Rubric for Individual Graded Assignment (35%)

Criteria

Excellent

Good

Satisfactory

Poor

Introduction 

(10 points)

The introduction and objectives are clearly stated. Background and context are clearly articulated and linked to objectives effectively.

9-10 points

The introduction and objectives are clear.

Background and context are partially described and mostly linked to objectives.  7 - 8 points

The introduction and objectives are clear but the background and context are not well described nor clearly linked to objectives. 4 – 6 points

The introduction is vague. Background context are vague or absolutely lacking there are no clear links to objectives.  0-3 points

Presentation of

Findings

(30 points)

Arguments/findings are highly relevant to the topic and are presented clearly and logically. All the implications are presented, as well as relevant and logically described. The link between theory and practice is clearly and logically articulated.

27– 30 points

Arguments/findings are relevant to the topic but are not always presented clearly and / or logically. Most of the implications presented, are relevant and logically described. The link between theory and practice is mostly clear and logical, or has some minor errors. 21 - 26 points

Not all arguments / findings are relevant to the topic. At times, the arguments / findings are not clearly or logically presented. Implications presented are not always relevant. There is a weak link between theory and practice.

12 – 20 points

Arguments/findings are not relevant to topic.

Arguments/findings are vague an illogical – major components are missing Theory is not relevant or only relevant f some aspects. The link between theory practice is unclear and illogical or has m errors. 0 – 11 points

Conclusions/

recommendations

(10 points)

Conclusions/recommendatio ns are clearly stated and connections to the arguments and positions are clear and relevant. The underlying logic is explicit.

Conclusions/recommendatio ns are clearly stated but connections to arguments and positions are not always clear and relevant - some aspects may not be connected or minor errors in

Conclusions / recommendations are poorly stated and connections to arguments and positions are very unclear / irrelevant.

Conclusions/recommendatio ns are very poorly stated and the connections to the arguments and positions are incorrect, unclear, irrelevant or presented without explanation. Underlying

Criteria

Excellent

Good

Satisfactory

Poor

9-10 points

the underlying logic are present. 7 - 8 points

4 – 6 points

logic has major errors. 0-3 points

Writing (5 points)

The essay is coherently organized and the arguments and positions are easy to follow. There are no spelling or grammatical errors and technical terms are clearly defined. Writing is clear and concise and persuasive.

5 points

The essay is generally well organized and most of the arguments and positions are easy to follow. There are only a few minor spelling and/or grammatical errors, and technical terms are not clearly defined.

Writing is mostly clear but lacks conciseness or persuasiveness. 

4 points

The essay is not very well organised and only a few arguments and positions are easy to follow. There are a few minor spelling and / or grammatical errors and technical terms are not defined.

Writing is not always clear and lacks conciseness or persuasiveness.

2 – 3 points

The essay is poorly organized and diffic read – does not flow logically from one to another. The arguments and position not easy to follow. There are several sp and/or grammatical errors; technical te are not defined or are poorly defined. Writing lacks clarity, conciseness and persuasiveness. 0-1 point

Referencing (5 marks)

Four or more references were used. References were:

• Appropriate for the context of the project.
• Used effectively in the project.
• Written using the latest APA style format.

Three references were used. References were:

• Mostly appropriate for the context of the project
• Used mostly effectively in the project.
• Written using the latest APA style format.

Two references were used.

References were:

• Somewhat appropriate for the context of the project.
• Not effectively used in the project.
• Written using the latest APA style format was

Only one reference or no references were used. References, if used were:

• Not appropriate for the context of the project.
• Ineffectively used in the project.
• Not written using the latest APA style.

Criteria

Excellent

Good

Satisfactory

Poor

? Reference material was produced during the last 5 years or less.

5 marks

? Some of the reference material was produced more than 5 years ago.

4 marks

inconsistent throughout.

? References for the most part, were outdated and produced 6-9 years ago.

3 marks

? Majority or all of the references were outdated and produced more than 9 years ago.

1-2 marks