AVIA1321 Fundamentals in Aviation Assessment 2. Essay
Mark – 30%
Due Date – Thursday 14 April 2022, 4:59 PM. Length – 1,000 words (not including references)
Format – Submit in electronic format through Moodle or email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Essay question/topic: “You are required to write a short essay about Project Sunrise. Particularly, you need to discuss the likely strategic Sales and Marketing objectives that Qantas is trying to achieve with this Project”.
It is expected that the essay contains information about the topic under investigation including:
- background information, definition/s and explanation of topic/area,
- significance of the issue/s in present day aviation,
- link to relevant lecture(s) and previous research,
- Argument and
- future implication/direction.
As this is an academic piece of writing, you are expected to include citations in text as well as a reference list. The reference list is not included in the word count. You also need to format your submission, including references as per the American Psychology Association (APA) style guide (see https://student.unsw.edu.au/apa) or other academic referencing style but be
consistent with same style throughout. Importantly, internet references including Wikipedia are not academic sources. Hence, it is expected that your reference list to contain only books/reports or journal papers. Font: Times New Roman, (12 point) with double spacing.
Essay Grading Rubric
The table below provides a general sense of how essays are graded:
|Grade||Background Research||Argument||Analysis (Body of Paper)||Clarity|
|Excellent 85+||a significant amount of independent, scholarly research was undertaken the majority of sources are from peer- reviewed publications, those that aren’t are used as primary research only. research is solidly within the parameters of the analysis and thesis argument||an original and provocative thesis is clearly stated at the beginning of the paper the method of proving that thesis is established early on and justified on scholarly terms the thesis provides the backbone of analysis and reaches a satisfying conclusion based on what was proposed at the beginning||based on excellent research and an original thesis, the analysis is strong, and clearly follows established research questions the research is artfully woven throughout the analysis, shoring up and thoughtfully supporting the argument new information is well contextualized and serves to propel the argument towards a satisfying conclusion||the paper is easy to read, analysis flows expertly language is sophisticated without being jargonistic terms of analysis and argumentation are clearly laid out and well- defined|
|Very Good 75-84||a reasonable amount of independent, scholarly research was undertaken sources are mainly from peer-reviewed publications research is sound but predictable||an interesting but predictable thesis is clearly stated at the beginning of the paper the thesis tends toward more description than argument, leading to a weak conclusion the methodology is there but isn’t clearly laid out, or is laid out but not followed through on an expert level||the analysis is good but there are some significant weaknesses or lapses the paper occasionally drifts off-topic or into territory that isn’t adequately supported by the research the research questions are interesting but potentially unrealistic in terms of the type||the paper is well written but suffers from some significant grammatical inconsistencies or spelling errors language is clear but lacks scholarly depth there are some lapses in definition and explication of terms|
|and/or level of research undertaken||segue between points in the analysis are weak|
|Good 65-74||the minimum amount of independent, scholarly research was undertaken sources also rely on non- scholarly publications research is weak and unoriginal||the thesis is fundamentally descriptive or dependent on a value judgment (good/bad, right/wrong) the method is vague or poorly laid out the argument fails to reach a satisfying conclusion, with the paper simply petering out||analysis is uninteresting or uninspired, tending toward description research questions are poorly laid out and inadequately explored the research does not adequately support the analysis||there are significant but not quite major problems in grammar and spelling language is unclear and/or shallow terms are not well defined and analysis leaps erratically from point to point|
|Satisfactory 50-64||less than the minimum amount of independent, scholarly research was undertaken sources depend heavily on non- scholarly publications research is weak and unoriginal, but also fails to adequately support the argument||there is no easily identifiable thesis and/or little in the way of method there is no conclusion because no argument was established early on||research questions are not identified at the outset there is little interaction between research and analysis what is supposed to pass as analysis is little more than description||major problems with grammar and spelling language is murky, confused and difficult to follow there is a paucity of definitions or context for analysis|
|Unsatisfactory >50||little to no research undertaken, scholarly or not little evidence of scholarly research in the paper||there is no thesis and/or no method the conclusion is deeply flawed or outright non- existent||analysis is nearly non-existent, weak, minimal and unsupported by research||language is sub- par for university, riddled with grammatical and spelling errors analysis is difficult to follow and lacks any sense of flow|
Based on Sullivan, R. Essay Grading Rubric. http://people.ucalgary.ca/~rsulliva/rubric.htmlNo Fields Found.