case study

 

Assessment Task  
 

Drawing on research in work and organisational psychology (finding/measuring talent and developing talent) make recommendations for how Google can improve their approach to finding/measuring talent and developing talent and critically address the potential strengths and weaknesses of your recommendations.

 

Task specific guidance: 

 

Your answer MUST be based on the Google Case study.

 

Your essay should include the following sections: 

 

1.  Introduction (Approximately 100 words)

In the introduction, you should also briefly outline what you will cover in the main body of your essay.

 

2.  Theoretical background (Approximately 650 words)

In the theoretical background you are expected to Introduce the reader to the relevant psychological literature (Finding/Measuring Talent and Developing talent).

 

3.  Recommendations (Approximately 650 words)

Based on the literature presented in your theoretical background, make recommendations for how Google can improve their approach to finding/measuring and developing talent and critically address the potential strengths and weaknesses of your recommendations.

 

5. Conclusion (Approximately 100 words)

Summarise the main points covered in the main body of your essay.

 

Google Case Study

 

Working for Google: ‘Doing cool things that matter’ Case study adapted from:

Sutton, A. (2014). Work psychology in action. Palgrave Macmillan.

 

Google is one of the most well-known brands in the world. Starting with the development of a search engine so effective that ‘to Google’ became synonymous with searching the web, the organisation has expanded to include a wide range of products and offerings, including the Chrome web browser, Gmail, Google maps and YouTube. To keep the company at the

 

forefront of the industry, Google is looking for employees who are ‘great at lots of things, love big challenges and welcome big changes’ and will be beneficial to the organisation in the long term. How do they go about finding these people?

 

The company used to be famous for using brainteaser-type questions during interviews, asking candidates to solve puzzles like ‘How many golf balls will fit in a bus?’ or ‘How much would you charge to clean all the windows in Seattle?’ The idea was that asking this kind of question would help them to identify people who could think on their feet and come up with creative solutions while also giving the interviewers an insight into the candidate’s problemsolving process. But these types of question have become a thing of the past as the recruitment and selection processes at Google have changed over the years.

 

Managing information and data is an essential component of what Google does, so it is no surprise that the change in selection processes was triggered when they analysed the data they had on people’s performance at interview and their subsequent performance in the job. The results came as a shock: the company found that the brainteaser questions were completely unrelated to the people’s subsequent job performance (Bryant, 2013). As Laszlo Bock (Senior Vice President of People Operations at Google) pointed out, those questions only served to make the interviewer feel smart! He also stated that structured behaviour interviews are the only ones that work; and this is the direction that google selection processes have moved in more recently.

 

Besides trying to get a handle on how people approach problems, the other important criterion that Google used to use in selection was a candidate’s grade point average from university. But again, their data crunching indicated that this was unrelated to actual job performance (Bryant, 2013), and so this criterion has become less important in the selection processes. In fact, the company now has an increasing proportion of employees who have never been to university, recognising that the skills they are looking for are not necessarily developed in formal education.

 

Having gone through these changes, the basic selection process at Google currently has three stages (Google, 2014b). First, a potential candidate has a conversation with a recruiter. The majority of these recruiters start on six-month contracts (though may stay longer) and the number can be increased or reduced depending on the organisation’s needs (VanderMey, 2012). Their main function is the find people who might be interested in working for Google and a lot of their work involves cold-calling potential candidates and then guiding candidates through the process.

 

This initial contact is followed up by a phone interview and then on-site interviews with around four or five people. The interviewers could be potential new teammates or supervisors, or they could be people the candidates might never see again. They assess candidates on four main criteria:

 

Ø  Leadership

Ø  Role-related knowledge (looking for a variety of knowledge, not just specialist knowledge)

Ø  Problem-solving skills

Ø  ‘Googleyness’, which includes a candidate’s comfort with ambiguity, bias towards actions and collaborative nature

 

Interestingly, while Google promotes a ‘scientific’ approach to evaluating the first three criteria, Sunil Chandra (Vice President of Staffing and Operations) claims that determining this last point is more ‘art’ than science (Halzack, 2013).

 

 

The final decision about hiring is made in the light of feedback from all the interviews, by people not involved in the interview. Google considers this to be a more objective approach than leaving it to the interviewers (Halzack, 2013). By having the decision made at some distance from the interview, Google is attempting to remove some of the biases that can occur.

