ACCT19083 Final Assignment Term 2, 2019: Ethical Decision Making

This assignment analyzes an ethical dilemma within a business context, focusing on the implications of underpayment of factory workers. The student explores the situation through the lens of virtue ethics, examining Arnold's motivation to disclose the short payments and contrasting it with Mr. Goodrich's expectation of loyalty. The assignment delves into the limits of loyalty within a corporate setting. Furthermore, it evaluates the company's ethical culture using Kaptein's dimensions, identifying shortcomings in clarity, congruency, and supportability. The student utilizes references to support the analysis, providing a comprehensive overview of the ethical challenges and leadership considerations present in the scenario.

ACCT19083 Final Assignment
Term 2, 2019
Student ID:………………………………. Student name……………………………………………………..
Marker’s overall comments: The markers may include any
final comments here.
Overall Mark (Total) out of 40:
0

Part A Question 1: Assume that Arnold wants to disclose the short payments to staff immediately. Identify the
theory of ethics that best explains Arnold’s motivation for wanting to do this. Explain why you chose this theory
(300–400 words).
If Arnold wants to disclose the short payments it can be motivated by the virtue theory. According to this theory, people display
aspects that are ideal for a morally correct being. The virtue theory can be said to be a midpoint. This means that it is in between the
deficiency vice and the excess vice. It is more significantly influenced by the need to make the right decisions at all times. Arnold is a
man that is more influenced by virtue. He wants all the issues with regards to the underpayment of the factory workers to be sorted
out in the best and most transparent way possible (Vaughn 2015). The virtue theory of ethics is based on the development of an
ethical mindset. It is the ability to do well and act in ways that ensure the fair treatment of all people involved within an
organizational situation. The theory of virtue can be further divided into the theory of “excellent person” of Aristotle and the Care
Theory. These theories are important as they provide a general guideline through which people should act and behave in conflict
situations. The virtue theory is associated with doing the right thing for the greater good. This theory is greatly applicable in the want
of Arnold to disclose the short payments to the staffs immediately. Here, it can be said that Arnold is not thinking diplomatically and
wants to resolve the matter in a straightforward manner without keeping any secrets. The ethic of care is a sub-part of the Virtue
theory. It is concerned with the question of justice and autonomy in case of men and empathy and care in terms of women (Akrivou
and Sison 2016). Here Arnold is exhibiting the values of justice and autonomy. Arnold is a morally good person who is thinking in
terms of the workers that were affected as a result of the underpayment that was provided for the last 2 years.
References:
Vaughn, L., 2015. Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. WW Norton & Company.
Akrivou, K. and Sison, A.J.G. eds., 2016. The challenges of capitalism for virtue ethics and the common good:
Interdisciplinary perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Marker’s Comments: The marker will provide feedback here. Mark (5):
0

Exceeds Expectations
(High Distinction) 85-100%
Exceeds Expectations
(Distinction) 75 - 84%
Meets Expectations
(Credit) 65 – 74%
Meets Expectations
(Pass) 50 – 64%
Below Expectations
(Fail) below 50%
Demonstrates a balanced and very
high level of detailed knowledge of
core concepts by providing a very
high level of analysis. Utilises
current, appropriate and credible
sources.
Demonstrates a balanced and high
level of knowledge of core
concepts by providing a high level
of analysis. Utilises mostly current,
appropriate and credible sources.
Demonstrates a good level of
knowledge of some of the core
concepts by providing some level
of analysis. Utilises some current,
appropriate and credible sources.
Demonstrates limited knowledge of
core concepts by providing a
limited level of analysis. Utilises
few current, appropriate and
credible sources.
Demonstrates little, if any,
knowledge of the core concepts
with extremely limited, if any,
analysis. Utilises little, if any,
current, appropriate and credible
sources.
Quality of writing at a very high
standard. Paragraphs are
coherently connected to each
other. Correct grammar, spelling
and punctuation.
Quality of writing is of a high
standard. Paragraphs are mostly
well structured. Few grammar,
spelling and punctuation mistakes.
Quality of writing is of a good
standard. Few grammar, spelling
and punctuation mistakes.
Some problems with sentence
structure and presentation
Frequent grammar, punctuation
and spelling mistakes. Use of
inappropriate language.
Quality of writing is at a very poor
standard so barely
understandable. Many spelling
mistakes. Little or no evidence of
proof reading.
The assessment presents a
detailed and focused summary of
the ideas presented; drawing clear
and well thought-out conclusions.
The assessment presents a fairly
detailed and focused summary of
the ideas presented; drawing fairly
clear and well thought-out
conclusions.
The assessment presents a
somewhat detailed and focused
summary of the ideas presented;
providing some evidence of
conclusions.
The assessment provides limited
detail with no clear summary of the
ideas presented; drawing limited
conclusions.
The assessment fails to provide
any clear evidence of the ideas
presented; drawing no clear
conclusions.

