Marking Criteria for Assessment One_Part 1
Literature Search Plan (10%)
Quality and Criterion
Exceptional
（Mark: 5）
Excellent
（Mark: 4）
Good
(Mark: 3)
Adequate
(Mark: 2.5)
Unsatisfactory
(Mark: 0-2)
Marks
AI use
Pass / Fail
PICO(T) question
ULO2, ULO3
Demonstrates an excellent understanding of the PICO(T) format evidenced by an excellently structured, relevant and answerable, clinical question.
Demonstrates a good understanding of the PICO(T) format evidenced by a satisfactory and relevant clinical question that could be answered and researched with some refinement.
Demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of the PICO(T) format evidenced by an average question that is not directly relevant but could be answered and researched with moderate refinement.
Demonstrates a beginning understanding of the PICO(T) format evidenced by a minimally acceptable question that is not relevant and/or clinical that could be answered and researched with major refinement.
Demonstrates a poor understanding of the PICO(T) format evidenced by a poorly structured, question that is not relevant and/or not clinical and would not be answerable or researchable.
10
Purpose statement
ULO2, ULO3
Clearly and succinctly states the purpose of the PICOT question.
Clearly states the purpose of the PICOT question.
Satisfactorily states the purpose of the PICOT question.
Basically states the purpose of the PICOT question.
The purpose of the PICOT question is unclear or unstated.
5
Search strategy plan
ULO2, ULO3
Evidence of the use of exceptional search techniques that can be applied consistently across all the databases and other resources.
Exceptional selection of keywords clearly related to the PICO(T) question.
Evidence of the use of comprehensive research techniques that can be mostly applied across all the databases.
A comprehensive selection of keywords mostly related to the PICO(T) question.
Evidence of the use of satisfactory research techniques that can be sometimes applied across all the databases.
A satisfactory selection of keywords often related to the PICO(T) clinical question.
Evidence of the use of beginner research techniques that can be infrequently applied across all the databases.
A beginner selection of keywords less often related to the PICO(T) clinical question.
Evidence of the use of poor research techniques that can be infrequently or not applied across all the databases.
A poor selection of keywords poorly related to the PICO(T) clinical question.
10
Reflection
ULO2, ULO3 ULO4
An exemplary reflection of experience, thoughts, actions, and feelings of AI use in developing a research question
An comprehensive reflection of experience, thoughts, actions, and feelings of AI use in developing a research question
A satisfactory reflection of experience, thoughts, actions, and feelings of AI use in developing a research question
A basic reflection of experience, thoughts, actions, and feelings of AI use in developing a research question
No or little reflection of experience, thoughts, actions, and feelings of AI use in developing a research question
5
Tutor comments:
Total mark:
/30
Marking Criteria for Assessment One_Part 2
Full Literature Search (20%)
Quality and Criterion
Exceptional
（Mark: 5）
Excellent
（Mark: 4）
Good
(Mark: 3)
Adequate
(Mark: 2.5)
Unsatisfactory
(Mark: 0-2)
Marks
Introduction
ULO2, ULO3, ULO4, ULO6
Clearly and succinctly state the selected topic and background.
Demonstrate an excellent ability to identify the rationale for developing a focused, relevant answerable clinical question.
Clearly state the selected topic and background.
Demonstrate a good ability to identify the rationale for developing a focused, answerable clinical question.
Satisfactorily state the selected topic and background.
Demonstrates a satisfactory ability to identify the rationale for developing a focused, answerable clinical question.
The selected topic and background are basically stated.
Demonstrates a weak ability to identify the rationale for developing a focused, answerable clinical question.
The selected topic and background are unclear or unstated.
Demonstrates little or no ability to identify the rationale for developing a focused, answerable clinical question.
10
PICO(T) question
ULO2, ULO3
An excellently structured, concise, relevant and answerable clinical questions with a clear and succinct purpose statement.
A clear and relevant clinical question that could be answered and researched with a clear purpose statement.
A relevant clinical question that could be answered and researched with moderate refinement with a satisfactory purpose statement
A minimally acceptable question that could be answered and researched with major refinement, with a basic purpose statement.
a poorly structured, question that is not relevant and/or not clinical and would not be answerable or researchable, with a unclear or unstated purpose statement.
5
Method (Search strategy)
ULO2, ULO3, ULO6
Evidence of the use of exceptional search techniques that were applied consistently across all the databases and other resources.
Exceptional selection of keywords and subject headings that clearly relate to the PICO(T) question.
Evidence of the use of comprehensive research techniques that were mostly applied across all the databases.
A comprehensive selection of keywords and subject headings that mostly relate to the PICO(T) question.
Evidence of the use of satisfactory research techniques that were sometimes applied across all the databases.
A satisfactory selection of keywords and subject headings that often relate to the PICO(T) clinical question.
Evidence of the use of beginner research techniques that were infrequently applied across all the databases.
A beginner selection of keywords and subject headings that less often relate to the PICO(T) clinical question.
Evidence of the use of poor research techniques that were infrequently or not applied across all the databases.
A poor selection of keywords and subject headings that poorly relate to the PICO(T) clinical question.
10
Selection of the final two articles for appraisal
ULO2, ULO3, ULO4
Exceptional discussion on how the final two articles were selected from the larger number sourced.
Very detailed description provided on the key factors that were identified to make the appropriate article selection.
Comprehensive discussion on how the final two articles were selected from the larger number sourced.
Detailed description provided on the key factors that were identified to make the appropriate article selection.
Satisfactory discussion on how the final two articles were selected from the larger number sourced.
