UG Grading Criteria for HBS Coursework (Report)
REPORT Presentation & structure
90-100 Outstanding presentation & report
structure, with numbered
Outstanding paragraphs, list of contents/figures
&appendices.
Articulate & fluent academic writing
style with ideas cross referenced. No
grammatical / spelling errors.
80-89 Excellent presentation & report
structure, with numbered
Excellent paragraphs, list of contents/figures,
appendices & cross referencing.
Articulate & fluent academic writing
style. Only minor errors.
70-79 Very good presentation & report
structure, paragraphing, use of
Very Good numbering, list of contents/figures,
appendices & cross referencing.
Fluent academic writing style. Very
few grammatical errors & spelling
mistakes.
60-69 Good presentation & report
structure, use of numbering &
Good appendices.
Writing is mainly good with some
flow and spelling &/ or grammatical
errors seldom impede
understanding.
50-59 Clear presentation & report structure
with paragraphing that is effective for
Clear Pass the most part and use of numbering
& appendices.
Writing is mainly clear but some
spelling &/ or grammatical errors
may slightly impede understanding.
40-49 Satisfactory basic report structure.
Not always written clearly & has
Marginal grammatical & / or spelling errors
Pass which impede understanding.
See CASE/T&L with feedback
30-39 Weak report format. Limited or poor
structure.
Marginal Muddled work with many spelling & /
Fail or grammatical errors.
Must see CASE/T&L with
feedback
20 – 29 Inadequate report format and poor
paragraphing / signposting.
Clear Fail Inappropriate writing style. Poorly
written &/or poor spelling &
grammar.
Must see CASE/T&L with
feedback
Intellectual Curiosity Content/ Terms/ Findings/
Definitions/ Calculations
Outstanding selection of quality sources, well beyond core & Outstanding exploration of
recommended resources. topic showing outstanding
Outstanding standard of referencing within text & consistent use knowledge & understanding
of Harvard referencing system. through thorough & appropriate
Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference research. Impressive choice
list. and range of appropriate
content.
Excellent selection of quality sources. Evidence of independent Excellent level of knowledge &
searching beyond core & recommended resources. understanding demonstrated.
Excellent standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Evidence of appropriate
Harvard referencing system. reading.
Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference Covers all relevant points &
list. issues.
Very good selection of quality sources beyond the recommended Very good level of knowledge
resources. Few irrelevant/poor quality sources used. & understanding demonstrated.
Very good standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Covers most relevant points &
Harvard referencing system. issues.
Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference Few errors / omissions in
list. content/calculations.
Good selection of mostly quality sources but some irrelevant/poor Good grasp of the topic & some
quality sources used beyond the recommended reading. of its implications presented.
Good standard of referencing within text & consistent use of Good knowledge &
Harvard referencing system. understanding is demonstrated.
Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference Minor errors / omissions in
list. content/ calculations.
Some quality sources used to clear effect, but some may be Sound grasp of the main topic
inappropriate. Limited attempt to go beyond recommended with clear knowledge and
reading. Harvard referencing system is mostly consistently, understanding of the main
though there may be minor inaccuracies. issues demonstrated. There
may be some errors/omissions
in content/calculations
Satisfactory: Some quality sources used. Research did not go Satisfactory content / level of
beyond the recommended sources. knowledge of the topic.
Satisfactory referencing within text & some inconsistent use of Addresses most of the task.
Harvard referencing system. Some errors / omissions in
Must see CASE/T&L with feedback content/ calculations. May
benefit from further research.
Weak: Limited evidence of appropriate research. Some use Weak: Limited content /
made of recommended reading, but the majority of sources are knowledge/ calculations.
irrelevant/of poor quality. Limited or muddled
Weak use of Harvard referencing system with errors & understanding of the
inconsistently applied. topic/question.
Must see CASE/T&L with feedback Does not meet all the learning
outcomes.
Inadequate: Little evidence of appropriate research. Few quality Inadequate: Lacking in relevant
sources used from recommended reading. content/
Inadequate use of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or knowledge/calculations.
inconsistencies. Content irrelevant / inaccurate.
Must see CASE/T&L with feedback Does not meet all the learning
outcomes.
Application & Integration
Outstanding business insight
& application. Outstanding
integration of literature/data
into work. Very impressive
breadth and depth.
Excellent business insight &
application. Excellent
integration of literature/data
into work. Impressive breadth
and depth.
Very good business insight &
application.
Very good integration of
literature/data into work. Very
good use of literature/data
with breadth and depth.
Good business insight &
application. Good integration
of literature/data into work.
Good use of literature/data
with adequate breadth and
depth.
Sound business insight &
application.
Integration of literature/data
into work.
Use of literature/data with
some breadth and depth.
Satisfactory business insight
& application. Limited
integration with literature/
data.
Use of literature/data but
limited in breadth or depth.
Weak: Unsatisfactory
evidence of business
application & insight
Work needs to show better
links between practical
application and theory.
Inadequate: Lacks evidence
of business application &
insight. Some literature
irrelevant to topic.
Discussion /Analysis /Critical evaluation
&/or Reflection
Outstanding level of discussion/analysis/
critical evaluation &/or reflection.
Highly developed/ focused work, with thorough
consideration of all possibilities and aspects of
the topic.
Excellent level of discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection. Clearly developed
points all of which are relevant to the topic.
Very good level of discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection. A few less relevant
ideas/points or would benefit from further
development &/or evaluation/comparison.
Good level of discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection but more
ideas/points could be addressed or developed
further.
Sound level of discussion/analysis/ critical
evaluation &/or reflection but some irrelevant
points and more ideas/points could be
addressed /developed further.
Satisfactory basic evidence of
discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or
reflection but some points irrelevant or
superficially made so need further
development.
See CASE/T&L with feedback
Weak: Limited evidence of
discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or
reflection.More development & comment
needed. May need to do more than describe.
Must see CASE/T&L with feedback
Inadequate: Lacking / inadequate level of
discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation & /or
reflection. Descriptive.
Must see CASE/T&L with feedback
 0 – 19 Nothing of merit: Poorly written Nothing of merit: No evidence of research. No use made of Nothing of merit: Nothing of merit: No Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of
work, lacking structure, paragraphing recommended reading. Sources are irrelevant & of poor quality. Unsatisfactory level of evidence of appropriate discussion/analysis/critical evaluation &/or
Little or / signposting. No or little attempt to use the Harvard referencing system. knowledge demonstrated. business application & reflection
Nothing of Many inaccuracies in spelling & Content used irrelevant / not insight.
merit grammar. Must see CASE/T&L with feedback appropriate/ to the topic. Does Must see CASE/T&L with feedback
Must see CASE/T&L with not meet the learning outcomes.
feedback