Part A Question 2: Mr Goodrich expects Arnold to show loyalty to the company (and to Mr Goodrich) and not
disclose the existence of the short payments (at least, not yet). Is Mr Goodrich right to expect this, and what are
the limits of “loyalty” (300–400 words)?
Here, it can be said that Mr Goodrich is thinking is terms of the business. He is the COO, who has been greatly successful in his tenure
till now. He is much supported by the investors and is completely in charge of the endeavours of the organization. At this time this is
a diplomatic decision as it is a very large issue that has been ongoing for a significant amount of time encompassing the last 2 years.
It is important to understand that Mr Goodrich is primarily wanting to buy time for explaining the matter to the other stakeholders of
the organization. It is important to understand thus that the stakeholders are a great responsibility for him (Trapero et al. 2017). He
is thinking in terms of the business of the company. He is certain that the company would face a huge reputational as well as financial
dilemma if the news of the underpayment of workers is exposed, at least if exposed immediately. At this point in time Mr Goodrich is
focused towards reducing uncertainty and deal with the situation. He is wanting Arnold to show loyalty to the company in order to
look after the interests of all the stakeholders that are engaged. This especially means the larger stakeholders that form essential
parts of the higher management. Mr Goodrich from his point of view is right to expect Arnold to behave in more diplomatic manner
by not revealing any information at the time. However, firstly he has made the communication in a wring way and secondly, he has
not considered essentially all the other perspectives that are present. Hence, he should have addressed the matter in a more
effective and smooth manner of communication. The limits of loyalty are pertaining to the equal treatment of all organizational
stakeholders in the long run. Loyalty to the organization in this case needs to be shown till the matter results in positive change in
favour of both the higher management and the workers (McMurrian and Matulich 2016).
References:
Trapero, F.G.A., Castano, L.E.V., Parra, J.C.V. and Garcia, J.D.L.G., 2017. Differences on self-perception of
organizational pride and loyalty in Millennial & Generation X, considering gender and seniority variables. Business and
Economic Horizons (BEH), 13(1232-2017-2421), pp.270-286.
McMurrian, R.C. and Matulich, E., 2016. Building customer value and profitability with business ethics. Journal of Business
& Economics Research (JBER), 14(3), pp.83-90.
Marker’s Comments: The marker will provide feedback here. Mark (5):
0

Exceeds Expectations
(High Distinction) 85-100%
Exceeds Expectations
(Distinction) 75 - 84%
Meets Expectations
(Credit) 65 – 74%
Meets Expectations
(Pass) 50 – 64%
Below Expectations
(Fail) below 50%
Demonstrates a balanced and very
high level of detailed knowledge of
core concepts by providing a very
high level of analysis. Utilises
current, appropriate and credible
sources.
Demonstrates a balanced and high
level of knowledge of core
concepts by providing a high level
of analysis. Utilises mostly current,
appropriate and credible sources.
Demonstrates a good level of
knowledge of some of the core
concepts by providing some level
of analysis. Utilises some current,
appropriate and credible sources.
Demonstrates limited knowledge of
core concepts by providing a
limited level of analysis. Utilises
few current, appropriate and
credible sources.
Demonstrates little, if any,
knowledge of the core concepts
with extremely limited, if any,
analysis. Utilises little, if any,
current, appropriate and credible
sources.
Quality of writing at a very high
standard. Paragraphs are
coherently connected to each
other. Correct grammar, spelling
and punctuation.
Quality of writing is of a high
standard. Paragraphs are mostly
well structured. Few grammar,
spelling and punctuation mistakes.
Quality of writing is of a good
standard. Few grammar, spelling
and punctuation mistakes.
Some problems with sentence
structure and presentation
Frequent grammar, punctuation
and spelling mistakes. Use of
inappropriate language.
Quality of writing is at a very poor
standard so barely
understandable. Many spelling
mistakes. Little or no evidence of
proof reading.
The assessment presents a
detailed and focused summary of
the ideas presented; drawing clear
and well thought-out conclusions.
The assessment presents a fairly
detailed and focused summary of
the ideas presented; drawing fairly
clear and well thought-out
conclusions.
The assessment presents a
somewhat detailed and focused
summary of the ideas presented;
providing some evidence of
conclusions.
The assessment provides limited
detail with no clear summary of the
ideas presented; drawing limited
conclusions.
The assessment fails to provide
any clear evidence of the ideas
presented; drawing no clear
conclusions.