 

The first attribute that is assessed in Google’s selection process is leadership. The highly skilled and technically competent staff traditionally seemed to think that the best thing a manager could do was to leave them in peace to let them get on with their jobs (Bryant, 2011). In fact, in 2002 Google even conducted a brief experiment and eliminated all the engineering management roles (Garvin, 2013). The experiment only lasted a few months before the company realised that, instead of encouraging ideas and productivity among staff, removing the managers meant that the founders themselves were continually approached to resolve conflicts and deal with routine, everyday matters. The management positions were reintroduced, although today Google still remains a reasonably flat organisation, with employees given decision-making power and freedom to innovate.

 

In their continuing quest to identify good leadership within the company, in 2009, Google launched ‘Project Oxygen’. This project was a data-mining exercise that reviewed employee surveys, management feedback reports and performance reviews in an effort to find out what characterised a good leader at Google. The project was launched because the company realised that the best managers had the best-performing, happiest teams with the highest retention rates. Project Oxygen’s final list of good behaviours, in order of importance, were (Bryant, 2011):

 

1.     Be a good coach

2.     Empower your team and don’t micromanage

3.     Express interest in team members’ success and personal well-being

4.     Don’t be a sissy: be productive and results-orientated

5.     Be a good communicator and listen to your team

6.     Help your employees with career development

7.     Have a clear vision and strategy for the team

8.     Have key technical skills so that you can advise the team

 

The interplay between good leadership and effective teamwork is recognised at Google, where collaboration is central to everything they do. The company believes that innovation comes through sharing ideas and working together, and the ability to collaborate to solve problems is an essential ingredient in the ‘Googleyness’ that they look for in new hires. This extends even to their Googlers-to-Googlers (g2g) education programme, where employees teach each other new skills and knowledge. In fact, this ‘Googleyness’ is a concept that emerges again and again when employees talk about the company, a shorthand for the culture of the organisation. Laszlo Bock (Bock, 2011) describes this culture as being created and maintained by three important components:

 

Ø  Mission – Google is clear about its mission: to organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. Since this is the driving force behind their efforts, employees get a feeling of meaning to their work and are passionate about their ultimate aim.

Ø  Transparency – The senior executives at Google hold weekly meetings where employees can directly ask them questions. Information about the company, including progress reports, project timelines and team goals are all held on the company intranet for all employees to access. The concept is that their employees can be trusted and that open communication is vital.

Ø  Voice – There are many ways for Google employees to express their thoughts, opinions and ideas, including surveys, direct emails to the leaders and so on.

 

Feedback is actively sought from every manager’s direct reports and used to recognise the best and coach the worst.

 

In fact, Google has topped Fortune’s ‘100 Best Companies to Work For’ list since 2012. Employees say they are proud to work there and 97% say their management is honest and ethical. They also value the company’s approach to giving back to the community and supporting charities: for example, Google donates $50 for every five hours of volunteering that an employee does with an approved charity.

 

One of the reasons people are so keen to work at Google is the legendary list of perks that Googlers get. On their main site, ‘Googleplex’ in California, employees can enjoy free meals at the cafeterias, snacks and drinks near their offices, free use of the gym, game rooms and on-site medical staff. There are similar facilities in the London office too, with a games room, music room and a ‘coffee lab’ to help people to relax and go back to work refreshed without ever leaving the office. There is also travel insurance for employees and their families and reimbursement for training courses. Perhaps the most famous perk is Google’s ’20 percent time’ where employees can work on something unrelated to their official work projects for one day a week.

 

Why does Google spend so much on these benefits? One reason that the company gives is that they value their employees and want to make their lives better: the benefits are designed to take care of their employees, physically, mentally, emotionally, financially and socially (Google, 2014a). More cynical commentators have suggested that there may be two other reasons. First, by ensuring that employees have everything they need at work, Google can encourage a long hours culture – 10 to 12 hours a day is not uncommon. Second, some have suggested that spending money on these perks is actually cheaper than increasing wages.

 

And there’s a darker side to Google’s retention efforts too. It has recently come to light that the CEOs of Google and other tech firms like Apple had anti-poaching agreements in place with each other, as well as agreeing on salary levels (Harkinson, 2014).  There agreements were so strongly enforced that, in 2007, a Google recruiter who approached an Apple employee was immediately dismissed. These illegal arrangements are currently the subject of a class action lawsuit in the USA which alleges that employees were financially damaged because they simply did not have anywhere else to go that would offer them a better deal.

