HSH725 Assessment Task 2, T2 2023 Rubric

HSH725 Assessment Task 2, T2 2023 Rubric

Highly distinct Distinct Creditable Passable Unpassable

Introduction, tool selection and critical appraisal

(40%) Clear and concise introduction to the report, identification and justification and chosen appraisal tools. Well justified analysis of strengths and weaknesses, sensitive to context and limitation to the research in question, making nuanced and informed discussion on potential contexts for application of research.

32-40 marks Very good introduction to the report with identification and justification of appraisal tools. Well applied use of appraisal tool has generated a solid, defensible appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the research article.

28-31.5 marks Good introduction to the report with identification and justification of appraisal tools. Discusses some of the strengths and weaknesses to the research methodologies, based on appropriate tools.

24-27.5 marks Introduces topic, identifies appraisal tools. Identifies or lists some relevant strengths and/or weaknesses to the research methodologies, based on appropriate appraisal tools.

20-23.5 marks Does not provide an introduction and clear identification of appraisal tools. Does not identify relevant strengths and/or weaknesses, and does not select an appropriate appraisal tool.

0-19.5 marks

Ethical and cultural and/or vulnerable sensitivity(30 %) In addition to distinct, the explanation and analysis is especially sensitive, nuanced, inclusive and well supported.

24-30 marks Explains and analyses the ethical and cultural sensitivities in the context of the research being appraised and presents a solid argument as to the appropriateness of the researchers course of action in relation to them.

21-23.5 marks

Describes how researchers have taken ethical and cultural considerations into account.

18- 20.5 marks Identifies how ethical and cultural sensitivities have (or have not been) taken into account by researchers.

15-17.5 marks Does not adequately identify how ethical and cultural sensitivities have or have not been taken into account by researchers.

0-14.5 marks

Synthesis

(20%) Expertly analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen articles. Draws on 5 or more sources of supporting information.

16-20 marks Provides some critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen articles. Draws on some additional supporting information.

14-15.5 marks Provides a limited analysis of the chosen articles. Draws on limited academic literature.

12-13.5 marks Identifies aspects of study design and methodology with some reference to the strengths and weaknesses.

10-11.5 marks Does not adequately outline the strengths and weaknesses of the two chosen articles. No use of additional supporting literature.

0-9.5 marks

Expression

(10%) Follows guidelines set out in assessment task regarding presentation and layout.

Clear, coherent, concise and almost free of errors of expression.

Excellent use of appropriate inclusive language relevant to the topic and audience.

The report is within 5% of the wordcount.

8-10 marks Follows guidelines set out in assessment task regarding presentation and layout.

Clear, coherent and concise, with a few errors of expression

Very good use of appropriate inclusive language relevant to the topic and audience.

ORThe report is between 5 & 10% too long or short.

7-7.5 marks Follows guidelines set out in assessment task regarding presentation and layout.The marker can make sense of the report without too much difficulty, however it may be poorly structured or organised, or contain distracting errors of expression.

Good use of appropriate inclusive language relevant to the topic and audience.

OR

The report is between 10 & 15% too long or short.

6-6.5 marks Follows guidelines set out in assessment task regarding presentation and layout.

It is difficult for the marker to make sense of the report. Expression is poor and there are many errors of expression.

Inconsistent use of appropriate inclusive language relevant to the topic and audience.OR The report is over between 15 & 20% too long or too short.

5-5.5 marks The marker could not make sense of the report.

Lack of appropriate inclusive language relevant to the topic and audience.

OR

The report is over 20% too long or too short.

OR

It is not presented in the format of a report, as outlined in the assessment task description regarding presentation and layout.

0-4.5 marks