Everest simulation analysis

MGTS1301 Written Analysis of Everest Simulation Marking Rubric

Below Expectation Satisfactory Fair Good Excellent Turnitin grade 2 3 4 5 6 Criteria1 Demonstrated understanding of issue of Leadership in the student’s simulation experience (6%)

The issue was unclear. The connection to Leadership in our course teaching was vague with limited/no justification.

A description of the student’s simulation experience was presented. The connection to Leadership was limited or lacking justification.

A description of the student’s simulation experience was presented. The connection to Leadership was present but vague.

A clear analysis of a single issue from the student’s simulation experience was presented and linked to Leadership.

A comprehensive and well- argued explanation of a single issue in the student’s simulation experience was presented and a clear link to Leadership was provided.

Criteria2 Demonstrated understanding of management research evidence on Leadership (16%)

The research question and findings of each scholarly article were unclear. Both articles were clearly not relevant to Leadership and/or were not published in approved journals.

A description of the research question and findings was presented for each scholarly article. At least one article was somewhat relevant to Leadership and published in an approved journal.

A description of each scholarly article was presented. Both articles were relevant to Leadership and were published in approved journals.

A clear analysis of the key insight was presented for each scholarly article. Articles were relevant to the Leadership issue experienced in the simulation and were published in approved journals.

A comprehensive and well- argued analysis of the key insight was presented for each article. Articles were highly relevant to the Leadership issue experienced in the simulation and were published in approved journals.

Criteria3 Depth of application of Leadership articles to the issue in the student’s simulation experience. (16%)

Little or no attempt was made to apply the insights from the two articles to the issue. Little or no attempt was made to develop suggestions for improving Leadership in the simulation or to support claims that performance was already effective.

A vague attempt was made to apply insights from the two articles to the issue. Suggestions for improving the Leadership in the simulation or claims that performance was already effective were missing or weak.

An attempt was made to apply insights from the two articles to the issue. However, the application was superficial. Suggestions for improving the Leadership in the simulation or claims that performance was already effective were supported with examples.

The two articles were used to develop a well-defined analysis of the issue. Suggestions for improving the Leadership in the simulation or claims that performance was already effective were justified with good examples.

The two articles were used to develop a comprehensive and compelling analysis of the issue. Suggestions for improving Leadership in the simulation or claims that performance was already effective were well-justified with examples from the simulation and insightful references to each article.

Criteria4 Demonstrated understanding of issue of Ethics in the student’s simulation experience (6%)

The issue was unclear. The connection to Ethics in our course teaching was vague with limited/no justification.

A description of the student’s simulation experience was presented. The connection to Ethics was limited or lacking justification.

A description of the student’s simulation experience was presented. The connection to Ethics was present but vague.

A clear analysis of a single issue from the student’s simulation experience was presented and linked to Ethics.

A comprehensive and well- argued explanation of a single issue in the student’s simulation experience was presented and a clear link to Ethics was provided.

Criteria5 Demonstrated understanding of management research evidence on Ethics (16%)

The research question and findings of each scholarly article were unclear. Both articles were clearly not relevant to Ethics and/or were not published in approved journals.

A description of the research question and findings was presented for each scholarly article. At least one article was somewhat relevant to Ethics and published in an approved journal.

A description of each scholarly article was presented. Both articles were relevant to Ethics and were published in approved journals.

A clear analysis of the key insight was presented for each scholarly article. Articles were relevant to the Ethics issue experienced in the simulation and were published in approved journals.

A comprehensive and well- argued analysis of the key insight was presented for each article. Articles were highly relevant to the Ethics issue experienced in the simulation and were published in approved journals.

Criteria6 Depth of application of Ethics articles to the issue in the simulation experience (16%)