Part A Question 3: What are Kaptein’s dimensions of an ethical culture? Based on what you know of the
business in the accompanying story, use Kaptein’s work to evaluate its ethical culture (300–400 words).
The corporate ethical values scale was provided by Kaptein. The dimensions that are discussed within the same with respect to the
ethical cultures in organizations provided were clarity, congruency of the supervisors, and congruency of the senior management,
supportability, feasibility, discussability, transparency and sanctionability. These eight factors are the most important ethical
dimensions of culture. The story is concerning the underpayment of the larger number of the workers of the organization in terms of
wages, leaves and superannuations. This means that the organization is liable to be questioned by the government’s workers
remuneration standards authorities of the country. In terms of the virtue of clarity the situation is not handled well as only a handful
of people are informed of the discrepancy. The value of congruency is the behaviour of the middle management in accordance of
the ethical standards (Ethicsmanagement.info 2019). In view of the same the dealings of the given scenario are not effective. The
virtue of feasibility is provided more importantly in this case. This is because the management wants to take more time to come to
any effective decisions. The values of discussability and supportability are not effectively established. Concerning the value of
discussability, the opportunity to discuss the ethical issues more freely is not present. Additionally, the supportability is not present
as of now through what is known in the given scenario. Hence, the identification, involvement and commitment to the ethical
expectations among the employees are not well established. This is more apparent from the fact that the HR manager was asked to
resign. This brings forward the need to further evaluate the situation of the scenario. The value of sanctionability is concerned with
the belief among the employees that the unethical behaviours would be punished and the ethical behaviours would be rewarded. In
regards to the same the values are not given much importance in the given scenario. It can be said that there are certain issues with
the development of ethical culture within the given organization.
References:
Ethicsmanagement.info. (2019). Corporate ethical virtues model. [online] Available at: http://www.ethicsmanagement.info/content.php?pagina=2&type=0 [Accessed
2 Oct. 2019].
Marker’s Comments: The marker will provide feedback here. Mark (5):
0

Exceeds Expectations
(High Distinction) 85-100%
Exceeds Expectations
(Distinction) 75 - 84%
Meets Expectations
(Credit) 65 – 74%
Meets Expectations
(Pass) 50 – 64%
Below Expectations
(Fail) below 50%
Demonstrates a balanced and very
high level of detailed knowledge of
core concepts by providing a very
high level of analysis. Utilises
current, appropriate and credible
sources.
Demonstrates a balanced and high
level of knowledge of core
concepts by providing a high level
of analysis. Utilises mostly current,
appropriate and credible sources.
Demonstrates a good level of
knowledge of some of the core
concepts by providing some level
of analysis. Utilises some current,
appropriate and credible sources.
Demonstrates limited knowledge of
core concepts by providing a
limited level of analysis. Utilises
few current, appropriate and
credible sources.
Demonstrates little, if any,
knowledge of the core concepts
with extremely limited, if any,
analysis. Utilises little, if any,
current, appropriate and credible
sources.
Quality of writing at a very high
standard. Paragraphs are
coherently connected to each
other. Correct grammar, spelling
and punctuation.
Quality of writing is of a high
standard. Paragraphs are mostly
well structured. Few grammar,
spelling and punctuation mistakes.
Quality of writing is of a good
standard. Few grammar, spelling
and punctuation mistakes.
Some problems with sentence
structure and presentation
Frequent grammar, punctuation
and spelling mistakes. Use of
inappropriate language.
Quality of writing is at a very poor
standard so barely
understandable. Many spelling
mistakes. Little or no evidence of
proof reading.
The assessment presents a
detailed and focused summary of
the ideas presented; drawing clear
and well thought-out conclusions.
The assessment presents a fairly
detailed and focused summary of
the ideas presented; drawing fairly
clear and well thought-out
conclusions.
The assessment presents a
somewhat detailed and focused
summary of the ideas presented;
providing some evidence of
conclusions.
The assessment provides limited
detail with no clear summary of the
ideas presented; drawing limited
conclusions.
The assessment fails to provide
any clear evidence of the ideas
presented; drawing no clear
conclusions.