 

Despite all these efforts at retention, however, a recent report by PayScale compared retention rates at Fortune 500 companies and revealed that median tenure at Google was just over one year (PayScale Inc., 2013). Whilst this needs to be understood in the context of the typical worker only staying with a Fortune 500 company for 3.6 years overall, Google still had the third lowest job tenure and, significantly, it was also lower than other comparable tech companies such as Yahoo and Microsoft. And this is despite Google employees having the fourth highest median salary. Some have suggested that the reason for this low tenure rate might link back to an inefficient hiring process (Lewis, 2013) that results in too many false positives.

 

Adapted from: Sutton, A. (2015). Work psychology in action. Basingstoke, Hampshire:

Palgrave Macmillan.

 

 

General study guidance: 

 

Cite all information used in your work which is clearly from a source. Try to ensure that all sources in your reference list are seen as citations in your work, and all names cited in the work appear in your reference list.
 

 

Reference and cite your work in accordance with the APA 7th system – the University’s chosen referencing style.  For specific advice, you can talk to your Business librarians or go to the library help desk, or you can access library guidance via the following link:

o APA 7th referencing: https://library.hud.ac.uk/pages/apareferencing/

The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including plagiarism. The Learning Innovation and Development Centre can advise and help you with how to avoid ‘poor scholarship’ and potential academic misconduct. You can contact them at busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk.
 

If you have any concerns about your writing, referencing, research or presentation skills, you are welcome to consult the Learning Innovation Development Centre team busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk. It is possible to arrange 1:1 consultation with a LIDC tutor once you have planned or written a section of your work, so that they can advise you on areas to develop.

 

 

Do not exceed the word limit.

Learning Outcomes  
 

This section is for information only. 

 

 

Assessment criteria
 

•       The Assessment Criteria are shown the end of this document.  Your tutor will discuss how your work will be assessed/marked and will explain how the assessment criteria apply to this piece of work.  These criteria have been designed for your level of study.

 

•       These criteria will be used to mark your work and will be used to support the electronic feedback you receive on your marked assignment. Before submission, check that you have tried to meet the requirements of the higher-grade bands to the best of your ability. Please note that the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.

 

•       The Learning Innovation Development Centre can help you to understand and use the assessment criteria.  To book an appointment, either visit them on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them on busstudenthub@hud.ac.uk

 

 

The assessment task outlined above has been designed to address specific validated learning outcomes for this module. It is useful to keep in mind that these are the things you need to show in this piece of work.

 

On completion of this module, students will need to demonstrate:

 

 

Knowledge and Understanding Outcomes   

 

1.      Have acquired a clear understanding of the role of psychology in organisational settings.

2.      Have developed a critical appreciation of current research trends and findings, research methodologies employed presently and historically, and the contribution these make to the understanding of organisational behaviour.

3.      Be able to critically evaluate the underpinning issues and assumptions of the theories and principles of psychology within an organisational context through reflecting upon the application of theory at work.

5.      Be able to critically assess the current status of the discipline and prospective future directions.

 

          Ability Outcomes

 

6.      Demonstrate knowledge of the role of psychology in organisational settings.

7.      Critically appraise the issues and assumptions of the theories and principles of psychology within an organisational context.

8.      Assess the main contributors to the discipline and understand the development of the field and its value in business and in psychology.

9.      Evaluate advanced theoretical knowledge showing how organisations engage with psychologists to resolve issues presented by businesses, people and their resources.

10.  Develop an intricate understanding of the workplace from a psychological perspective.

 

Please note these learning outcomes are not additional questions.

 

Submission information
Word Limit: 1500

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1 Assessment criteria

 

These criteria are intended to help you understand how your work will be assessed.  They describe different levels of performance of a given criteria.

 

Criteria are not weighted equally, and the marking process involves academic judgement and interpretation within the marking criteria.

 

 

The grades between Pass and Very Good should be considered as different levels of performance within the normal bounds of the module.  The Exceptional and Outstanding categories allow for students who, in addition to fulfilling the Excellent requirements, perform at a superior level beyond the normal boundaries of the module and demonstrate intellectual creativity, originality and innovation.

 

  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding  ( Excellent +) Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Fulfilment of relevant

learning outcomes

Met Met Met Met Met Met Not met or partially met Not met or partially met Not met or minimal Not met or minimal
Response to the question

/task 

Full command

of assessment task; imaginative approach

demonstrating flair and creativity

Clear command of

assessment

task; sophisticated approach

Very good response to task; elements of sophistication in response Well-developed response to assessment task with evident development of

ideas

Secure response to assessment task but not

developed sufficiently developed to achieved higher grade

Adequate response that meets minimum threshold, but

with limitations of development

Nearly a

sufficient response but lacks key aspects.

