Assessment one Marking Rubric
Assessment Criteria | HD | DN | CR | PP | NN |
Criterion one: 30% You provide a descriptive and professional account of a situation within one of the categories provided above below Categories: – professional communication, – accountability – Person-centred care. |
You have provided an eloquent and highly professional account of a situation relating to one of the categories. The context is well defined and described. |
You have provided a detailed descriptive and professional account of a situation relating to one of the categories. Context is clear. |
You have provided a descriptive and professional account of a situation relating to one of the categories outlined. Context is mostly clear. |
You have provided a basic description and mostly professional account of a situation relating to one of the categories outlined. |
You have not provided an adequate description of a situation from PEP. The topic is unrelated to any of the categories. Your description is unprofessional or inappropriate. |
Criterion two: 20% You demonstrate the ability to reflect in and on action. |
You have demonstrated strong reflective capacity in both domains: reflection-in-action and refection-on action. |
You have demonstrated good reflective capacity in both domains: reflection-in-action and refection-on action. |
You have demonstrated reflective capacity in both domains, with one domain showing stronger skills. |
You have demonstrated beginning level reflective abilities in both domains. |
You have not demonstrated your ability to reflect during practice and after practice OR you have only addressed one domain. |
Criterion three: 40% You demonstrate the ability to draw upon critical reflection (25%) to inform individual practice priorities to |
You have demonstrated strong critical reflection through sound reasoning and enquiry that underpins deep |
You have demonstrated effective critical reflection with good reasoning and enquiry through a deeper |
You have demonstrated critical reflection with beginning level reasoning through a |
You have provided an event summary rather than a critical reflection. |
You have not demonstrated your ability to utilise critical reflection. |
inform your professional development (15%) |
critical analyses of your situation. You have provided strong evidence of synthesis of ideas and insights gained. |
analysis of the situation. You have provided some evidence of synthesis of ideas and insights gained. |
basic analysis of the situation. |
What you have drawn on is illogical and does not link to any individual practice priorities. |
|
Critical reflection has directly, clearly and logically informed your practice priorities. Your professional development values are clear and well emphasised. |
Critical reflection has clearly informed your practice priorities. Your professional development values are well expressed. |
Critical reflection has informed practice priorities towards your professional development. |
You have demonstrated some reflection to guide a practice priority. Practice priority (s) are limited to one domain and or/mostly clear. Your professional development within this context is mostly clear. |
Your reflection omits clear practice priorities. Your reflection does not link to your professional development adequately. |
|
Criterion four: 10% You use sound and professional written academic skills. Any referencing aligns with the Harvard style as preferred by UTAS |
Your academic writing is at a high level with strong evidence of planning. Discussion is consistently expressed in a clear and fluent manner; grammar, punctuation and syntax are error free. |
Your academic writing is at a high level of with evidence of planning. Discussion is consistently expressed in a clear and fluent manner, with very few or minor errors of grammar, syntax or punctuation. |
You communicated in academic writing by using coherent and cohesive planning. Discussion is mainly clear and fluent, some errors of grammar/ syntax/punctuation are present but do not affect clarity of meaning. |
You communicated in academic writing by using coherent and partly cohesive expression. Discussion is mainly clear but errors of grammar / syntax / punctuation are present and may affect the flow of writing. |
The clarity of your paper is hindered by poor structure, poor grammar, and structure (little evidence of planning). If references used: Inaccurate/poor referencing style or does not use the Harvard style. |
If references used: Accurately referenced all sources using the Harvard style, without error in-text or in list. |
If references used: Accurately referenced all sources using the Harvard style; minor errors in-text or in list. |
If references used: Accurately referenced the majority of sources using the Harvard style both in-text and in list. |
If references used: Accurately referenced most sources using the Harvard style guide OR more references needed in places. |
-
- Assignment status: Resolved by our Writing Team
- Source@PrimeWritersBay.com
Comments
Post a Comment