Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
FINS3616 2016 S1
Oral Presentation (Communication Portion, 20% of Project Mark, 5% of Total Mark)
Criteria
Below Expectations
Meets Expectations
Exceeds Expectations
<50% (Fail)
75% (Distinction-HD)
Structures
presentation
logically and
coherently
relevant)
relevant)
Does
not
engage
audience
though
Achieves
some
audience
engagement
Engages
audience effectively through a
Engages
professional delivery, e.g.:
through a sufficiently professional delivery,
professional delivery, e.g.:
audience
Does not maintain eye contact or
e.g.:
Addresses audience; maintains eye
through
address audience; mainly reads
contact
professional
Addresses audience and makes some
notes/slides/board
Speech is clear and audible; voice
eye contact; does not just read notes or
delivery
Speech is not clear or audible to all
(volume, pace, variety etc) is used
slides
Manner/body language is distracting
effectively to engage audience and
Speech is generally clear and audible;
(e.g. nervous) or unengaging (e.g.
promote understanding
voice is used to emphasise key points
static, bored)
Manner/body language is confident,
Manner/body language is comfortable,
Style/appearance is unprofessional
friendly, interested and engages the
friendly and conveys interest in the
Speaker is unprepared or disorganised,
audience
topic
or does not manage time well
Style/ appearance is very professional
Style/appearance is suitably
Speaker is well-prepared and wellprofessional
organised, and manages time
Speaker is prepared and organised,
effectively
and manages time adequately
Uses tools very effectively, e.g. visual aids
Uses tools effectively, e.g. visual aids are:
Uses tools and Does not use tools effectively, e.g. visual
are:
aids are:
generally clear, uncluttered and
technologies
well-prepared, clear, accurate, visually
accurate
unclear/cluttered/inaccurate
effectively
effective
relevant
and
used
appropriately
by
not relevant, or not used appropriately
highly pertinent and used very
speaker to support message and
by speaker (e.g. ignored or read out
effectively by speaker to reinforce
highlight
key
points
verbatim)
message and achieve aim
Below Expectations
Meets Expectations
Exceeds Expectations
<50% (Fail)
75% (Distinction-HD)
accurate recommendations
based off the implications of
these differences.
Communicates
clearly and
concisely
Structures text
logically and
coherently
Below Expectations
Meets Expectations
Exceeds Expectations
<50% (Fail)
75% (Distinction-HD)
Does
not
present
document
at
a
Presents
document
at
a
professional
Presents
document very professionally,
Presents text
professional
standard,
e.g.
standard,
e.g.:
e.g.:
professionally and
Little evidence of editing (frequent
Some evidence of editing (only
Evidence of thorough editing (e.g.,
references sources
spelling/ punctuation errors)
minor spelling/punctuation errors)
no/negligible spelling /punctuation
accurately
Does not accurately use
Uses appropriate format (e.g.
errors)
appropriate format (e.g. report) or
report) and follows formatting
Accurately and effectively uses
follow requirements
requirements
appropriate format (e.g. report)
Style and presentation are not
Style and presentation are
and meets requirements
appropriate for the specific
appropriate and sufficiently formal
Style and presentation are highly
business/academic context
for the specific business/academic
appropriate for the specific
context
business/academic context
Does not reference sources
References
sources
in-text
and
in
References
sources accurately (in
appropriately/ accurately in-text, or in
reference
list
mainly
accurately
and
in
Harvard
style)
in-text and in reference
reference list.
correct style (e.g. Harvard).
list.
Integrates sources effectively into text.
Below Expectations
Meets Expectations
Exceeds Expectations
<50% (Fail)
75% (Distinction-HD)
Evaluate business
decisions/practice in
light of ethical
considerations
can create.
Makes some evaluation of hedging decisions Makes an insightful evaluation of hedging
in light of ethical considerations.
decisions in light of ethical considerations.
Provides a strong justification for evaluation
Provides some, limited justification for
evaluation.
Below Expectations
<50% (Fail)
Meets Expectations
50% - 74% (Pass-Credit)
Exceeds Expectations
75% (Distinction-HD)
Describes
some
aspects
of
own
role
or
Describes
some
aspects
of
own
role
and
Insightfully
analyses
and evaluates own
Analyses and
contribution, but does not analyse or
contribution to teamwork, and offers some
team role and participation, including
evaluates own
evaluate own strengths or weaknesses as
analysis and evaluation of own
strengths and weaknesses.
team
a team player.
participation, including strengths and
Suggests
realistic and thoughtful
participation
May make some suggestions for future
weaknesses.
improvements to own future teamwork
improvement, but these are not based on Makes some suggestions for improvements
participation, justified by analysis.
analysis.
to own future teamwork practice, but
these may not be fully justified by
analysis.
Analyses the
teams
processes
Does not analyse the teams collaborative processes with With reference to appropriate teamwork principles:
reference to appropriate teamwork principles may
Analyses some aspects of the teams processes and
just describe some incidents or action/behavior by
identifies some positive aspects as well as some
others.
issues encountered and how these were addressed.
May make ad hoc suggestions for improvements to future Makes some suggestions for improvements to future
teamwork processes, but these are not based on
teamwork processes, but these may not be fully
analysis or teamwork principles.
justified by analysis.