Part A Question 4: If Arnold is wanting to disclose the short payments immediately and risk insolvency for the
company, does Arnold have a conflict of interest? Explain your answer (300–400 words).
In this case it can be said that Arnold has a conflict of interest. This is due to the fact that the issue that is reported with the pay and
remuneration structure of the factory workers can have far reaching implications on the current operations of the organization. The
company has been underpaying the factory workers with regard to three important aspects concerned with their payments, namely
wages, leaves and superannuations (Stoevenbelt et al. 2019). This would mean that if in accordance with the views of Arnold, the
disclosure of the short payments are made, it may result in a significant medium to long term financial issue and liability for the
organization. One significant conflict of interest for Arnold is that he can project a clearer image for himself in the middle of the
ethical issue that has been found. Arnold is the management accountant. Hence, the disclosure of the short payment can mean that
he can prove his ethical commitment and get a clean name for himself in the entire proceeding that would follow. Hence, although
the organization might face long standing financial risks in a bid to repay all the employees their due as per the governmental norms,
Arnold can get an easier and safer role to play in the entire matter (Lim 2019). Conflicts of interests normally arise when employees
have certain personal vested interests that can substantially interfere with their job duties. Another dilemma for him is that if he
chooses to disclose the information immediately, the COO would make sure that he gets all the blame for the issue that were caused
being the management accountant. Hence, he has significant conflicts of interests in this case. The fact that the entire blame can be
landed upon him is a much larger conflict of interest for Arnold. In these situations decisions become more difficult to make as the
employees are in a greater dilemma for making the right choices.
References:
Lim, K., NEXTLABS Inc, 2019. Preventing conflicts of interests between two or more groups using applications. U.S.
Patent Application 10/380,363.
Stoevenbelt, A.H., Nuijten, M.B., Pauli, B.E. and Wicherts, J.M., 2019. Rule out conflicts of interest in psychology awards.
Marker’s Comments: The marker will provide feedback here. Mark (5):
0

Exceeds Expectations
(High Distinction) 85-100%
Exceeds Expectations
(Distinction) 75 - 84%
Meets Expectations
(Credit) 65 – 74%
Meets Expectations
(Pass) 50 – 64%
Below Expectations
(Fail) below 50%
Demonstrates a balanced and very
high level of detailed knowledge of
core concepts by providing a very
high level of analysis. Utilises
current, appropriate and credible
sources.
Demonstrates a balanced and high
level of knowledge of core
concepts by providing a high level
of analysis. Utilises mostly current,
appropriate and credible sources.
Demonstrates a good level of
knowledge of some of the core
concepts by providing some level
of analysis. Utilises some current,
appropriate and credible sources.
Demonstrates limited knowledge of
core concepts by providing a
limited level of analysis. Utilises
few current, appropriate and
credible sources.
Demonstrates little, if any,
knowledge of the core concepts
with extremely limited, if any,
analysis. Utilises little, if any,
current, appropriate and credible
sources.
Quality of writing at a very high
standard. Paragraphs are
coherently connected to each
other. Correct grammar, spelling
and punctuation.
Quality of writing is of a high
standard. Paragraphs are mostly
well structured. Few grammar,
spelling and punctuation mistakes.
Quality of writing is of a good
standard. Few grammar, spelling
and punctuation mistakes.
Some problems with sentence
structure and presentation
Frequent grammar, punctuation
and spelling mistakes. Use of
inappropriate language.
Quality of writing is at a very poor
standard so barely
understandable. Many spelling
mistakes. Little or no evidence of
proof reading.
The assessment presents a
detailed and focused summary of
the ideas presented; drawing clear
and well thought-out conclusions.
The assessment presents a fairly
detailed and focused summary of
the ideas presented; drawing fairly
clear and well thought-out
conclusions.
The assessment presents a
somewhat detailed and focused
summary of the ideas presented;
providing some evidence of
conclusions.
The assessment provides limited
detail with no clear summary of the
ideas presented; drawing limited
conclusions.
The assessment fails to provide
any clear evidence of the ideas
presented; drawing no clear
conclusions.

