Marking Rubric Project Three
Standards Stage of feat.
The examples beneath are indicative of
Unsatisfactory efficiency Stage of feat.
The examples beneath are indicative of
Marginal efficiency Stage of feat. The examples beneath are indicative of
Acceptable Efficiency Stage of feat. The examples beneath are indicative of
Proficient Efficiency
Literature evaluate
5% Zero-1
Main errors within the required standards. 1.1-Three
Points not properly outlined and recognized.
Relevance to public well being poorly articulated.
Rationale for the analysis is unclear.
Rationalization for qualitative methodology unclear.
Insufficient use of related literature.
Incorrect and/or inconsistent in-text referencing with typographical or spelling errors. Three.1-Four
Points properly outlined and recognized.
Relevance to public well being articulated.
Rationale for the analysis is obvious as is the reason for the qualitative methodology.
Use of related revealed literature.
Appropriate and constant in-text referencing with few typographical or spelling errors.
Four.1-5
Points very properly outlined and clearly recognized.
Important relevance to public well being that’s properly articulated.
Rationale for the analysis is outstanding, as is the reason for the qualitative methodology.
Glorious use of related revealed literature.
Appropriate and constant in-text referencing with only a few typographical or spelling errors.
Analysis Question Assignment and goals
5% Zero-1
Analysis Question Assignment is unclear.
Goals lack relevance and/or capability to be measured.
Restricted or no hyperlink between the literature, the analysis Question Assignment and the goals. 1.1-Three
Analysis Question Assignment lacks readability.
Goals aren’t at all times in step with the analysis Question Assignment and could also be tough to evaluate. Doesn’t display a hyperlink between the literature and the analysis Question Assignment, and the goals. Three.1-Four
Clear analysis Question Assignment.
Goals are related to the analysis Question Assignment and in a position to be assessed. Might display a hyperlink between the literature the analysis Question Assignment and the goals.
Four.1-5
Distinctive analysis Question Assignment, that hyperlinks to the literature and
goals which can be in step with the chosen paradigm and in a position to be assessed in a means in step with that paradigm.
Methodology
5% Zero-1
Restricted or no clarification and/or justification of the qualitative methodology. Restricted or no use of related literature.
Insufficient acknowledgement of sources. 1.1-Three
Unclear clarification and/or justification of the qualitative methodology. Inadequate use of related revealed literature.
Insufficient acknowledgement of sources.
Three.1-Four
Clear clarification and justification of the qualitative methodology with some concerns to the strengths and limitations of the methodology. Use of adequate and related revealed literature.
Satisfactory acknowledgement of sources.
Four.1-5
Clear and well-articulated hyperlink between the analysis Question Assignment and methodology that demonstrates a superior understanding of the methodology.
Glorious use of related revealed literature
Appropriate and constant in-text referencing with only a few typographical or spelling errors.
Strategies
10% Zero-2
Strategies not defined and/or very restricted consideration given to:
Sampling
Rigor
Knowledge assortment
Knowledge Assessment
Reporting 2.1-5
Strategies poorly defined and/or poor consideration given to
Sampling
Rigor
Knowledge assortment
Knowledge Assessment
Reporting
5.1-Eight
Strategies defined and consideration given to
Sampling
Rigor
Knowledge assortment
Knowledge Assessment
Reporting
Eight.1-10
Demonstrated understanding of the methodological implications on using strategies.
Strategies properly defined and consideration given to Sampling, Rigor
Knowledge assortment, Knowledge Assessment
Reporting
Technique instance (5%) Zero-1
Technique will not be offered 1.1-Three
Technique is poorly defined or developed Three.1-Four
Technique is properly demonstrated with consistency with the analysis aim Four.1-5
A superb instance of the strategy, which has been tailored to be in step with epistemological place.
Moral concerns
5% Zero-1
Didn’t determine moral points.
Didn’t think about methods to handle moral points. 1.1-Three
Didn’t determine all potential moral points with proposed strategies and analysis difficulty. Didn’t handle all moral points. Three.1-Four
Recognized potential moral points and indicated how they’d be addressed. Four.1-5
Determine potential moral points and indicated how they’d be addressed. Referred to related
NHMRC statements on qualitative analysis e.g. consent, covert remark, researching youngsters or susceptible populations.
Outcomes and significance
5% Zero-1
Didn’t determine advantages and/or outcomes in relation to public well being. 1.1-Three
Unclear clarification of the advantages and outcomes of the research for public well being. Three.1-Four
Defined the potential outcomes of the research and the importance in relation to public well being.
Four.1-5
Properly-articulated clarification of the advantages of the research that linked to the related stakeholders and reporting.
Consideration of the general public well being impression for particular person, neighborhood and authorities.

Published by

Essays

View all posts