Assessment A2 of 2: Pamphlet Critique NSC2500
- Subject Code :
NSC2500
- University :
University of Southern Queensland Exam Question Bank is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
- Country :
Australia
Assessment Item Task Sheet
Course Code and Name |
NSC2500 |
Assessment Item Number and Name |
Assessment A2 of 2: Pamphlet Critique |
Assessment Item Type |
Critique (Written) |
Due Date & Time |
04 April 2025 at 11:59pm AEST Friday of Week 8, T1 2025 |
Length |
Students are required to heir critique through the designated submission portal in a Word document format. The critique should not exceed 1, 000 words (10% leeway). |
Marks and Weighting |
Marks out of: 100 Weight: 20% of overall grade |
Assessed Course Learning Outcomes |
CLO 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 |
Rationale |
The purpose of this assignment is to develop students ability to critically evaluate the use of AI in generating educational materials, especially pamphlets targeting a non-expert educated audience. By critiquing an AI-generated pamphlet, students will: 1. Assess the clarity, accuracy, and relevance of the information presented. 2. Evaluate the credibility of the content, including the appropriateness of the language and the use of supporting evidence. 3. Reflect on the strengths and limitations of using AI as a tool in creating educational materials. 4. Demonstrate an understanding of medical disorders or health-related topics featured in the pamphlet. This task will enhance students critical thinking and analytical skills while fostering a deep understanding of medical information dissemination and the integration of AI tools in health communication. |
Task Instructions |
Topic selection for pamphlet critiques can be found on the NSC2500 StudyDesk under the Assessment section. The critique selection will be open from 9:00am AEST Monday Week 4 of the trimester and will close at 11:59pm AEST Friday Week 6 of the trimester. After this date, any student who has not chosen a topic will be randomly assigned to one. These students will be notified their topic selection via an email to their UniSQ student email address (@umail.usq.edu.au). |
Please note that each topic selection has a quota cap with allocated numbers to ensure an equal spread of students throughout the topics. The topic selection works on a first-come first-served basis, so if there is a particular topic that you are interested in, please make sure that you select as early as possible.
Note: None of the available topics centre around disorders/diseases discussed in NSC2500 course but align closely with your selective healthcare setting. The skills applied in this assessment can be applied to any of the listed topics with no prior knowledge required.
Required Components
1. Introduction
The introduction should set the context for the critique and provide a clear overview of the pamphlet being evaluated.
- Describe the pamphlet: Include the title or topic of the pamphlet, its primary focus, and the health condition or issue it addresses.
- Identify the intended audience: Specify who the pamphlet is designed for (e.g., patients, caregivers, or the general public) and the level of expertise or background knowledge assumed.
- Highlight notable features: Mention any standout aspects, such as the use of visuals, a unique structure, or an emphasis on certain content areas.
2. Content Evaluation
This section evaluates the content of the pamphlet in terms of accuracy, clarity, and engagement.
a. Accuracy and Scientific Validity
- Depth of Information: Does the pamphlet provide sufficient detail on the topic? Does it address key aspects such as symptoms, treatment options, and prevention?
- Scientific Accuracy: Are the facts presented in line with current medical knowledge? Are there any errors or misleading statements?
- Relevance: Does the pamphlet include information applicable to the intended audience (e.g., focusing on the Australian healthcare system if that is the context)?
b. Clarity and Accessibility
- Language: Is the information easy to understand for a non-expert audience? Does it avoid unnecessary jargon while remaining scientifically accurate?
- Structure: Is the pamphlet well-organized, with sections that logically flow from one to another?
- Inclusivity: Does the pamphlet consider diverse audiences, such as those with varying literacy levels or language needs?
c. Appropriateness and Engagement of Visuals and Design
- Visuals: Are diagrams, images, or charts relevant and effectively support the content? Are they easy to interpret?
- Design: Is the layout clear, with balanced use of text and visuals? Does the design enhance readability or detract from the message?
- Engagement: Does the pamphlet capture and maintain the readers interest through design elements or persuasive language?
3. Credibility Assessment
Evaluate the reliability of the pamphlet by analysing the sources and claims presented.
a. Use of Reliable Sources
- References: Are all claims supported by credible sources? Are the references up-to-date and appropriate for the topic?
- Transparency: Are the sources clearly cited within the pamphlet?
b. Gaps in Evidence or Questionable ClaimsCompleteness: Are there key pieces of information missing that are critical to understanding the topic? Accuracy: Are there claims that appear exaggerated, oversimplified, or not aligned with current medical standards? Bias: Does the pamphlet seem to promote a specific product or viewpoint without justification? 4. Effectiveness and LimitationsReflect on the capabilities and shortcomings of AI in generating this pamphlet. a. Effectiveness of AIStrengths: Highlight areas where AI performed well, such as presenting accurate information, generating an engaging layout, or ensuring accessibility. Consistency: Was the language consistent and appropriate throughout the pamphlet? b. Limitations and ShortcomingsErrors: Identify any factual inaccuracies, irrelevant content, or misinterpretations of scientific information. Biases: Note whether the AI-generated content reflects any inherent biases, such as gender, cultural, or healthcare system biases. Oversights: Were any critical topics or perspectives omitted that might reduce the pamphlets effectiveness or credibility? 5. Conclusion and RecommendationsSummarize your critique and propose constructive improvements. a. Overall QualityProvide a brief overall assessment of the pamphlets strengths and weaknesses. Comment on whether it achieves its goal of educating the intended audience. b. RecommendationsSuggest specific ways to improve the pamphlet, such as revising content for accuracy, enhancing clarity, or adding more credible sources. Propose how AI tools might be better used or complemented by human oversight to enhance the quality of AI- generated educational materials. c. ReferencesProper inclusion of supporting references to substantiate the critique Following Harvard formatting style |
Acceptable AI Use Level |
For this Assessment Item, acceptable AI use is set at: Level 2: AI Enhanced Research and Drafting Description: Students may use Artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in the initial stage of their Assessment Items. This may include generating ideas, conducting preliminary research, and creating draft outlines. Additional Information Required: Provide a brief description (approximately 100 words) at the beginning of the assessment outlining how AI was used in the research and drafting process, including specific tools and the prompts you have used. Save copies of your drafts and content before/after AI was used, along with downloads of AI generated content, to produce upon request. |
Academic Integrity |
Students should be familiar with, and abide by, UniSQs policy on Academic Integrity and the definition of Academic Misconduct. Penalties apply to students found to have breached these policies and procedures. Please ensure you have completed the mandatory Academic Integrity training and have familiarised yourself with Academic Integrity at UniSQ. |
Relevant Information and Resources |
All relevant information, examples, and instructions are available via the StudyDesk. |
Assessment Marking Criteria |
Introduction: Maximum 10 marks 2% Content Evaluation: Maximum 30 marks 6% Credibility Assessment: Maximum 20 marks 4?fectiveness and Limitations: Maximum 20 marks 4% Conclusion and Recommendations: Maximum 10 marks 2?ditional References: Maximum 10 marks 2% Refer to the Rubric / Marking Guide / OSCE for this Assessment Item below. |
Submission Information |
Students are required to heir critique through the designated submission portal in a Word document format. |
Return of Assessment Items and Feedback for Learning |
Assessment items and feedback will be returned within 2 weeks after the submission deadline, provided electronically via TurnItIn and the StudyDesk. Students can use the feedback to improve their learning by reviewing specific comments on areas such as clarity, accuracy, and analytical depth. By reflecting on the feedback, students can identify recurring patterns or mistakes and adjust their approach for future assignments. |
Extensions and Penalties for Late Submission |
Information on extensions and late penalties can be found here. |
Rubric / Marking Guide / OSCE for this Assessment
Criteria |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
Pass |
Fail |
Introduction Maximum marks: 10 |
10 8 marks |
7 6 marks |
5 4 marks |
3 2 marks |
1 0 marks |
Provides a thorough, clear, and concise overview of the pamphlets topic, intended audience, and notable features.
Highlights relevant contextual details and sets up a strong foundation for the critique. |
Clearly describes the pamphlets topic and audience with most notable features included.
May lack minor contextual details or depth in description. |
Adequately describes the pamphlets topic and audience but with limited detail.
Some notable features mentioned but lacks depth or clarity in explanation. |
Provides a brief and superficial description of the pamphlet, its topic, and audience.
Limited or unclear mention of notable features. |
Fails to describe the pamphlet or provides an inaccurate or incomplete description of its topic, audience, and features. |
Criteria |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
Pass |
Fail |
Content Evaluation Maximum marks: 30 |
30 25 marks |
24 20 marks |
19 15 marks |
14 10 marks |
9 0 marks |
Thorough and insightful analysis of content.