Part B Question: The story finishes by saying that Arnold has some decisions to make. Use the AAA Decision-
making Model to help Arnold to arrive at the best ethical decision. To answer this correctly you will have to
think deeply about what choices Arnold actually has (1,200–1,600 words).
The AAA decision making model can be used to analyse the decisions that Arnold can make after the end of scenario. This model is
comprehensive, systematic and effective in terms of the values that are associated with decision making. Before utilizing the model
for the decision making functions of Arnold, the model needs to be discussed. Some of the most important questions that are
addressed through this model are related to: - 1. Facts, 2. Ethical issues of the case, 3. Norms, principles and values, 4. Alternative
action courses, 5. Best courses of actions, 6. Consequences of the each possible actions, 7. The final decisions.
All these questions need to be answered in systematic manner to make the decision making process easier and effective. There are
various steps involved in making the decisions. These different steps can be developed to create an effective understanding of the
entire process of decision making. It is important to understand the choices that are currently present for Arnold. Given the situation
it is very difficult to disclose any information about the shorter pay. This may not be a very good idea as a large number of
stakeholders including the various government agencies can get involved in the process.
It is the first step to understand more about the situation. In this case one choice is to understand the issues in regards to the
payments that are at the base of the problem. Arnold needs to consider all the employees that have been affected by the shorter pay
for the last 2 years. The employees that have left the organization would also need to be known. At the same time Arnold would
need to consider the tenure of the employees that have been with the company since the 2 years. Many employees might have
entered the organization within just the past year or the last few months. In this case the amount of money that can be accrued is
much lesser than that for the employees that have served the organization for 2 years or more. In this step the most important
aspects that need to be considered are who? What? Where? When? And how? Hence, it needs to be found that which people are
affected by the shorter payments, what are the implications of the shorter payments, where are the areas that have been affected,
when did the major part of the issue take place and how much finances are required to cover for the losses that were incurred. These
answers can point towards the next courses of actions that can be taken. However, no concrete decisions can be made in the first
place as it can jeopardize the situation.
The second step is very important as it gives further opportunity to Arnold for assessing the situation. This step is concerning the
identification of the most important stakeholders. The primary stakeholders in this case are the employees, the union, the
government agencies, the management, the COO and the investors. These are the important people that can get affected by the
decisions of the organization. This is the first part of the 1st step. The second step is to create a more effective and valuable study of

the ethical factors that are affecting the decision making processes. This means that the primary ethical concern that should be
considered is the impact on the employees. The employees have worked for two years on shorter wages. Hence, they need to be
immediately provided with better payment plans. The benefits of the better pay scale would be happier and more motivated
employees. The harm to the company that can be caused is the immediate loss of finances. Even if an agreement is reached to
provide the remaining payment accruing to 6 or 7 million to the employees over the course of a few months, there can be financial
losses that the organization can incur. However, the rights of the employees should be given prominence and at least the new pay
scales can be introduced. The claims of the most tenured workers would need to be given primary importance.
The step three is concerning the norms, principles and the values that are associated with the decision making functions at this point.
The right to better remuneration of the employees need to be given more importance. it is important that the value oriented ethics
are given more prominence at this stage. The theory of utilitarianism should also be given more prominence in accordance of the
situation (Bobek, Hageman and Radtke 2015). Hence, the maximization of happiness of all stakeholders become important. The 10
core values that need to be considered subsequently are caring, accountability, honesty, promise keeping, excellence, loyalty,
fairness, integrity, citizenship and respect for others.
As per the step 4, There are various alternative courses of actions that can be considered. One immediate option would be to not
disclose any information about the discrepancy. Another alternative course that can be followed is to negotiate new terms without
having to pay any amount for the 2 years. In this case a lesser amount to be payed to the affected employees can also be an option.
Negotiation with the unions without government intervention is another course of action that can be taken to ensure better
management of the situation. The organization can also compromise with the employees and the unions to create a better
understanding between the management and the union. It is important that the people take the necessary steps to form an effective
plan to address the various issues that are related to the case.
Step 5 of the AAA model is concerned with Arnold having to reflect on the values that are associated with the case. As pointed out
before, one of the most important values associated with the case is ethical and care oriented (Pullen and Rhodes 2015). It is the
organizational ethics that can potentially affect the employee relations that should be reflected upon. The most important value is of
virtue. Another important value is that of utilitarianism or good for all. These are the values that are important as in this situation the
relationships between the management and the employees are at stake. Justice should be provided to the employees that have
endured much lesser payments over the last two years. Arnold should also reflect upon the relationship of the investors with the
COO and the implications that the issue can have on both. It is important to consider that the entire issue can have significant
impacts on all the stakeholders.
The step 6 is the evaluation of all the alternatives provided in step 4. In consideration of the same not disclosing the information can
be beneficial in the short run but can have serious implication on the organization in the long run which can even have financial

