.
Clear evidence of
wider reading.
References are well
integratedintothe
discussions. Good
balance of text,
journals, etc. Critical
analysis of sources.
Unequivocal understanding
of question. Excellent
analysis of relevant issues
pertainingtothe question.
Excellent critical analysis
anddiscussion.
Original material is the result
of in depth investigation.
Excellent critical analysis of
sources. References are
relevant andclearly
integrated.
MARK/9 <4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 - 9
KSF:
INTRODUCT
ION
No introductionorintroduction
without theory support.
Prescribedtext not used.
Introduction does not explainthe
link with strategy development.
Basic introduction,only
text usedas theory
support. Prescribedtext
not effectivelyused. Basic
explanation oflink with
strategy development.
Sound introduction,
some original sources
used as theorysupport.
Sound explanation of
link with strategy
development.
Clear introduction
demonstrating
research of the topic.
Link with strategy
development is well
researchedand
presentedclearly.
Original sources of
theoryapplied.
Excellent introduction,
concise, clear and
demonstratinga deep level
of understandingof the
topic. A range of original
sources of theoryapplied.
KSF
FRAMEWOR
K
No framework presentedor
presentedincorrectly. No case
facts only theory as bullet points.
Elements not populatedwith case
data. Irrelevant data included.
Elements populatedwith only
theory, nocase study data. Poor
selection ofcase data.
Misunderstoodthe requirements.
Insufficient case analysis.
Framework is presented
with bullet points from
case data but covers only
some issues, analysis is
incomplete.
Elements populated
insufficiently. Mostly
theory, insufficient case
study data. Basic level of
case analysis.
Framework is presented
with relevant bullet
points with case data;
most of the important
issues are included.
Elements are
sufficiently populated
with theoryandcase
data, satisfactorylevel
of case analysis.
Framework is
populatedwith
relevant and
significant case study
data demonstratinga
deep level of case
analysis.
Excellent population ofthe
framework withimportant
andrelevant case study data.
Original material is the result
of in depth investigation.
Excellent analysis of
sources.

8. 8
CRITERIA FAIL
Less than 50%
PASS
50%–64%
CREDIT
65%–74%
DISTINCTION
75%–84%
HIGH DISTINCTION
85% andup
TOT
AL
KSF:
NARRATIVE
Lacks a demonstrated
understandingof the question.
Not all issues relevant to
question have been answered.
Misunderstoodthe case study
focus. Includedmostly irrelevant
material.
Poor structure: noparagraphs, no
logical progression ofargument.
No references. No integration of
theoryandapplication. No
theory, only application.Only
theory, noapplication. Course
materials and/or prescribedtext
not used. Only textbook noother
research. High degree of
paraphrasingor direct quotes.
Includedirrelevant sources (web
pages, study books, articles from
magazines) to support theory
component.
Basic to fair understanding
of question. May not have
answeredall the issues
relevant tothe question.
Might have some patches
of irrelevant material.
Some evidence of
structure andprogression
of argument.
Includedsome additional
references although
integrationof all or some
of these references need
improvement. Citations
were mostly fromthe text.
Includedsome irrelevant
sources (web pages, study
books, articles from
magazines) to support
theorycomponent.
Sound understandingof
the question
demonstratedin the
answer to the question.
All issues were
addressed.
Goodstructure and
progression oftheme.
Original material
obtainedandintegrated
in most instances.
Sources of theory
include scholarly journal
articles to support the
theorycomponent.
Strongunderstanding
of the question.
Answers all parts of
the question,
includingdiscussions
for each of the
elements.
Very goodstructure,
clear arguments and
progression of
argument.
Clear evidence of
wider reading.
References are well
integratedintothe
discussions. Good
balance of text,
journals, etc. Critical
analysis of sources.
Unequivocal understanding
of question. Excellent
analysis of relevant issues
pertainingtothe question.
Excellent critical analysis
anddiscussion.
Original material is the result
of in depth investigation.
Excellent critical analysis of
sources. References are
relevant andclearly
integrated.
MARK/9 <4.5 4.5 – 5.8 5.8 – 6.7 6.7 – 7.6 7.6 - 9
VALUE OF
RATIONAL
MODELS
Lacks a demonstrated
understandingof the question.
Study book materials copied. No
evidence that thereadings for
Module 2 were studied. Did not
conclude with a clear opinion
about the value of themodels.
Arguments not supportedwith
theoryfrom thereadings. No
theoryreferences (readings).
Unsupportedpersonal opinions.
Basic to fair understanding
of question. Evidence that
some of the readings were
studied.
Some validarguments
offered, supportedby
theory.
Concludedwith opinion
about the value of the
models. Some arguments
supportedby theoryfrom
readings.
Sound understandingof
the question. Evidence
that all of the readings
for Module 2 were
studied.
Valid arguments built
on the views presented
in the readings. Good
theorysupport.
Concludedwith a valid
opinion about the value
of the models. All
arguments supportedby
theoryfrom the
readings.
Strongunderstanding
of the question. Clear
critical opinion
justifiedfrom the
theory.
Very goodarguments
built on the views
presentedin the
readings. Very good
theorysupport.
Very goodconclusion
about the value of the
models, supportedby
theoryfrom the
readings.
Unequivocal understanding
of question. Excellent
critical opinionjustified
from thetheory.
Excellent arguments, clear
evidence of understandingof
the issues addressed in the
readings.
Excellent conclusions,
supportedby theoryfrom the
readings.
MARK /5 <2.5 2.5 - 3 3 – 3.5 3.5 - 4 4 - 5
RESEARCH/
REFERENCI
NG/
PRESENTAT
ION
No research of topics. No
scholarly journal articles. Only
companywebsites.
Did not conformtoHarvard
referencing.
Not adheringtoassignment
requirements.No titlepage. Did
not followthe requiredstructure.
Excessive spelling, grammatical
errors; poorsyntax.Poorly
presented; A lot of typingerrors.
Over or under 10% of wordlimit
Includedsome scholarly
journal articles although
insufficient number is
insufficient. Citations
were mostly fromthe text.
Harvardreferencing
techniques varies.
Some instances in which
the assignment
requirements andstructure
were not followed. Fair
understandingof rules of
grammar andconstruction.
Some spelling/typing
errors. Withinwordcount.
Satisfactorynumberof
scholarly journal
articles. Sufficient
research.
Only minor errors in
Harvardreferencing –
in-text orList of
references
Adhere to assignment
requirements and
structure. Soundlevel of
fluency in writing; (may
have one or two
awkward sentences). No
obvious errors in
grammar or syntax.
Well presented. Within
word count
Clear evidence of
wider reading.
Meets Harvard
referencingprotocols.
Clear andfluent
writing. Professional
presentation.
Within wordcount.
Uses dynamic, unique
material beside relatively
standardmaterial to develop
theoretical concepts.
Excellent research.
Accurate Harvard
referencingno errors.
Well-constructedandcrafted
piece of work. A pleasure to
read. Professional
presentation. Withinword
count.
MARK / 4 <2 2 – 2.6 2.6 – 3 3- 3.4 3.4- 4
TOTAL/40: