Marking criteria for this task. (Weighting of 30%, comprising 50% an individual mark and 50% a group mark)

Marking criteria for this task. (Weighting of 30%, comprising 50% an individual mark and 50% a group mark)

Marking rubric Assessment item 2 Group presentation

Criteria Fail (< 50) Pass (50-59) Credit (60-69) Distinction (70-79) High Distinction (80-100)

Critically analyses key components of the allocated section of the research article (30%) INDIVIDUAL Key components of the article are not identified or described, in relation to the congruence of the research article.

Score (0-14) Some of the articles key components are described in relation to the congruence and consistency of the research article.

Score (15-17.7) Most of the articles key components are discussed to ensure the congruence and consistency of the research article.

Score (18-20.7) All the articles key components are critiqued and analysed to ensure the congruence and consistency of the research article.

Score (21-23.7) All the articles key components are analysed, evaluated, and succinctly critiqued to ensure the congruence and consistency of the research article. Score (24-30)

Critically analyses rigour and validity of Nursing Practice

(20%) GROUP

The analysis does not show the studys rigour, and the description does not identify whether the research is appropriate for application within the Nursing context.

Score (0-9) The analysis partially describes the studys rigour, and the description only superficially identifies whether the research is appropriate for application within the Nursing context.

Score (10-11.8) The analysis discusses the studys rigour, and the discussion partially identifies whether the research is appropriate for application within the Nursing context.

Score (12-13.8) The analysis systematically discusses the studys rigour and comprehensively identifies whether the research is appropriate for application within the Nursing context.

Score (14 -15.8) The analysis is logically, systematically, and succinctly presented and considers the studys rigour, comprehensively identifying whether the research is appropriate for application within the Nursing context.

Score (16-20)

Communication and clarity of expression

(10%) INDIVIDUAL Information is not communicated clearly to the audience. The information is read out, and eye contact is not made with the audience.

Score (0-4) Information is communicated clearly to the audience most of the time.

Some eye contact is made with the audience.

Score (5-5.9) The presenter spoke clearly throughout the presentation. Good eye contact with the audience throughout the presentation.

Score (6-6.9) The presenter spoke clearly and engaged the audience.

The relevance of this information is explained in detail.

Score (7-7.9) The presenter spoke clearly and was very engaging.

The relevance of this information is clear and thoroughly explained.

Score (8-10)

Content of PowerPoint slide/s

(10%) INDIVIDUAL

Information on slide/s is incorrect or does not relate to information delivered by the presenter.

OR

The information on slide/s is identical to the information delivered by the presenter.

There are no in-text references on the slides.

Score (0-4) Information on slides is usually correct.

The relationship between Information on slide/s and information delivered by the presenter is not explained.

There are few in-text references.

Slides include much text using colours, pictures, or graphics.

Score (5-5.9) The information on the slides is correct.

The relationship between Information on slide/s and information delivered by the presenter is explained but requires further detail.

There are adequate in-text references.

Slides include colours, pictures or graphics, and minimal text.

Score (6-6.9) Information on slide/s relates to information delivered by the presenter, and the relationship is explained in detail.

The slides are engaging and informative.

Score (7-7.9) Information on slide/s relates to information delivered by the presenter, and the relationship is clear and thoroughly explained.

The slides are very engaging and informative.

Score (8-10)

Introduction to presentation

(10%) GROUP

The presentation and topic are not introduced.

The presentation is not introduced as a single piece of work by a team.

An introduction PowerPoint slide is not present.

Score (0-4) The presentation and group members are introduced, but the topic is not explained.

The presentation is introduced as a single piece of work by a team.

An introduction PowerPoint slide is present.

Score (5-5.9) The presentation is introduced, and the topic is explained but requires further detail.

Score (6-6.9) The topic is explained in detail.

Score (7-7.9) The topic is clearly and thoroughly explained.

Score (8-10)

Conclusion of presentation and APA 7th style reference list (10%) GROUPThere is no conclusion to the presentation.

A Conclusion PowerPoint slide is not present.

A slide with an APA 7th style reference list is not included at the end of the presentation.

Score (0-4) There is a brief conclusion to the presentation.

A Conclusion PowerPoint slide is present.

There is an APA 7th style reference list slide at the end of the presentation with some errors.

Score (5-5.9) There is a conclusion, and the content of the presentation is summarised.

There is an APA 7th style reference list slide at the end of the presentation with occasional errors.

Score (6-6.9) The content of the presentation is summarised in detail.

The reference list adheres to APA 7th style and has few errors.

Score (7-7.9) The content of the presentation is thoroughly summarised.

The reference list adheres strictly to the 7th APA style.

Score (8-10)

Contribution to teamwork (10%) GROUP Limited evidence of planning or teamwork. The presentation is not logically sequenced.

Unequal participation of group members, with an obvious lack of preparation and practice.

The group had insufficient time to complete the presentation.

Score (0-4) Limited planning and preparation are evident. There is some logical sequencing evident.

Unequal participation of some group members, with an obvious lack of preparation and practice.

Limited demonstration of collegiality within the team.

Score (5-5.9) Planning, preparation, and organisation are evident. The content is coherent, and the sequencing is logical.

All group members participated equally and spoke for an equal length of time.

Some demonstration of collegiality within the team.

Score (6-6.9) Planning, preparation, and organisation are evident. The content is logically sequenced.

All group members spoke for an equal length of time and delivered a rehearsed presentation, demonstrating sound collegiality in the team.

Score (7-7.9) Evidence of planning, preparation, and organisation resulted in a professional and synthesised presentation.

All group members spoke for an equal length of time and delivered a rehearsed presentation, demonstrating excellent collegiality in the team.

Score (8-10)