MGTS1601 Individual and Team Profile Report Marking Rubric Below Expectations Meets Expectations Very Good Outstanding Criterion 1 Introduction (5%) You have not provided a satisfactory explanation of the importance of understanding your personality and role in a team, or there is inadequate support from scholarly literature. You have not stated the aim and structure of the report or this section is missing. Overall, the Introduction is inadequate. You have provided a satisfactory explanation of the importance of understanding your personality and role in a team, with some support from scholarly literature. You have stated the aim and structure of the report, although these could be improved. You have provided a clear and convincing explanation of the importance of understanding your personality and role in a team, drawing on relevant scholarly literature. You have clearly stated the aim of the report. You have provided an appropriate description of the structure of your report. You have provided a very clear and convincing explanation of the importance of understanding your personality and role in a team, drawing on relevant scholarly literature. You have clearly stated the aim of the report. You have provided an entirely appropriate description of the structure of your report. Criterion 2 Description of Personality (5%) You have struggled to effectively describe your Big Five Personality survey results, and/or the results are absent. You have not cited any relevant literature, or citations are inappropriate. Your scores on the Big Five Personality survey are presented in a mostly appropriate way. Greater elaboration of these results and support from literature would improve your description. You have clearly presented and described your scores on the Big Five Personality survey, with appropriate citations to scholarly literature. You have clearly presented and comprehensively described your scores on the Big Five Personality survey, with appropriate citations to scholarly literature. Criterion 3 Analysis of Personality and Implications for Teamwork (20%) Analysis of your personality is lacking in relevant detail and/or is more descriptive than analytical. You have not considered implications of your personality traits for your own behaviour and performance in the team in a meaningful way. You have struggled to use appropriate peer-reviewed literature to support your points. There is some useful analysis of your personality, however better selection of literature to support your points would strengthen this analysis. Though not always relevant, you have considered some useful implications of your personality traits for your own behaviour and performance in the team. Analysis of your personality is clear and while your chosen literature is relevant, better integration in some places would strengthen this section. You have considered the implications of your personality traits for your own behaviour and performance in the team in a mostly logical way. Analysis of your personality is clear, logical and supported by evidence from at least four relevant peer-reviewed journal articles. You have thoughtfully considered the implications of your personality traits for your behaviour and performance in a team. Criterion 4 Description of Individual Roles in Team (5%) You have not adequately described your survey results about your top three strongest roles in a team, or the results are absent. You have provided little, if any, consideration of the implications of your top three team role scores for your own behaviour and performance in a team. You have presented and adequately described the survey results about your top three strongest roles in a team. Though you have provided some consideration of the implications of your team role scores for your own behaviour and performance in a team, this is superficial in places. You have presented and clearly described the survey results about your top three strongest roles in a team. In most instances, you have carefully considered the implications of your team role scores for your own behaviour and performance in a team. You have clearly presented and thoughtfully described the survey results about your top three strongest roles in a team, as well as any low or missing roles. You have very convincingly considered the implications of your team role scores for your own behaviour and performance in a team. Criterion 5 Team Role Profile (10%) You have not adequately described each team members’ team role survey results, or the description is missing. While the team roles of all members have been described, a more insightful comparison between team members would enhance this section. Overall, you have provided a generally clear profile of your team. You have appropriately described the team role results of all team members, which included some useful comparisons. Overall, you have provided a mostly clear and logical profile of your team. Your description of your team based on the team role results of all team m
embers was very comprehensive, including some exceptionally insightful comparisons. Overall, you have provided a clear and logical profile of your team. Criterion 6 Analysis of Team Strengths and Weaknesses (15%) You have not adequately analysed the strengths and/or weaknesses of your team based on your team role profile, or the analysis is missing. In presenting the strengths and weaknesses of your team based on your team role profile, you provided some useful insights. However, your analysis was unconvincing in some places. You have clearly stated your team’s strengths and weaknesses based on your team role profile. The analysis is clear and logical on the whole. You have clearly stated your team’s strengths and weaknesses based on your team role profile. The analysis is clear, logical and comprehensive. Criterion 7 Quality of Solutions (20%) You did not draw adequately on your previous analysis to address the weaknesses in your team, and your solutions are inadequate or missing and/or are not supported by relevant literature. Based on your previous analysis, you have identified some solutions to address the identified weaknesses in your team. While lacking depth in places, most of the proposed solutions are appropriate and are supported by the literature. Based on your previous analysis, you have identified mostly appropriate solutions to address each of the identified weaknesses in your team, supported by good evidence from relevant peer-reviewed journal articles. Based on your previous analysis, you have proposed appropriate and persuasive solutions to address each of the identified weaknesses in your team, supported by evidence from at least four relevant peer-reviewed journal articles. Criterion 8 Conclusion (5%) Your conclusion is generally clear and concise, although there is some room for improvement. You have summarised the major findings of your report. Your conclusion is generally clear and concise, although there is some room for improvement. You have summarised the major findings of your report. Your conclusion is clear and concise. You have appropriately summarised the major findings of your report. Your conclusion is exceptionally clear and concise. You have appropriately summarised the major findings of your report. Criterion 9 Writing (10%) The structure of your report is poorly planned and/or sequenced. Your writing is highly disjointed with poor sentence structure. Your tone is not professional. There are numerous spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors which makes your writing confusing and difficult for the reader to follow. The structure of your report reflects evidence of planning and sequencing ability. A generally appropriate tone is used, though there are some disruptions to the fluency of your writing. A sound attempt to correctly use punctuation, grammar and spelling, with minor errors and the occasional major error. The structure of your report shows strong planning and sequencing abilities. Your writing is mostly fluent and the report is written in an appropriate professional tone. Mostly correct punctuation, grammar and spelling are used throughout, with only the occasional minor error. The structure of your report shows very strong planning and sequencing abilities. Your writing is exceptionally fluent and the report is written in an appropriate professional tone. Correct use of punctuation, grammar and spelling enhances the readability of your report. Criterion 10 Presentation (5%) Overall, the report is poorly presented and lacks professional insight. There are multiple, consistent errors in the in-text citations and/or Reference List, and the report is substantially over or under the required word limit. Few or no survey results are included, or are presented inappropriately. Though not entirely professional in its presentation, the report is presented with a title page, page numbering, relevant sub-headings, double-spacing and margins. A single referencing style is generally used throughout. Though there are some errors in the in-text citations and/or Reference List, the report is within the required word limit (+/-10%). You have included survey results, but this could be enhanced via a more appropriate format. Your report is professionally presented with a title page, page numbering, relevant sub-headings, double-spacing and appropriate margins. A single referencing style is consistently used, with very few errors to be found in the in-text citations and/or Reference List. Report is within the required word limit (+/-10%). You have included all survey results in an appropriate format. The professional presentation of your report is flawless, complemented by a title page, page numbering, relevant sub-headings, double-spacing and appropriate margins. A single referencing style is consistently used throughout, with no errors in the in-text citations and/or Reference List. Report is within the required word limit (+/-10%). You have included all survey results in an entirely appropriate appendix format.