Individual Report Marking and Feedback Sheet

Assignment Title : Individual Assignment Date : April 2022 Session
Module Code
Module Title : Financial Reporting ACC3228
:
ID Number
Name :
:

Please refer to Grading Criteria for Individual Report when awarding marks (upon 100 marks). Key in the weightage (X%) for each criteria and the detailed tasks and expectations (link to MLO).

Grading Criteria MLO 100m X% Comments / Feedback / Feed Forward

C1. Presentation & structure:
Follows logical structure with good flow; meet the format
requirements outlined in the instruction, articulate and fluent academic
writing. /100 /10
C2. Intellectual curiosity (Quality of academic sources). Use & presentation
of Harvard Referencing

Use a minimum of 8 credible sources; in-text citations done properly

and use Harvard referencing style. /100 /10
C3. Content/ Terms/ Findings/ Definitions/ Calculations
Perform full and rich content including problem, at least one
accounting or management theory, background evidence of research
and findings with specific examples; demonstrated competence and
knowledge of the key issues /100 /20
C4. Application & Integration of Data/Literature
Articulate appropriate and relevant data; clear tables and charts with
accurate data to support findings /100 /30
C5. Discussion /Analysis /Critical evaluation &/or Reflection
Express a strong, focused argument, well supported by impressive
analysis and evidence, provide relevant and achievable
recommendations; represents well critical thinking skills /100 /20
C6. Reflections (Self)
Reflects the skills gained from the course and suggestion on how to
use the knowledge learned in future /100 /10
 Total (Assessor) /100

Total (Peer Reviewer/Moderator) /100