This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStructure and referencing (20%)
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStructure and referencing (20%)
20to >16.99pts
High Distinction
A scholarly paper of an advanced standard; an introduction that clearly poses the research issue; clear and logical headings presenting a complete argument; logical structure for question posed or issue raised; completely fluent and coherent writing of an advanced standard; no irrelevancies; an original conclusion; fully cross-referenced reference list containing evidence of substantial research effort; referencing is correct always supporting the contentions stated; in-text citations are in accordance with APA. 16.99to >14.99pts
Distinction
A scholarly paper with an appropriate introduction, development of a logical argument and a sound and original conclusion; clear headings point to arc of argument; fluent and succinct writing; coherent structure, which clearly answers the question posed or issue raised; full internal logic to argument; one or two irrelevant issues addressed, which do not detract from internal logic; fully cross-referenced reference list and in-text citations; referencing is correct and in accordance with APA although not always used to support the contentions stated. 14.99to >12.99pts
Credit
Sound attempt at a scholarly paper; has an appropriate introduction; headings give some coherency to structure; writing of a satisfactory level of fluency for a postgraduate unit; observable structure to argument with some internal logic and few irrelevancies; sound conclusion; reference list and in-text citations are cross-referenced without error; in-text citations are generally correct in detail, although not always used to support the contentions stated; in-text citations are in accordance with APA. 12.99to >9.99pts
Pass
Some attempt at a scholarly paper; has an introduction; some headings, but giving little coherent structure to answer; writing lacks fluency and succinctness; argument in part illogical or irrelevant; has an inadequate conclusion; reference list contains irrelevant material and/or incomplete; in-text citations do not match reference list; referencing inappropriate or inadequate; APA partially adhered to. 9.99to >7.99pts
Marginal Fail
Work provides evidence of limited and/or disconnected learning, which fails to demonstrate that this criterion has been achieved. 7.99to >4.99pts
Fail
Work provides evidence of minimal learning in relation to this criterion. 4.99to >0pts
Low Fail
Work provides little or no evidence of learning in relation to this criterion.
20pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCommunication style (20%)
20to >16.99pts
High Distinction
Presentation is neat, legible, organised and professional; no errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar; all referencing is correct in detail and fully supports all the contentions made. 16.99to >14.99pts
Distinction
Presentation is neat, legible, with only minor errors of spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar that do not detract from the paper. 14.99to >12.99pts
Credit
Presentation is neat, legible, with some minor errors of spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar. 12.99to >9.99pts
Pass
Some attempt at presentation; some misspellings; some punctuation errors; some grammatical errors. 9.99to >7.99pts
Marginal Fail
Work provides evidence of limited and/or disconnected learning, which fails to demonstrate that this criterion has been achieved. 7.99to >4.99pts
Fail
Work provides evidence of minimal learning in relation to this criterion. 4.99to >0pts
Low Fail
Work provides little or no evidence of learning in relation to this criterion.
20pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent (30%)
30to >25.49pts
High Distinction
All the issues are identified, which are raised by the chosen topic; the law is stated effectively; evidence of substantial research of papers, texts, treaties and cases; no irrelevant content; no evidence of plagiarism. 25.49to >22.49pts
Distinction
Most of the issues are identified; the law is stated, which is relevant to the chosen topic; evidence of effective research of relevant papers, texts, treaties and cases; little irrelevancy in the content; no evidence of plagiarism. 22.49to >19.49pts
Credit
Several of the issues raised by the topic chosen are identified; the law is stated with little evidence of logic or direction in the argument; some evidence of research of relevant papers, texts, or treaties; some evidence of case reading; there is some irrelevancy in the content; no evidence of plagiarism. 19.49to >14.99pts
Pass
Any of the following characteristics: little or no evidence of understanding of the issues to be raised; issues are identified in a random way; the law is stated, but there is no observable logic to the law addressed; much of the content is irrelevant; no relevant papers, treaties or cases are referred to; contains evidence of plagiarism. 14.99to >11.99pts
Marginal Fail
Work provides evidence of limited and/or disconnected learning, which fails to demonstrate that this criterion has been achieved. 11.99to >7.49pts
Fail
Work provides evidence of minimal learning in relation to this criterion. 7.49to >0pts
Low Fail
Work provides little or no evidence of learning in relation to this criterion.
30pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical analysis (30%)
30to >25.49pts
High Distinction
A scholarly paper of an advanced standard, with original presentation of differing points of view on the chosen topic; an original synthesis of these differing points of view representing an addition to the literature on the chosen topic; original critique of current law and policy based on the material presented in the paper and relevant sources; excellent argument formed based on critical reasoning and analysis of relevant sources. 25.49to >22.49pts
Distinction
A scholarly paper with a very good attempt at presentation of differing points of view on the chosen topic; a very good attempt at forming an argument based on critical reasoning and analysis of relevant sources; a very good attempt at reconciliation, rejection, rebuttal or refutation of differing points of view based on reasoned grounds and supported by references; appropriate scholarship; appropriate standard of research; some critique of current law or policy. 22.49to >19.49pts
Credit
Good attempt at a scholarly paper; good attempt at presentation of differing points of view on the chosen topic; good attempt at forming an argument based on critical reasoning and analysis of relevant sources; good attempt at reconciliation, rejection, rebuttal or refutation of differing points of view based on reasoned grounds and supported by references; adequate scholarship; adequate standard of research; some attempt at critique of current law or policy. 19.49to >14.99pts
Pass
Sound attempt at a scholarly paper; sound attempt at presentation of differing points of view on the chosen topic; sound attempt at forming an argument based on critical reasoning and analysis of relevant sources; sound attempt at reconciliation, rejection, rebuttal or refutation of differing points of view based on reasoned grounds and supported by references; inadequate scholarship; inadequate standard of research; little attempt at critique of current law or policy. 14.99to >11.99pts
Marginal Fail
Work provides evidence of limited and/or disconnected learning, which fails to demonstrate that this criterion has been achieved. 11.99to >7.49pts
Fail
Work provides evidence of minimal learning in relation to this criterion. 7.49to >0pts
Low Fail
Work provides little or no evidence of learning in relation to this criterion.
30pts
Total Points:100
Potential and actual problems identified and related to chronic disease:
Goals
(overarching patient/person-specific goals) Short-term and / or
long-term goals Strategies / interventions Tasks / actions By whom? Evaluation
(to reflect expected outcomes how will you assess/measure progress)
Timeframe
Outcome Indicators^ Outcome Measures* ^ Outcome Indicators could be clinical targets specified in published guidelines or key performance indicators
* Outcome Measures how will the indicator be measured and how often; consider person-reported outcome measures (PROMS)
