MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
MGT6A9 Coursework 1: Specifications and guidance
Table of Contents
SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT SPECIFICATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 2
1. TASK. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. MARKING CRITERIA ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
3. DEADLINES ............................................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
4. CW1 SECTION-BY-SECTION REQUIREMENTS AND HINTS ............................................................................................... 2
Section 1. Results and Interpretation ....................................................................................................................... 2
Section 2. A critique of the tests and the testing methods ....................................................................................... 3
Section 3. A targeted development plan .................................................................................................................. 3
APPENDIX ONE. COURSEWORK 1 SAMPLE FORMATIVE SUBMISSIONS ................................................................................. 4
FORMATIVE SUBMISSION SAMPLE 1: MBTI ........................................................................................................................ 4
FORMATIVE SUBMISSION SAMPLE 2: THE BIG 5 ................................................................................................................. 5
APPENDIX 2: COURSEWORK 1 SUMMATIVE FULL SAMPLE WITH MARK SHEET AND COMMENTS .............................................. 8
Sample Personality Test Report: .............................................................................................................................. 9
1.0 Results and Interpretation: ................................................................................................................................. 9
2.0 Academic Critique: ........................................................................................................................................... 10
3.0 Development Plan: ........................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 My Results and Action Plan: ............................................................................................................................ 13
References: ............................................................................................................................................................ 14
CW1 Sample: Summative Marking Sheet .............................................................................................................. 15
APPENDIX 3 CW1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA .............................................................................................................. 16
1
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
Summative Assessment Specifications
see below for Formative submission details)
1. Task.
Write a 1500 word report (+/- 10%) on your own self-assessment. This will include the following sections
(scroll further down for details):
1. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION (Around 300 words). Your results from two personality tests (provided
either in class and/or made available on Blackboard), and an interpretation of these results. Bullet points are
recommended. You do not have to write an introduction.
2. ACADEMIC CRITIQUE (Around 600 words). Using your own observations and those of outside sources
indicate the flaws and strengths of the tests and the testing methods
3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Around 600 words). A targeted development for a given job scenario (detailed
requirements below).
Please note: You may well have taken one of these tests previously, and we strongly encourage you to
compare your results now with any other previous tests. We are especially interested in your critique, and
the results themselves may give you some valuable insights.
2. Marking criteria
Your work will be graded on the following criteria (approx. 25 marks each but as in the real world all are
essential):
•
•
•
•
Critical thinking and objectivity: throughout your work demonstrate that you don’t
automatically believe the results, that we need to interpret tentatively
Content and insight: throughout, especially the Development Plan (details below)
Application of theory (especially in the critique: demonstrate understanding of
reliability/validity and bring in academic criticism from well regarded sources).
Format: throughout your work, clear language, well formatted citations, clear and frequent
paragraph breaks and sub-headings.
PLEASE SEE APPENDIX 1 for samples to show how much detail you can include in the 200word formative submission, and APPENDIX 2 for a sample summative report.
4. CW1 Section-by-Section Requirements and hints
Section 1. Results and Interpretation
RESULTS
Simply present the numerical results of both tests. For example:
Belbin: (This example is for Belbin only):
- Preferred styles: Teamworker (14), Plant (12)
2
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
- Less preferred styles: Resource Investigator (10), Specialist (9), Implementer (9)
- Styles to avoid: Completer Finisher (8), Shaper (4), Coordinator (3), Monitor evaluator (1)
INTERPRETATION:
Explain the results, according to the test.
(This example is for Belbin only):
- Preferred roles: According to the results I am strong as a member of a team …
- Secondary roles: If the team needed it, I could take on other roles…..
- Roles to avoid: I show little skill at the leadership roles of Shaper and Coordinator…
NOTE 1: Most other tests don’t use ‘preferred styles’ etc. This is specific to Belbin ONLY). With MBTI for
example just put your 4 letters and indicate how clear each one was.
NOTE 2: If you take any version of a test which isn’t the one we give you in class or make available on Bb
you need to include a copy, explain where you found it, any differences with the ones we give you in class
and a clear critique of that specific test that you took. You will lose marks if you don’t.