Insufficient response Little response No response
  Knowledge and understanding (F, I and H)

Knowledge requirements are different at F, I and H level.  Please use the relevant level knowledge assessment criteria

 
Knowledge of the key concepts and principles required in the

assessmen

t task  (F)

Work demonstrates

originality/creati vity or an inspired individual perspective on information, theories and concepts, and a considered individual voice.

Effective and extensive use of relevant wider information, theories and concepts and sophisticated integration of ideas Extended breadth of information, theories and concepts evident and integration of ideas.

 

No misunderstan dings / gaps.

 

Appropriate information, theories, concepts and in appropriate depth using module. Some

integration ideas.

 

No major errors or

Most relevant information, theories, concepts and appropriately.

 

Lacks depth of integrating ideas.

 

Few inaccuracies.

 

Adequate account of basic information, theories and concepts relevant to the assessment.  Some significant gaps.

 

Limitations in understanding

Mentions some terminology relating to theories, concepts.

 

Some poor or mistaken of knowledge of concepts and principles relevant to the

Very poor of knowledge of concepts and principles

relevant to the

assessment brief. Major misunderstandi ngs or omissions.

Negligible of knowledge of concepts and principles

relevant to the

assessment

brief

None demonstrated in the submission.

 

  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding  ( Excellent +) Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
        misunderstandi ngs.   and/or inaccuracies assessment brief.

 

Extensive gaps.

     
Detailed knowledge and critical understand

ing of

relevant

knowledge

in the subject (I)

Skilfully integrate ideas from beyond the module or disciplinary areas to provide original/ creative insights into the subject, tensions, and ambiguities in a considered individual voice. Shows an ease with contingency and ambiguity. Skilfully integrates extended knowledge/ ideas from  beyond the module, and disciplinary areas to provide

excellent critical insights.

Shows a level of comfort with contingency and ambiguity.

 

 

Comprehensi vely draws on an extended knowledge to show welldeveloped

critical insights and good knowledge integration.

 

No major errors or misunderstan dings or gaps.

 

 

 

 

Accurately demonstrates extended knowledge

showing good

critical insights

and some knowledge integration.

 

No major errors or misunderstandi ngs or gaps.

 

Accurately demonstrates most basic knowledge

offers a basic critical

understanding

.

 

Lacks depth of integrating ideas.

 

Few errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance.

Adequately demonstrates relevant basic knowledge and

some, but

limited, critical

understanding

 

No integration of ideas.

 

Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance

Mentions some terminology relating to theories,

concepts

 

Little critical

understanding of relevant wellestablished area(s) of knowledge with a many of

errors, misunderstandi ngs, and omissions

Very poor knowledge or critical

understanding of relevant wellestablished theories / principles.  Major misunderstandi ngs or omissions.

Negligible coverage of knowledge or critical

understanding of wellestablished / major theories

/ principles

Wholly irrelevant.
Conceptual and critical understand

ing of

contempor ary

knowledge

in the subject and its

limitations

(H)

Skilfully integrates conceptual knowledge from  other modules or disciplinary areas to provide original/ creative critical insights into the subject and its ambiguities in a considered individual voice Excellent conceptual knowledge and critical appreciation of the key tensions, controversies disagreement s and disputes drawing on ideas from beyond the module bounds. Offers original, Draws on an extended conceptual knowledge

 

Shows very

strong ability to apply/ critique ideas and a welldeveloped consideration of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Performance

at this level

Demonstrates competent conceptual knowledge drawing on a broader knowledge base. A good attempt at integrating and critiquing. Some solid insights into the limitations of knowledge.

 

No major errors or

Demonstrates secure conceptual knowledge,

conventional critical

understanding of relevant knowledge.  Some awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Lacks depth of integrating ideas.

 

Demonstrates adequate basic conceptual knowledge,

some formulaic critical

understanding

and awareness of limitations of knowledge.

 

No integration of ideas.

 

Some errors and/or gaps in coverage and relevance

Mentions some terminology relating to theories,

concepts

 

Demonstrates

insufficient grasp of a basic knowledge.  Very limited critical

understanding

and awareness

of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Demonstrates little core

knowledge.  No

critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

Major misunderstandi

ngs and

significant omissions.

Demonstrates virtually no core knowledge or critical insight or awareness of the limitations of knowledge.

 

 

Many errors in understanding and extensive omissions.

Wholly irrelevant.