Satisfactory description provided on the key factors that were identified to make the appropriate article selection.
Beginner level discussion on how the final two articles were selected from the larger number sourced.
Minimum level description provided on the key factors that were identified to make the appropriate article selection.
Poor discussion on how the final two articles were selected from the larger number sourced.
Limited or no description provided on the key factors that were identified to make the appropriate article selection.
5
Presentation/references
ULO4
Exemplary adherence to the presentation requirements. Exemplary adherence to the APA style requirements. Exemplary grammar, spelling and syntax.
Comprehensive adherence to the presentation requirements. Comprehensive adherence to the APA style requirements. Comprehensive grammar, spelling and syntax.
Satisfactory adherence to the presentation requirements. Satisfactory adherence to the APA style requirements. Satisfactory grammar, spelling and syntax.
Basic adherence to the presentation requirements. Basic adherence to the APA style requirements. Basic grammar, spelling and syntax.
Unsatisfactory adherence to the presentation requirements. Unsatisfactory adherence to the APA style requirements. Unsatisfactory grammar, spelling and syntax.
5
Tutor comments:
Total mark:
/35
Marking Criteria for Assessment Two
Article Review & Discussion Marking Criteria (20%)
Quality and Criteria
Exceptional
Excellent
Good
Adequate
Unsatisfactory
Marks
Critical appraisal
ULO1, ULO2, ULO4, ULO5, ULO6
Select correct appraisal tool/s.
Excellently detailed descriptions of each article in an accurate, clear, concise and consistent manner, highlighting all key points.
Evidence of a deep understanding of each article shows in the detailed & thoughtful analysis of each one. (Mark: 9-10）
Select correct appraisal tool/s.
Adequately detailed descriptions of each article in an accurate, clear, and consistent manner, highlighting most key points.
Evidence of an understanding of each article shows in a detailed analysis, however, there is a lack of interrogation of the reports. (Mark: 8）
Select correct appraisal tool/s.
Satisfactorily detailed descriptions of each article in an accurate and consistent manner, highlighting most key points.
Evidence of an understanding of each article shows in some analysis, however, most comments are descriptive rather than evaluative. (Mark: 6）
Select correct appraisal tool/s.
Basically detailed descriptions of each article in a less accurate and consistent manner, highlighting some key points.
Evidence of understanding is limited to accurate but descriptive summaries. Evidence of analysis (Mark: 5)
Select incorrect appraisal tool/s.
Limited or no descriptions of each article in an inaccurate and inconsistent manner, without highlighting all key points.
Very limited evidence of understanding and/or very limited evaluative comment included. （Mark: 0-4）
10
Discussion
ULO1, ULO4, ULO7
Clearly and concisely explains the applicability to the PICOT question.
Responses given to the questions are adequate, appropriate, clear, comprehensive and concise. （Mark: 5）
Clearly explains the applicability to the PICOT question but could be more concise.
Responses given to the questions are adequate, appropriate, comprehensive but could be more succinct. (Mark: 4)
Explains the applicability to the PICOT question, but explanation somewhat confused or unconvincing and is not succinct and to the point.
Responses given to the questions are appropriate and adequate but could be more comprehensive, clear and/or succinct. (Mark: 3)
Does not demonstrate the applicability to the PICOT question. Unconvincing arguments used. Either too brief or too wordy.
Responses given to the questions are adequate but could be more appropriate, comprehensive and succinctly. (Mark: 2.5)
No applicability to the PICOT question demonstrated. Unconvincing arguments used. Either too brief or too wordy. Responses given to the questions provided are inadequate and/or inappropriate. (Mark: 0-2)
5
Written communication and Source selection
ULO1, ULO4, ULO6
The writing is clear, concise, and free of typographical errors. It conforms to the guidelines for the assignment in all respects.
The summaries are clear & succinctly convey the key information.
Sources chosen are highly relevant to the topic and are credible, scholarly material.
Exemplary grammar, spelling and syntax.
Exemplary adherence to the presentation requirements. （Mark: 5）
The writing is clear & concise with minimal typographical errors. It conforms to the guidelines in most respects with good use of transitional words, no repetition but may not always use full sentences or other weaknesses. Summaries are written clearly & concisely & key aspects accurately conveyed.
Sources chosen are relevant to the topic and are current, credible, scholarly material.
Comprehensive grammar, spelling and syntax. Comprehensive adherence to the presentation requirements. （Mark: 4）
The writing is competent and clear but with some typographical errors. It may not conform to the guidelines in minor ways such as using multiple paragraphs. Most key features of each summary are conveyed clearly.
Sources a selection of scholarly articles but some of the sources but could be more directly relevant to the topic and/or more current.
Satisfactory grammar, spelling and syntax.
Satisfactory adherence to the presentation requirements（Mark: 3）
The writing adequately communicates some of the features of each summary with some typographical errors. It loosely conforms to the guidelines, but maybe too wordy, lack effective use of transition words, uses bullet points, multiple paragraphs for example.
Sources chosen are not directly relevant to the topic or current and are not both credible, scholarly materials.
Basic grammar, spelling and syntax.
Basic adherence to the presentation requirements. （Mark: 2.5）
The writing is poor and unclear with frequent errors of grammar and spelling. Does not conform to the writing guidelines.
Sources chosen are not relevant to the topic nor are they credible and/or scholarly.
Unsatisfactory grammar, spelling and syntax. Unsatisfactory adherence to the presentation requirements. （Mark: 0-2）
5
Tutor comments:
Total mark: 20
The post Marking Criteria for Assessment Part 1 appeared first on Universal Assignment.