Section 2. A critique of the tests and the testing methods
This is where you comment on the accuracy, validity and reliability of the test and the results. Two themes
are recommended here. Within each section just give the main points of your analysis.
The test method: how clear were the instructions, was there sufficient time, were you distracted etc.
The test itself: was any of the language unclear, how were the final results calculated, were the tasks logical,
were the choices clearly distinguishable etc – this is where you need the references to outside sources to
support your arguments.
Section 3. A targeted development plan
Task: The requirement is to assume that a potential employer in the marketing industry will give you these
same tests in 6 months’ time with a view to recruiting you onto their trainee management programme. They
won’t see your current results. Assume you really really want this job.
NOTE: DO NOT FIND A DIFFERENT JOB ADVERT, JUST BASE YOUR IDEAS ON THIS SPECIFIC
SCENARIO, AND IF YOU MAKE ANY PLAUSIBLE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT IT YOU NEED TO JUSTIFY
THEM BRIEFLY.
1. List the key personality test results the company is likely to find desirable for the post in terms of the tests
you took. List them in bullet points (e.g. SH and IM in Belbin’s model).
2. Outline the key differences between your results in each test and the desirable ones.
3. Explain what you can do to narrow the gaps in the time available, as follows:
3
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
3 a: How to change your personality. Here’s an example using MBTI:
“The company would probably like managers to be sociable (‘E’ rather than ‘I’) but it is unlikely that I can
change how I am in the 6 months available, given my clear ‘I’ result, but I can start next week by joining a
London Meetup group…”
3 b: How to target specific items in each test which will skew your results towards the more desirable
characteristics:
Perhaps you scored ‘not sure’ between I and E on the MBTI test, but decided on balance you were more I.
Assuming the company would prefer I over E, you could identify the ‘I’ statements on the test and choose
those. It’s still you, you’re just emphasizing those parts of your personality which are desirable for the job.
Please note, we are not asking you to explain how to fix the results, it’s simply about emphasizing more those
elements of your personality which already exist. In the Belbin, for example, Belbin himself states that any of
your less preferred roles will become prominent if there is a lack of that role in the team overall. So moving
from, say 5 points to 9 points isn’t such a leap. And given the margin of error of some of these tests this could
easily be allowable. Of course if you score 0 on a role which you think will be desirable then you need to point
this out.
Appendix One. Coursework 1 Sample formative submissions
Formative submission sample 1: MBTI
The purpose of the formative submission is so the lecturer knows that you understand every
aspect of the coursework. A lot of text is not necessary. This one is 186 words.
TEST: MBTI
RESULTS: INFJ
INTERPRETATION: introverted preferring solitude, depending on intuitive thoughts,
preferring people over tasks and being methodical rather than spontaneous
CRITIQUE:
Threats to validity (testing methods): I was tired after a big lunch, the instructions weren’t
very clear, this probably affected my results.
Threats to validity (the test itself): the MBTI forces a binary choice, I am not entirely E or I,
for example, but we have to choose one (sources include: Smith (2017), Jones (2016) and
Evans (2015).
Overall I feel I am actually more E than I, but the other results seem to be accurate.
4
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Probable desirable results: ENTJ
Comparison: I need to change my I to E and F to T.
How to change I to E: my result was only slightly I, so in 6 months, assuming the results are
valid, I could quite easily score E. I could perhaps put myself in more sociable situations,
spend more time with colleagues after work. And/or, E is clearly part of my nature already so
it would be justifiable to simply choose more of the E statements in that section.
Commentary on this formative sample:
This sample clearly shows the writer understands the requirements of every section. Results are presented
and interpreted, the critique observes the testing methods and one major flaw in the test itself with references,
and the development plan shows awareness of the timescale and critically assesses the likelihood of being
able to achieve a different result.
Formative submission sample 2: The Big 5
JOHN SMITH
MGT6A9 WEEK 6 20XX FORMATIVE SUBMISSSION COURSEWORK 1
[200 WORDS]
1. RESULTS / INTERPRETATION:
N
-4
E
0
O
3
A
4
C
10
Key results:
According to the interpretation I am 50/50 extrovert/introvert, fairly emotionally stable, very conscientious.
