Discussion and analysis in each of the questions,demonstrate your
understandingof the relevant theory, clearly linking and applying it, critically, to the specific context of the case study.
WMGM1002 Case Study Marking Rubric (Atlassian) Criteria, Weightings and Marks Fail (FA) 0 Fail (F) 0 - 4.5 Pass (P) 5 - 6 Credit (Cr) 6.5 - 7 Distinction (D) 7.5 - 8 High Distinction (HD) 8.5- 10 Question 1 (20%) Non- submission Response fails to answer the question. Explanations provided are incomplete, irrelevant, or unclear. Response shows lack of/limited understanding of the topic. Explanation is basic and mostly clear. Response demonstrates some understanding of the topic. Response provides a clear explanation with some detail. Response demonstrates understanding of the topic. Response provides clear and detailed explanation. Response demonstrates some critical and analytical engagement with the topic and a good understanding of it. Response provides a consistently clear, comprehensive and detailed explanation. Response demonstrates critical and analytical engagement with the topic and expert-level understanding of it. Question 2 (20%) Non- submission Explanations provided are incomplete, irrelevant, or unclear. Examples are not provided or are incomplete, irrelevant, or unclear. Response shows lack of/limited understanding of the topic. Explanation is basic and mostly clear. Examples are mostly relevant. Response demonstrates some understanding of the topic. Response provides a clear explanation with some detail provided. Examples are relevant. Response demonstrates understanding of the topic. Response provides clear and detailed explanation. Examples are highly relevant. Response demonstrates some critical and analytical engagement with the topic. Response provides a consistently clear, comprehensive and detailed explanation. Examples are highly relevant and expertly used to support explanation. Response demonstrates critical and analytical engagement with the topic. Question 3 (20%) Non- submission Response fails to accurately identify and describe Atlassian’s design and structure. Explanations provided are incomplete, irrelevant, or unclear. Response shows lack of/limited understanding of the topic. Response accurately identifies and describes Atlassian’s design and structure. Explanation is basic and mostly clear. Response demonstrates some understanding of the topic. Response accurately identifies and describes Atlassian’s design and structure and provides a clear explanation with some detail provided. Response demonstrates understanding of the topic. Response accurately identifies and describes Atlassian’s design and structure and provides clear and detailed explanation. Response demonstrates some critical and analytical engagement with the topic. Response accurately identifies and describes Atlassian’s design and structure and provides a consistently clear, comprehensive and detailed explanation. Response demonstrates critical and analytical engagement with the topic. Question 4 (20%) Non- submission Response fails to accurately identify management style and is not supported from the case study. Discussion of appropriateness of leadership style provided is incomplete, irrelevant, or unclear. Response shows lack of/limited understanding of the topic. Response accurately identifies management style. Some support from the case study is provided. Discussion of appropriateness of leadership style s is basic and mostly clear. Response demonstrates some understanding of the topic. Response accurately identifies management style and is mostly supported from the case study. Discussion of appropriateness of leadership style is clear with some detail provided. Response demonstrates understanding of the topic. Response accurately identifies management style and is supported from the case study. Discussion of appropriateness of leadership style is clear and detailed. Response demonstrates some critical and analytical engagement with the topic and a good understanding of it. Response accurately identifies management style and is comprehensively supported from the case study. Discussion of appropriateness of leadership style is consistently clear, comprehensive and detailed. Response demonstrates critical and analytical engagement with the topic and expert-level understanding of it. Use of language (10%) Grammar; Spelling; Sentence structure; Use of academic language/vocabulary Non- submission Multiple grammar/spelling mistakes are present; sentences are very poorly constructed; informal rather than academic language/vocabulary is used. Many grammar/spelling mistakes are present; sentences are poorly constructed; use of limited academic language/vocabulary. Minor grammar/spelling mistakes are present; sentences are well- constructed; expanded academic language/vocabulary is used. Very few grammar/ spelling mistakes are present; sentences are skilfully constructed; complex academic language/vocabulary is used. No grammar/spelling mistakes are present; sentences are well constructed; sophisticated academic language/vocabulary is used. Criteria, Weightings and Marks Fail (FA) 0 Fail (F) 0 - 4.5 Pass (P) 5 - 6 Credit (Cr) 6.5 - 7 Distinction (D) 7.5 - 8 High Distinction (HD) 8.5- 10 Referencing (10%) Accuracy, consistency and compliance with Harvard style Non- submission No referencing or referencing does not conform to Harvard style; multiple inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies with in- text references and/or reference list. Referencing mostly conforms to Harvard style. May be inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the in-text references and/or reference list. Referencing conforms to Harvard style. Few inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies in the in- text references and reference list. Referencing conforms to Harvard style. Very minor inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies in the in-text references and reference list. Referencing conforms to Harvard style. The in-text references and a reference list are faultless, with no inaccuracies or inconsistencies. Deduction for Plagiarism: If the Match Overview score is 10% or more (and is deemed to be plagiarism), a penalty will be applied to the student’s mark equal to the percentage of similarity. For example: If a student has a Match Overview score of 30%, the penalty is 30%. i.e. 30% of the total possible marks will be deducted from the student’s total mark for the assessment. e.g. If the student’s mark for the assessment is 50 out of 100, with the 30% deduction (which equals 30% x 100 marks = 30 marks), the student would receive 20 marks (50 – 30). Case Study mark: /100