 

  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding  ( Excellent +) Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
    compelling, insightful or interesting additional perspectives. and above shows

intellectual comfort with doubt, ambiguity, controversy, uncertainly and complexity rather than seeking certainty and a single right answer.

misunderstandi ng.  

Few

inaccuracies.

 

 

  Many errors in understanding and omissions.      
 

 

Cognitive / Intellectual skills

A range of means of framing cognitive and intellectual skills are provided to reflect the variety of assessment tasks across the School.  Module leaders should consider the following criteria and select the one(s) that best reflect the assessment tasks. Assessment task briefs should be designed with sufficient information to provide students with a clear understanding of the core intellectual skills expected within the bounds of the module– corresponding with the appropriate level of study

 

Module leaders should be clear about the nature of information / data to be analysed, as well as the ‘tools’ of analysis expected.  Analytical tools can be based on logic (comparison, connection, categorisation, evaluation, justification) and/or numerical (e.g. statistics, financial) or other.

 

Analysis of information / data using qualitative or quantitative

analytical methods

Shows inspired / creative insights of both

analytical method and results/ findings/ conclusions.

Adapts, combines, and possibly reconfigures recognized analytical methods in a way that

leads to

enhanced

insight into a problem area.

Extended and accurate analysis of information / data.

 

Expected analytical methods used are wholly appropriately within normal boundaries.

 

Fully appropriate results/conclu sions of analysis    within the scope of the tool.

Competent

analysis with evident use of analytical methods.

 

Fully appropriate results / conclusions / findings.

 

No major errors or misunderstandi ng.

Secure basic analysis with generally sound use of analytical methods.

 

Largely appropriate results with few significant errors

Adequate basic analysis with largely appropriate use of analytical methods.

 

Partially appropriate results/ finding/conclusio ns with some errors

Inadequate analysis with largely appropriate use of analytical methods.  Partially appropriate results with some errors Barely any relevant

analytical methods of information / data.  Major misunderstandi

ngs or omissions

Negligible analysis of information /

data Many errors in understanding and omissions.

 No relevant analysis of information / data

 

  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding  ( Excellent +) Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
       

 

             
Application of

knowledge /

skills to practice / a solution(s) / proposal / conclusion

Creative & original

application of

knowledge

/skills to

produce new insights and offers a novel and comprehensive solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the boundary of the brief.

Applies knowledge /

skills to

develop a

comprehensi

ve solution / proposal / conclusion which extends beyond the original boundary of the brief.

 

Extended insights.

Applies knowledge /

skill in a sophisticated manner to develop a well conceptualise d and solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Alternative approaches might be considered.

 

Thoughtful and

developed insights/ creativity.

Applies knowledge/skill

in a logical and developed manner to provide a considered solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Some good

insights /creativity

 

No logical errors.

Applies knowledge/ski

ll in a logical manner to provide a more developed solution / proposal / conclusion.

 

Some but

limited insights/creati vity.

 

Few logical errors

Applies knowledge/skills in a basic manner to develop a simple but limited

solution/ proposal/conclus ion.

No insights / creativity Logical errors evident.

Use of some knowledge to provide a solution / proposal / conclusion, but limited solution/ proposal / conclusion Some use of knowledge, but mostly insufficient. Weak use of knowledge / skills evident.  Very limited solution / proposal / conclusion. No evidence of attempt to analyse or interpret information or provide a

solution/propo sal/ conclusion.

Argument, reasoning Intellectually coherent and comprehensive argument that articulates authentic, considered stance in own voice Compelling argument that shows intellectual agility and captures ambiguity.  Wholly relevant. Sharply focused and complex argument.

 

All points wholly relevant

 

Convincing and coherent reasoning.

Clearly articulated argument with consideration of different perspectives.

 

Mostly relevant points.

 

 

Logically coherent reasoning.

Satisfactory argument but limited in complexity.

 

Broadly relevant points.

 

Some

limitations in terms of reasoning

Adequate basic level of

argument provided. Some relevant points but also a number of irrelevant points Errors in reasoning.

Weak argument with substantial errors in reasoning. Descriptive or largely incoherent Largely incoherent No argument

is offered

Use of referenced* evidence and sources to support task

 

*Normally

APA 7th or

OSCOLA

Systematic and rigorous use of evidence/ sources beyond the normal bounds of the module to robustly support purpose of the work. Evidence Comprehensi ve use of high-quality evidence and sources beyond the normal bounds of the module and shows Task is very well supported by very extensive use of evidence / sources.

 

All points fully substantiated.

Task is well supported by more developed use

of

sources/eviden

ce

 

Most points are substantiated

Task is supported by several sources /evidence.