2. Critique
Methods: I was tired, late at night, this probably affected the validity of my results.
The test itself: I agree to an extent but for the conscientiousness score I marked aspirationally rather than
accurately. Those items were easy to spot, this is acknowledged by Costa and MacCrae themselves (2010),
and Block (2010).
3.
a. Desirable results:
N
E
-6
6
5
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
O
A
C
7
0
3
b. Key differences: In marketing extraversion would be preferable, as well as a lower C score to allow for
spontaneity. Decision-making will need an element of disagreeableness to implement unpopular decisions.
c. How to change:
My present C score was skewed so if I was more honest in 6 months’ time it would help. For my E result I
could target those items which are easy to spot relating to extraversion and score those differently - I already
have elements of both so it’s not unethical or impossible for me to become more extraverted in the time
available by spending more time socially.
INDICATIVE FEEDBACK ON THIS COURSEWORK (FORMATIVE SUBMISSION FROM JOHN SMITH
ABOUT THE BIG 5)
(You will get more feedback than this on your work):
Overall: this demonstrates knowledge and insight into all elements of the work:
•
•
•
•
•
Results are clearly presented
Interpretation shows insights into the meaning of the elements, demonstrates critical
thinking
Critique of the method shows awareness of situational influences
Critique of the test itself shows awareness of key criticisms, with support from two
authoritative sources, this also suggests awareness of the theoretical basis (the original
authors are cited)
Development plan shows clear and plausible desirable results, awareness that being
honest could change results, that targeting specific statements could change results and
that elements of his personality might simply need to be encouraged in order to score
higher in E. This demonstrates good critical thinking, awareness of the time scale and of the
ethics of fixing results.
6
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
7
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
Appendix 2: Coursework 1 Summative full sample with mark sheet and
comments
JOHN SMITH
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SUMMATIVE
SUBMISSION
SAMPLE
PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A SAMPLE REPORT, IT HAS BEEN ADAPTED AS FOLLOWS:
•
•
•
THE REFERENCES HAVE BEEN REMOVED OR ANONYMIZED BY USING, FOR
EXAMPLE, REFANONYMIZED (20XX) – MANY CRITICISMS ARE MADE HERE, IT’S UP
TO YOU AS STUDENTS TO FIND THE REFERENCES YOURSELVES.
REFERENCES TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR AND DATES HAVE BEEN REMOVED
SOME SECTIONS ARE REDACTED IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE STUDENTS TO FIND
THEIR OWN INFORMATION AND CREATE THEIR OWN CONTENT IN THOSE SECTIONS
8
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
Sample Personality Test Report:
1.0 Results and Interpretation:
1.1 Belbin:
Results:
Belbin Excel Test:
Completed: 27th February 20XX
- Preferred styles: Monitor Evaluator ME (12) & Completer Finisher CF (10)
- Less preferred styles: Implementer IM (8), Shaper SH (8), Resource Investigator RI (8) & Specialist SP (8)
- Styles to avoid: Coordinator CO (6), Teamworker TW (4), Plant PL (3)
Interpretation:
According to these results I will display strong strategic and critical analysis skills capable of making decisions
void of emotional bias (ME), as well as strength in scrutinising the final task/work for errors (CF) (Belbin, 2017).
The combination of an ME and CF role can cause me to negatively influence others that I deem to be completing
an insufficient quality of work. (ME & CF)
If need be I am also more than capable of adopting the abilities of an IM, SH, RI and/or SP. By formulating
strategies to ensure efficiency (IM), thrive under pressure (SH), capable of inspiring others to progress with their
tasks (RI & SH). While running the risk of being inflexible (IM), being insensitive to others feelings while
overwhelming them (SH & SP), and dislike for change. (IM, SH, RI & SP)
According to the test I show little skill in a CO role, I will instead be more likely to over compensate for others
rather than over delegate typical of CO. Unlike a TW I am not inclined to avoid confrontation for the benefit of
another members feelings. In regards to problem solving I would be less inclined to use creative solutions
expected of a PL, and instead use logical strategies.
