AT2 Report / 100 points

AT2 Rubric

AT2 Report / 100 points

Criterion mode: points High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory

Percentage 80 Percentage 70 Percentage 60 Percentage 50 Percentage 0

Evaluation of sociological literature on digital communication technologies ULO1, GLO1 ULO4, GLO4 The response includes a succinct and sophisticated critical discussion of relevant academic literature covered in the unit and additional high quality literature has been drawn upon and evaluated carefully to identify a gap in the literature that relates specifically to the selected topic.

(16 - 20 points) The response includes a detailed and critical discussion of relevant academic literature covered in the unit and several additional academic high quality papers have been drawn upon and evaluated to identify a gap in the literature that relates to the selected topic.

(14 - 15.9 points) The response includes a critical discussion of relevant academic literature covered in the unit and while additional academic papers have been drawn upon and evaluated to identify a gap in the literature that mostly relates to the selected topic, the quality of 1-2 of the academic papers is be questionable.

(12 - 13.9 points) The response includes a mostly critical discussion of relevant academic literature covered in the unit, though at times is more descriptive than critical. While additional academic papers have been drawn upon and evaluated to identify a gap in the literature that mostly relates to the selected topic, the quality of several or all of the academic papers is questionable.

(10 - 11.9 points) The response does not include a critical discussion of academic literature covered in the unit, or, if it has been attempted, the discussion is descriptive and fails to engage critically with the ideas expressed in the literature and/or no additional literature has been evaluated to identify a gap in the literature and/or additional literature does not meet academic standards.

(0 - 9.9 points)

Formulation and rationalisation of research question and project design ULO1, GLO1 ULO5, GLO5 The response includes a unique research question that has been derived from the gap identified in the literature and formulated to align carefully with the chosen methodology. The question is feasible for the size of the project while still addressing an important global issue in the Australian context. The methods adopted to answer the question are described thoroughly yet succinctly and with attention given throughout to the ethical use of personal data.

(20 - 25 points) The response includes a research question that has been derived from the gap identified in the literature and formulated to align with the parameters of the chosen methodology. The question is feasible for the size of the project while still addressing an important global issue in the Australian context. The methods adopted to answer the question are described in detail and with relevant attention given to the ethical use of personal data.

(17.5 - 19.9 points) The response includes a research question that relates closely to the gap identified in the literature and is formulated to align with most of the parameters of the chosen methodology. The question is possibly a bit larger or smaller than feasible for the size of the project which may hinder the projects ability to address an important global issue in the Australian context. The methods adopted to answer the question are described with some attention given to the ethical use of personal data.

(15 - 17.4 points) The response includes a research question that relates to the gap identified in the literature and is formulated to align with some of the parameters of the chosen methodology. The question is a bit larger or smaller than feasible for the size of the project which is likely to hinder the projects ability to address an important global issue in the Australian context. The methods adopted to answer the question are described although more detail could have been provided and/or further attention may have been needed on how personal data was used ethicaly.

(12.5 - 14.9 points) The response does not include a research question and description of methods, or, if it has been attempted, the question is not feasible and/or does not address a gap identified in the literature, and/or the methods are not described to clearly articulate what process was followed to investigate the issue, and/or the ethical use of data is not adequately addressed, preventing the project being able to address an important global issue in the Australian context

(0 - 12.4 points)

Critical analysis of results and the use of Generative AI ULO1, GLO1 ULO4, GLO4 The data is drawn upon critically to respond directly to the research question, contributing to the gap identified in the literature. Several, highly pertinent examples and/or inferences from the data are used to elaborate key arguments discussed and are justified by drawing on key ideas from multiple sources of quality academic literature. Relevant risks and opportunities of Gen AI, limitations and/or caveats are discussed thoughtfully.

(20 - 25 points) The data is drawn upon critically to respond to the research question, contributing to the gap identified in the literature. Several examples and/or inferences from the data are used to elaborate key arguments discussed and are justified by drawing on ideas from multiple sources of quality academic literature. Relevant risks and opportunities of Gen AI, limitations and/or caveats are discussed.

(17.5 - 19.9 points) The data is drawn upon critically to respond to the research question, contributing to the gap identified in the literature. An example and/or inference from the data are used to discuss key arguments and are justified by drawing on ideas from multiple sources of quality academic literature. Relevant risks and opportunities of Gen AI, limitations and/or caveats are discussed briefly.

(15 - 17.4 points) The data is drawn upon critically to respond to the research question, contributing to the gap identified in the literature, although at times may be more descriptive than critical. An example and/or inference from the data are used to discuss key arguments and are supported by drawing on ideas from multiple academic sources that may be of mixed quality. Relevant limitations, risks and opportunities of Gen AI and/or caveats are discussed briefly but could be expanded upon.

(12.5 - 14.9 points) The data is not drawn upon critically in the discussion to respond adequately to the research question. There is insufficient justification for arguments made and little or no attempt has been made to draw connections between the data and quality academic sources and/or it does not include a discussion of limitations. There is insufficient discussion of risks and opportunities of Gen AI.

(0 - 12.4 points)

Communicating complex ideas in writing ULO2, GLO2 Consistently and effectively uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content and expression to illustrate mastery of the subject and presents an extremely clear, coherent, independent and highly professional exposition of knowledge and ideas.

(12 - 15 points) Consistently uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content and expression to illustrate mastery of the subject and presents a very clear, coherent, independent and highly professional exposition of knowledge and ideas.

(10.5 - 11.9 points) Mostly uses appropriate and relevant content and expression to explore and develop ideas and presents a fairly clear, coherent and independent exposition of knowledge and ideas.

(9 - 10.4 points) Uses appropriate content and expression to explore and develop most but not all ideas and presents a mostly clear, coherent and independent exposition of knowledge and ideas.

(7.5 - 8.9 points) Rarely uses appropriate and/or relevant content to develop and explore basic ideas and presents unclear and incoherent exposition of knowledge and ideas.

(0 - 7.4 points)

Ethical conduct and awareness ULO6, GLO8 Consistently and appropriately applies ethical perspectives to the design, conduct and discussion of the project and shows a sophisticated awareness of the assumptions and implications of different ethical positions as they relate to digital communication issues in both an Australian and global contexts.

(12 - 15 points) Consistently applies ethical perspectives to the design, conduct and discussion of the project and shows strong awareness of the assumptions and implications of different ethical positions as they relate to digital communication issues in both an Australian and global contexts.

(10.5 - 11.9 points) Generally applies ethical perspectives to the design, conduct and discussion of the project and shows reasonable awareness of the assumptions and implications of different ethical positions as they relate to digital communication issues in both an Australian and global contexts.

(9 - 10.4 points) Applies ethical perspectives to the design, conduct and discussion of the project and some awareness of the assumptions and implications of different ethical positions as they relate to digital communication issues in both an Australian and global contexts,

(7.5 - 8.9 points) No or very little application of ethical perspectives is evident in the design, conduct and discussion of the project and the response shows little or no awareness of the assumptions and implications of different ethical positions as they relate to digital communication issues in both an Australian and global contexts,

(0 - 7.4 points)

Total Points 100