 

Some points are unsubstantiat ed.

Task supported by basic evidence and sources but is over-reliant on very few sources.

 

Significant number of points

One or two apparent references to concepts introduced in the assessment task

 

Little or no

evidence

 

Significant errors and omissions in citation and application of referencing

Unsupported

 

Very little attempt to cite or reference

No evidence No citations

 

  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding  ( Excellent +) Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
  of independent reading and research.

 

Referencing fully competent and accurate

evidence of independent reading and research.

 

Referencing fully

competent and accurate

 

No unsubstantiat ed points.

 

Referencing fully

competent and accurate

and no major unsubstantiate d points

 

Referencing largely competent and accurate. 

Some minor

errors in citations or references.

 

Referenced

appropriately

 

Referencing largely competent and accurate but may include errors

are unsubstantiated.  Some effort to reference, but frequent errors and omissions Very few points are substantiated using evidence / sources.

 

Significant errors and omissions in referencing

     
Structure and, style in supporting the

developmen

t of ideas (criteria relevant for essay-style work)

Elegant flow and structure is integral to the argument. An exceptional demonstration of academic writing which effectively guides the reader. Elegance of flow that skilfully

through the work and excellently supports key message.

 

 

Well-ordered logical flow of material in a fluid style which contributes well to the development

of the key

messages and guides the reader through the writer’s thinking.

 

Clear logical and structured flow of material that guides the reader and supports the development of key messages. Basic logical flow of material with elements of signposting for the reader which supports key messages to some extent, but which can lapse in places. Some logical flow of material with some observable elements of signposting for the reader but elements of disorganisation  May contain repetition or irrelevant material which obscures the key messages. Some attempt at structure, but disorganized and ineffectual

in reflecting argument or analysis.

No evident intent of structure.

Disorganised, irrelevant or repetitive content.

None Insufficient evidence
Language and style Lucid, fluent, elegant, and compelling, using a distinctive and individual voice Clear and fluent with a breadth of vocabulary. Discernible author voice. Clear functional writing with a discernible author voice. Clear and straightforward use language.

 

Largely error

free

Basic use of vocabulary, grammar and syntax.

Limited flaws.

Basic use of vocabulary,

grammar and syntax that conveys the meaning of the text.

 

Many

vocabulary,

grammar and syntax errors that obscure meaning

Extensive flaws in vocabulary,

grammar and syntax that prevent the text from being

understandable

.

Unacceptable Insufficient evidence
Formatting

of work (font, pagination, labelling)

Impeccable formatting

entirely consonant with

assessment

brief expectations

Excellent formatting.

Polished and consonant

with the

assessment brief expectations.

Formatting consonant with

assessment brief expectations.  No formatting issues.

Formatting very largely free from major presentational problems and consonant with assessment brief. Formatting broadly consonant

with assessment brief but some breaches of guidance.

Acceptable formatting, but some breaches of guidance.

Some

unprofessional aspects

Formatting not sufficiently consonant with

assessment

brief. Multiple formatting issues.

Formatting not consonant with assessment

brief. Very poor with multiple formatting issues

No discernible attempt format work. No formatting
Reflection, creative thinking, and questioning Profoundly insightful and creatively original Excellent insight and demonstratin Clearly articulated insight and creativity Some good

insights and evidence of

Demonstrates some basic insights.  Limited Largely descriptive with some basic Descriptive with very limited

inadequate insight

Inadequate insight or understanding No persuasive evidence of reflection None
  90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10 – 19 0 – 9
 Level Exceptional

(Outstanding+)

Outstanding  ( Excellent +) Excellent Very good Good Pass Unsatisfactory Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
    g meaningful creativity   individual creativity creativity and originality. insight.  Limited creativity.        
Reflexivity and

developmen

tal learning

 

 

 

Outstanding and profound

self-awareness and critical reflection on inner world and its implications for

development at multiple levels.

Profound self-

awareness

arising from extensive

critical reflection on inner world and its implications for

development

Demonstrates insightful selfawareness

and critical reflection on inner world and insightful implications for

development

Demonstrates clear self-

awareness and reflection on inner world and some awareness of

implications for development

Some selfawareness

and fair reflection on inner world.  Limited awareness of potential for development.

Basic, but restricted selfawareness. Little reflection on inner world and limited

awareness of potential for

development

Lack of selfawareness or reflection on inner world and scant awareness of potential for development. Minimal selfawareness or

ability to express inner world and potential for development.

No selfawareness or

ability to articulate in a world

None