1.2 Myers-Briggs:
Results:
9
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
In Class Myers-Briggs Test:
Completed: 1st February 20XX
- Extroversion E (7) vs. Introversion I (3)
- Sensing S (9) vs. Intuition I (1)
- Thinking T (6) vs. Feeling F (4)
- Judging J (10) vs. Perceiving P(0)
Result: ESTJ
Interpretation:
ESJT - (Adapted from REFANONYMIZED 20XX)
According to my results I am a moderately extroverted person, with some introverted tendencies. Suggesting I
am capable of completing work individually, but thrive in social settings, where I am comfortable voicing my
views. The results also suggest I have a strong trust in facts, processes and am detail orientated. However I
struggle with theoretical concepts that I cannot support with information. Concerning thinking vs. feeling, I am
only slightly more prone to logic and rationale than I am to being compassionate and people orientated. In the
final section I scored as a completely judging rather than perceiving personality. This result suggests a lack of
flexibility, but enjoyment of structure and routine.
2.0 Academic Critique:
“In the social sciences, it is often unclear whether the problem is the theory, the measures, or both” (Li, R.
2011)
2.1 Belbin:
According to REFANONYMIZED (20XX) the Belbin test is not a personality test. It measures behaviour rather
than personality. Personalities remain “fairly constant”, while an individual’s ability to adapt to an environment
10
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
by altering their behaviour is certain. This notion of fluidity and adaptability may account for my results and lack
of “test-retest” reliability. As I have taken the test many times before and have consistently produced different
results my “test-retest” reliability is low. This however does not ensure that the test is inaccurate. Instead this
may have occurred due to my ability to adapt to my environment, and reveal that I am highly influenced by those
around me. In general however studies have shown the Belbin test to “show good or acceptable reliability overall”
The Belbin test is only a valid test of behaviour if the respondents are unable to accurately identify their
behaviour and report it without bias, (REFANONYMIZED 20XX) and then be correctly interpreted by the
observer. In my case I am unsure if I was able to do this. While I was free from distractions during the test I do
believe I was subconsciously answering the questions biasedly, to ensure I wasn’t placed in a role that I did not
like such as TW. Proving my test to be invalid. It should also be noted I had spent the hours prior analysing and
completing my literature review for my dissertation. Which I believe was reflected in my ME score, however
my lack of creativity during the days prior to the test may have influenced my responses the to the questions
and hence my low PL score.
I agree that I possess strong critical analysis skills, and favour logic and structure expected of as a ME. I both
agree and disagree with my results specifically with my scores in the CO role. According to
(REFANONYMIZED 20XX) CO’s have a tendency to over delegate tasks, and I often find myself over
compensating for others instead of over delegating. However I am very goal orientated and often find myself
guiding the group towards to achieving our shared objectives. Also mirrored by my CF tendencies. I do
however disagree with my PL score. As an Event’s Management student I often have to be creative and
construct new and exciting solutions to issues.
2.2 Myer-Briggs:
The Myer-Briggs (MBTI) test according to REFANONYMIZED (20XX) is a measure of psychological
preferences that shapes how people see the world and make decisions. The use of forced choice to measure
preference allows respondents to be simply categorised into one of the sixteen personality types
(REFANONYMIZED 20XX). This process and logic has been called into question by several academics and
professional bodies such as REFANONYMIZED and REFANONYMIZED 20XX because the test displays
respondent’s preference and not true ability. (REFANONYMIZED 20XX)
11
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
The test is considered by some academics to have low “test-retest” reliability, however this is not the case for me.
Instead my results are reflective of REFANONYMIZED views presented in (REFANONYMIZED 20XX). That
people are likely to only shift from one choice to another in one pairing (thinking vs. feeling), while the other
remaining preferences remain constant over time. On an individual basis the MBTI is a more reliable test for me
than my Belbin test. However REFANONYMIZED contradicts this conclusion. The use of sixteen “broad”
personality types that are explained using positive and vague sentences allows respondents to identify with their
personality summaries, and may in fact not be reflective of the respondent’s true nature discussed by
REFANONYMIZED (20XX). The test has also been criticised by REFANONYMIZED (20XX) ’s study for failing
to account for gender differences in the thinking vs. feeling section. A process that did not occur in my test, which
may have led to a different result, as I only had a small preference for thinking over feeling.