Highlights accuracy and scientific validity with clear examples.
Evaluates clarity and accessibility, demonstrating |
Provides strong analysis of content, with minor gaps in evaluating scientific validity, clarity, or design.
Highlights key strengths and weaknesses of the pamphlet with mostly clear examples. |
Adequate evaluation of content, identifying some strengths and weaknesses.
Addresses scientific validity, clarity, or design but may miss depth or connections between aspects. |
Superficial or limited evaluation of content, with gaps in analysing accuracy or accessibility.
Visual and design analysis is vague or incomplete. |
Fails to critically evaluate the content.
Analysis is incomplete, inaccurate, or missing key aspects of scientific validity, clarity, or design. |
excellent understanding of audience needs.
Visuals and design are expertly critiqued. |
Criteria |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
Pass |
Fail |
20 16 marks |
15 13 marks |
12 10 marks |
9 6 marks |
5 0 marks |
|
Credibility Assessment Maximum marks: 20 |
Demonstrates thorough evaluation of source reliability and evidence gaps.
Critically examines citations, identifying strong and weak sources. |
Provides strong evaluation of sources and identifies most gaps or questionable claims.
Some aspects of source credibility or claims could be analysed more deeply. |
Adequate evaluation of credibility with some minor gaps.
Mentions sources and questionable claims but lacks depth in discussing their impact on the pamphlet's overall reliability. |
Limited evaluation of sources or claims.
Mentions reliability but without detailed or critical assessment. Some gaps or questionable claims may be missed or overlooked. |
Fails to evaluate source credibility or identify gaps in evidence.
Assessment is incomplete or incorrect, showing limited understanding of reliability and citation practices. |
Insightfully discusses gaps or questionable claims with relevant examples. |
Criteria |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
Pass |
Fail |
20 16 marks |
15 13 marks |
12 10 marks |
9 6 marks |
5 0 marks |
Effectiveness and Limitations Maximum marks: 20 |
Provides an insightful and balanced reflection on AIs effectiveness.
Highlights both strengths and limitations with specific examples of biases, errors, or oversights.
Demonstrates nuanced understanding of AIs role in content creation. |
Offers strong reflection on AIs effectiveness, identifying key strengths and weaknesses.
Some examples may lack depth, or minor biases or errors are overlooked. |
Adequate reflection on AIs effectiveness with a general discussion of strengths and weaknesses.
May miss nuanced biases or fail to fully explore AIs limitations. |
Limited or superficial reflection on AIs effectiveness.
Discussion is vague or misses key examples of strengths, biases, or errors. |
Fails to provide a meaningful reflection on AIs effectiveness.
Discussion is inaccurate, incomplete, or irrelevant to the pamphlet. |
Criteria |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
Pass |
Fail |
Conclusion and Recommendations Maximum marks: 10 |
10 8 marks |
7 6 marks |
5 4 marks |
3 2 marks |
1 0 marks |
Provides a clear and concise summary of the pamphlets strengths and weaknesses.
Recommendations are practical, detailed, and directly address identified issues. |
Strong summary of strengths and weaknesses, with mostly practical and relevant recommendations.
Some minor gaps in detail or connection to the critique. |
Adequate summary with general recommendations for improvement.
May lack depth or fail to fully address issues raised in the critique. |
Basic summary of the pamphlet, with limited or vague recommendations for improvement.
Recommendations may not align well with identified weaknesses. |
Fails to summarize the pamphlets quality or provide meaningful recommendations. |
Criteria |
High Distinction |
Distinction |
Credit |
Pass |
Fail |
Additional References Maximum marks: 10 |
10 8 marks |
7 6 marks |
5 4 marks |
3 2 marks |
1 0 marks |
References are highly relevant, credible, and properly cited in the appropriate style.
Clear connections are made between the references and critique points. |
References are mostly relevant and credible, with minor citation errors.
Links to the critique are clear but could be more detailed in some areas. |
Adequate use of references, though some may lack relevance or credibility.
Citation errors or weak connections to the critique are present. |
Limited or basic use of references with unclear or superficial connections to the critique.
Citation errors or a lack of credible sources detract from the sections quality. |
Fails to include references, or references are irrelevant, non-credible, or improperly cited. |