losses for the organization. Negotiating the terms can provide better scope for the understanding of the matter. In the short run it
might not be effective but in the long run it can save the company form the given situation. It can have positive effects but the next 6
to 7 months can negatively affect the organization. Paying a lesser amount to the employees can be effective as a solution. However,
this would still mean that the negotiation process in the short run would be very tiresome and can have financial implications. The
alternatives can lead the company towards different results. However, the better option is negotiating and paying less.
In step 7 the best alternative would have to be selected as in step 5 no decision was reached. It is important that the best thing to do
at this time is to hold a board meeting, a stakeholder meeting and a management and union meeting. Through this the negotiation
process can be implemented that would consider paying a lesser amount to cover for the losses of the 2 years to the employees.
Along with the same certain added benefits can be provided.
References:
Martinov-Bennie, N. and Mladenovic, R., 2015. Investigation of the impact of an ethical framework and an integrated ethics
education on accounting students’ ethical sensitivity and judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), pp.189-203.
Bobek, D.D., Hageman, A.M. and Radtke, R.R., 2015. The effects of professional role, decision context, and gender on the
ethical decision making of public accounting professionals. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 27(1), pp.55-78.
PrzegAlińskA, A., 2016. Decision Support Systems as Knowledge Workers. The Laws of the Knowledge Workplace:
Changing Roles and the Meaning of Work in Knowledge-Intensive Environments, p.97.
Knights, D., 2015. Binaries need to shatter for bodies to matter: Do disembodied masculinities undermine organizational
ethics?. Organization, 22(2), pp.200-216.
Pullen, A. and Rhodes, C., 2015. Ethics, embodiment and organizations. Organization, 22(2), pp.159-165.
Marker’s Comments: The marker will provide feedback here. Mark (20):
0
Exceeds Expectations
(High Distinction) 85-100%
Exceeds Expectations
(Distinction) 75 - 84%
Meets Expectations
(Credit) 65 – 74%
Meets Expectations
(Pass) 50 – 64%
Below Expectations
(Fail) below 50%
Demonstrates a balanced and very Demonstrates a balanced and high Demonstrates a good level of Demonstrates limited knowledge of Demonstrates little, if any,

Exceeds Expectations
(High Distinction) 85-100%
Exceeds Expectations
(Distinction) 75 - 84%
Meets Expectations
(Credit) 65 – 74%
Meets Expectations
(Pass) 50 – 64%
Below Expectations
(Fail) below 50%
high level of detailed knowledge of
core concepts by providing a very
high level of analysis. Utilises
current, appropriate and credible
sources.
level of knowledge of core
concepts by providing a high level
of analysis. Utilises mostly current,
appropriate and credible sources.
knowledge of some of the core
concepts by providing some level
of analysis. Utilises some current,
appropriate and credible sources.
core concepts by providing a
limited level of analysis. Utilises
few current, appropriate and
credible sources.
knowledge of the core concepts
with extremely limited, if any,
analysis. Utilises little, if any,
current, appropriate and credible
sources.
Quality of writing at a very high
standard. Paragraphs are
coherently connected to each
other. Correct grammar, spelling
and punctuation.
Quality of writing is of a high
standard. Paragraphs are mostly
well structured. Few grammar,
spelling and punctuation mistakes.
Quality of writing is of a good
standard. Few grammar, spelling
and punctuation mistakes.
Some problems with sentence
structure and presentation
Frequent grammar, punctuation
and spelling mistakes. Use of
inappropriate language.
Quality of writing is at a very poor
standard so barely
understandable. Many spelling
mistakes. Little or no evidence of
proof reading.
The assessment presents a
detailed and focused summary of
the ideas presented; drawing clear
and well thought-out conclusions.
The assessment presents a fairly
detailed and focused summary of
the ideas presented; drawing fairly
clear and well thought-out
conclusions.
The assessment presents a
somewhat detailed and focused
summary of the ideas presented;
providing some evidence of
conclusions.
The assessment provides limited
detail with no clear summary of the
ideas presented; drawing limited
conclusions.
The assessment fails to provide
any clear evidence of the ideas
presented; drawing no clear
conclusions.