The use of a simple scoring and numerical scale did remove bias in the interpretation of results, adding to the
validity of the test. However I disagree with the answers in the test being exact opposites, and some responses
were not reflective of my ideal option, forcing me to choose a preference that was not entirely reflective of my
views.
3.0 Development Plan:
3.1 Desired Results Speculation:
3.1.1 Belbin:
EDITOR’S COMMENT: IN THIS SECTION THE SUGGESTED DESIRABLE BELBIN RESULTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED
OR MADE UNIDENTIFIABLE. AS STUDENTS YOU NEED TO PRESENT YOUR OWN IDEAS FOR THIS SECTION AND
IT WOULD BE GIVING YOU TOO MUCH OF AN ANSWER FOR US TO PROVIDE THESE HERE.
I have little confidence in the Belbin test itself, due to my regularly changing results. As this is a trainee
management position however, I speculate that the company is looking for xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx
xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxx xxx xxxx xx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx. Xx xxxx X xxxxxxx
xxxx xxxx xx xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx XX, XX, XX xxx/xx XX xxxxx.
•
XX (Xxxxxx): xx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx, xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxx
xxxxxxxxx.
•
XX (Xxxxxx): xx xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx, xxxxx
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xx ‘xxxx xxx’ xxxx xxxxxxx.
•
XX (Xxxxxx): xx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxx xxxx. Xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx.
12
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
XX (Xxxxxxxx): xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, xxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxx.
3.1.2 Myer-Briggs:
I speculate that the company would prefer:
•
X xxxx X: Xx x xxxxxxx xxx xxxx xxxx xx xx xxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx
xxxxxxxx xxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxx xxxx xxx xxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx xx xxx xxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx.
•
X xxxxx X: xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxx XXXX xxx XXXX xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xx
xxxxxxx. XXXX xxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx XXXX xxxxx. Xxxx
xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx (x.x. x xxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxx xx XXXX xxxxxxxx xx xx
xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx x xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxxx – XXXX).
•
X xxxx X: xxx xxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxx
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx.
X xxxx X: Xxx xxx xx xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xx
xxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxx xx xxxxx, xxx xx xxxx xxxxxxx xx X xxxxxxxxxx.
3.2 My Results and Action Plan:
As an ESTJ I believe I would be an ideal candidate based on the MBTI test. However my completely xxxxxxx
preference in the workplace may be considered an issue, due to the connotation that I am not flexible, and would
favour imposing logic to regain routine and control to overcome this inflexibility.
Due to my personally low “test-retest” reliability I am very distrusting of this test. Nevertheless I would be
inclined to select answers that favour interpersonal interactions, logic and goal attainment. All of which are
skills and qualities I believe to be important to managers and myself in the workplace. In order to achieve the
aforementioned types I could practice taking the Belbin to improve my “test-retest” reliability and produce
results reflective of these roles.
13
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
References:
[THE
REFERENCES
HAVE
BEEN
DELETED
IN
ORDER
TO
ENCOURAGE STUDENTS TO FIND THEIR OWN. THERE WERE
AROUND 20 REFERENCES IN THIS WORK.]
PLEASE SEE THE NEXT PAGE FOR THE SUMMATIVE COMMENTS AND GRADING FOR THIS WORK
14
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
CW1 Sample: Summative Marking Sheet
CONTENT
74
EXCELLENT THROUGHOUT EXCEPT FOR LACK OF
DETAIL IN PT 3
CRITICAL THINKING
84
REALLY EXCELLENT OBJECTIVITY AND QUESTIONING
PROCESS THROUGHOUT
FORMAT
70
EXCELLENT OVERALL BUT TOO LONG
81
OUTSTANDING UNDERSTANDING OF THE TESTS,
THEIR MEANINS AND VARIANTS.
APPLICATION
THEORY
OF
Grade: 77 (excellent work but needed slightly more on Belbin development, and was slightly over the word
count)
SOME INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS:
•
•
These are our comments on your summative submission. The grade is, of course,
important, but what is just as important is the comments we have made on your work. We
strongly recommend that you read these comments as they can help you enhance your
skills in the future.
The grades are now final, subject to possible scrutiny by the exam board and the external
examiner so we can’t discuss the grade itself. However if you would like more detail about
how to improve, please get in touch.
FIRST TEST
RESULTS
SECOND TEST
LISTED:
INCLASS
PREFERRED
MUST BE 2 OF
BELBIN, MBTI,
VAK
RESULTS INTERPRETED 300 WORDS
TESTS CRITIQUED 600 WORDS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN 600 WORDS
(NOT THEIR OWN ADVERT)
CHANGE PERSONALITY
EMPHASISE CERTAIN TEST ITEMS
COMMENTS ON ;MARKING CRITERIA:
CONTENT, CRITICAL THINKING (C.T.), FORMAT, AND
APPLICATION OF THEORY
BELBIN Y
MBTI Y
Both excellent, MBTI takes account of PCI very well too
Treatment of both tests is excellent, on content, on critical
thinking: very strong arguments, balanced too, well supported,
shows deep reading, thought and understanding of the
underlying theoretical issues.
Again excellent, good list of plausible and justified desirable
traits, good treatment of MBTI but no methods of changing
personality are mentioned, no mention of the timescale.
Unfortunately didn’t address Belbin results in enough detail,
plausible though they were. No methods of changing
personality are mentioned, no mention of the timescale.
1694 SOME WAY OVER
WORD COUNT 1500 +/- 10%
15
MGT6A9 COURSEWORK 1 SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDANCE
Appendix 3 CW1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Criteria/
Scale
Content
and
insight
Critical
thinking
and
objectivity
Applicatio
n of
theory
Format
8
90100%
As for
distinction
and with
exceptional
content and
insights
As for
distinction
and with
exceptional
insights
7
8089%
As for
distinction
and with
outstanding
content and
insights
As for
distinction
and with
outstanding
insights
6
7079%
Excellent
content and
insights into
personality
testing
5
6069%
Very good
content and
insights into
personality
testing
4
5059%
Good
content and
insights into
personality
testing
3
4049%
Satisfactory
content and
insights into
personality
testing
2
3039%
Limited
content and
insights into
personality
testing
1
1129%
Very limited
content and
insights into
personality
testing
0
010%
Not
assessabl
e
Excellent
analysis of
the tests and
with a purely
objective
approach
Very good
analysis of
the tests and
with a mostly
objective
approach
Good
analysis of
the tests and
with a mostly
objective
approach
Limited
analysis of
the tests and
with a mostly
subjective
approach
Very limited
analysis of
the tests and
with a very
subjective
approach
Not
assessabl
e
As for
distinction
and with
exceptional
understandin
g and
insights into
theory
As for
distinction
and to an
exceptional
professional
level
As for
distinction
and with
outstanding
understandin
g and
insights into
theory
As for
distinction to
an
outstanding
professional
level
Excellent
understandin
g of
theoretical
perspectives
on
personality
testing
Excellent
professional
standards of
format,
presentation
and
guidance for
reader.
Very good
understandin
g of
theoretical
perspectives
on
personality
testing
Very good
professional
standards of
format,
presentation
and
guidance for
reader.
Good
understandin
g of
theoretical
perspectives
on
personality
testing
Good
professional
standards of
format,
presentation
and
guidance for
reader.
Satisfactory
analysis of
the tests and
with a
occasionally
objective
approach
Satisfactory
understandin
g of
theoretical
perspectives
on
personality
testing
Satisfactory
professional
standards of
format,
presentation
and
guidance for
reader.
Limited
understandin
g of
theoretical
perspectives
on
personality
testing
Limited
professional
standards of
format,
presentation
and
guidance for
reader.
Very limited
understandin
g of
theoretical
perspectives
on
personality
testing
Very limited
professional
standards of
format,
presentation
and
guidance for
reader.
Not
assessabl
e
16
Not
assessabl
e
Purchase answer to see full
attachment