presentation) Superior articulation of the six elements

BUSN20017 Assessment 3 Rubric T3, 2017 Key Criteria Exceeds Expectations Exceeds Expectations (Distinction) 75 – 84% Meets Expectations Meets Expectations Below Expectations (High Distinction) 85- 100% (Credit) 65 – 74% (Pass) 50 – 64% (Fail) below 50% Introduction (attention-getting statement, thesis, main points to be covered, diagnostic tools to be used and applied, transition to the body of the presentation) Superior articulation of the six elements of an introduction. Above average articulation of the five elements of an introduction. Clearly articulated less than four of the elements of an introduction. Poor articulation of less than three of the elements of an introduction. Introduction contained less than two of the elements of an introduction. Diagnosis and Reflection. All results discussed were relevant to the student and in-depth analysis occurred at a very high standard. All results discussed were relevant to the student and analysis occurred at a high standard. Most results discussed were relevant to the student and some in-depth analysis occurred at satisfactory standard. Some results discussed were relevant to the student but in-depth analysis was missing. The five signed diagnostic questionnaires were not attached to the essay. Discussion of results of relevant diagnostic tools showing an understanding of the results and being able to apply each to their personal situation 2 recent professional interactions identified and analysed based on key areas requiring development which support the need for further personal communication development 2 recent professional interactions were identified and analysed in-depth based of key areas requiring development 2 recent professional interactions were identified but not analysed in-depth based of key areas requiring development 1 recent professional interaction was identified and analysed in-depth based of key areas requiring development 1 recent professional interactions was identified but not analysed in-depth based of key areas requiring development No recent professional interactions were identified Literature Review Both issues were defined, concepts and key models were clearly identified. Both issues were defined, concepts and key models were identified. Both issues were defined, however, concepts and key models were hard to identify. One issue was defined, concepts and key models were identified. No issues were defined, concepts and key models were not identified Identification and issues arising from diagnosis and reflection Identification and issues arising from diagnosis and reflection Theoretical and behavioural skills were clearly identified. Theoretical and behavioural skills were identified but lacking depth. Theoretical and behavioural skills were not clearly identified. Theoretical and behavioural skills were identified. Theoretical and behavioural skills were not identified. Action plan for next 6 months Detailed 6 month action plan with timeline and success measure included. 6 month action plan lacking details with either timeline or some success measure included. 6 month action plan lacking details with either timeline or success measure not included. Less than 6 month action plan included but lacking a timeline and success measure. No detailed 6 month action plan with timeline and success measure included. Breadth and quality of research reflected in number and reference style of cited source material 15 academic sources were used. Sources are all credible. The sources were correctly referenced using APA. Between 10 and 15 academic sources. Sources are all credible. The sources were referenced using APA. Between 5 and 10 academic sources were used. Sources are not all credible/used in a way that was relevant. The sources were mostly referenced using APA. Less than 5 academic sources were used. The sources were not all credible. The sources were referenced sometimes using APA. Less than 4 academic sources were used. The sources were not all credible. The sources were referenced but the style was not using APA.Presentation and Quality of Writing Quality of writing at a very high standard. Sections are coherently connected to each other. Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. Quality of writing is of a high standard. Sections 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *