view longer description

25%

Excellent Performance 100% – 80%

Thorough and insightful analysis of situation/work role demonstrating insight and awareness of personal characteristics and qualities and signalling areas for personal leadership development.

Good Performance 79% – 65%

Situation/work role clearly described, with key aspects signaled for personal development

Satisfactory Performance 64% – 50%

Situation/work role adequately described and analysed to focus on aspects for personal leadership development.

Expectations not met 49% – 0%

Situation/work role description incomplete or lacking key information and failing to focus on aspects for personal development.

view longer description

25%

Excellent Performance 100% – 80%

Areas for future leadership development clearly and comprehensively described with goals identified informed by insightful analysis and rationale

Good Performance 79% – 65%

Clear description of areas for future leadership development described with goals rationalised.

Satisfactory Performance 64% – 50%

Adequate description of areas for future leadership development described with goals rationalised.

Expectations not met 49% – 0%

Areas for future leadership development poorly described, incomplete. Lacking rationale.

view longer description

25%

Excellent Performance 100% – 80%

Thorough and comprehensive plan imaginatively and comprehensively described. Detailed insights from literature informing strategies and contingencies to achieve goals

Good Performance 79% – 65%

Clear description of the leadership development plan. Good use of literature to inform strategies and the plan.

Satisfactory Performance 64% – 50%

Adequate plan responding to some leadership and management goals. Adequate use of literature to inform the plan.

Expectations not met 49% – 0%

Goals are unclear or illogical Leadership development plan incomplete, confusingly presented, lacking reference to relevant literature

view longer description

15%

Excellent Performance 100% – 80%

Outstanding presentation/writing skills. Excellent quality of argument presented with a clear and logical flow. Argument/message is clear, persuasive, very enthusiastic, and fully engages the audience/reader. Technical terms are well explained in language appropriate for the audience.

Good Performance 79% – 65%

Good presentation/writing skills. Good clarity of writing, with a sound argument and logical flow. Argument/message is mostly clear, persuasive and mostly enthusiastic, and engages audience/reader Technical terms are explained in language appropriate for the audience.

Satisfactory Performance 64% – 50%

Adequate presentation/writing skills: The argument is adequate but lacks some clarity or logical flow. Argument/message is not always clear, lacks enthusiasm and/or persuasion; does not consistently engage audience/reader. Technical terms are sometimes used without explanation.

Expectations not met 49% – 0%

Poor presentation/writing skills. Unclear argument that lacks logical flow. Argument/message is not clear, lacking in enthusiasm and/or persuasion; fails to engage audience/reader. Technical terms (if used) are without explanation.

view longer description

/ 10 pts

Excellent Performance 100% – 80%

Extensive range of literature, chosen from high quality sources, correctly represented and cited, used effectively to support arguments made. No spelling or grammatical errors.

Good Performance 79% – 65%

A number of references supporting key points with some attempt to draw on. Some minor grammatical, spelling or referencing errors noted.

Satisfactory Performance 64% – 50%

Some references are used to support the key points. There are referencing, spelling and grammatical errors on most pages.

Expectations not met 49% – 0%

Lack of supporting citations and/or errors in referencing. Poor proof reading. Inaccurate spelling, and grammar, presentation. Too long or too short.