Marking scheme for IRDR0003 Scenario This is an individual report worth 70% of 1750-word individual report + Bibliography (AKA: do not count the Bibliography at the end of the text in the word count). Use the course readings to support your rationale. Be consistent in the referencing and follow ONE stile between APA, Harvard, Chicago with text author-date system. Audience: technical, mixed both academic and non- academic. Penalties applies for inconsistencies in the style and wrong technical language. NO copy and paste from existing reports or website are allowed. If you want to mention anything specific to highlight a point, please report it according to rules and not use that to use extensively. For example: A recurrent problem is that interdependent networks have been ‘‘consistently pushed to the edge of their design envelopes, under pressure to maximise, if not optimise, their performance’’ (Schulman et al. 2004). Part Inadequate (F) Inadeguate 0-39% Fail (D) Insufficient; unsatisfactory. 40-49% Pass C: 50-54% C+:55-59% Differentiation: C-> Barely sufficient; barely Satisfactory fragmented clear thinking barely sufficient standard of work. C+ Fully sufficient; fully satisfactory Some evidence of clear thinking but variable standard and lacks insight Merit B: 60-64 B+:65-69% Differentiation: B Good work. B Very Good, thoughtful work. Distinction A: 70-80 A+: 80+ A++:90+ Essay that could be published fully or in part e.g. in a blog, or a comment. Differentiation: A Excellent. A+ Outstanding to professional standard. A++ Exceptional to professional standard. Introduction and rationale Lack of understanding of, or focus, on key elements distinguishing the organisation and its context. The rationale is wrong and/or presents substantial conceptual misunderstandings/i nconsistencies with DRR literature Assumptions and limitations are conceptually wrong/inconsistent, Limited understanding of, or focus, on the elements distinguishing the topic and its context. The rationale is weak and/ or presents partial misunderstandings/inc onsistencies with the literature. Assumptions and limitations are partially wrong/inconsistent, very limitedly explained or reported. If it’s an empirical paper, the The core aspects distinguishing the topic and its contexts have been understood and addressed, thought this remain somehow superficial. The rationale is correct, sufficiently solid and reported. If it’s an empirical paper, the methodology is ok, but there are some substantial gaps. Assumptions and limitations are Good understanding of the topic and its context. The rational is clear, solid, and shows a good understanding of its components. Assumptions and limitations are well explained or reported. If it’s an empirical paper, good methodology with minor improvements needed. Advanced/ in-depth understanding of the topic and its contexts used to highlight distinguishing elements of the case. These are used outstandingly to support a consistent and solid rationale. Assumptions and limitations are explained or reported up to professional standards. not explained or not reported. If it’s an empirical paper, the methodology is inconsistent. methodology has some substantial problems. sufficiently explained or reported. If it’s an empirical paper, solid methodology. Development and conclusions The analyse and evaluation of the topic and its implications is inadequate. Limited or no use of relevant sources to support the development of the rationale. The points made have not been justified or supported, limited organisation of facts and ideas. Either no argument or argument presented is inappropriate and irrelevant. Conclusions absent or irrelevant. The analysis and evaluation of the topic implications is not always adequate. There are gaps in the use of relevant sources used to support work. Limited evidence of a critical approach to key issues and ability. The points made have not fully justified or supported, limited organisation of facts and ideas. An indirect response to the task set, towards a limitedly relevant argument and conclusions. Sufficient analysis and evaluation of the threats and their implications. Relevant sources used to support argument/discussion . Some evidence of critical approach to key issues and ability to evaluate arguments. The points made have been sufficiently justified or supported. Facts and ideas are organised but still somehow fragmented. A reasonable response to the task sets with a limited sense of argument and partial conclusions. Good analysis and development of risk analysed. Relevant sources used effectively to support argument/discussion Clear evidence of critical approach to key issues and some ability to evaluate arguments. A sound response with a reasonable argument and straightforward conclusions, logical conclusions. Complex work developed analysing the key issues of the topic analysed. Relevant sources used effectively to support argument/discussion Strong evidence of critical approach to key issues and some ability to evaluate arguments. Exceptional response with a convincing, sophisticated argument with precise conclusions. Content, style, and other The writing style and the use of terminology seriously detract from conveying the ideas and concepts. Penalty applies to a diffused and persistent use of inappropriate terminology/ technical vocabulary. The work is so over/under length to compromise the goal of the task. Inconsistent referencing and /or use of multiple reference style. Using Wikipedia or similar The writing style and the use of terminology detract from conveying the ideas and concepts Penalty applies to a diffused use of inappropriate language of technical vocabulary and concepts. The work is significatively over/under length. Inconsistent referencing and/or use of multiple reference style. The writing style and the use of terminology is generally right but occasionally detracts from conveying the ideas and concepts. Minor penalty applies to a localised use of inappropriate language of technical vocabulary and concepts. Occasional inconsistent referencing and/or reference style. Length exceeded but within the tolerance limit, or quite under the length expected. The writing style and the use of terminology is generally correct and conveys idea and concepts. Length within the limit, well used. The writing style and the use of terminology outstanding. Additional bonuses may apply to use of technical language/terminology that is used so well to highlight a full mastery of the topic. Length within the limit, used efficiently and to the point.
