Health Promotion Partnerships, Politics and Power

Health Promotion Partnerships, Politics and Power – Marking Rubric 1 of 3
ASSESSMENT 3: JOURNAL ARTICLE
CRITERION UNACCEPTABLE UNSATISFACTORY AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
Abstract
Weight 10.00%
0 %0 %
Does not provide an
abstract.
25 %25 %
Attempts to provides an
abstract however the
content is unclear and does
not provide an overview of
the journal article. May be
missing required sections.
50 %50 %
Provides an adequate
abstract that summarises
the content of the article
and includes all required
sections (Issue addressed;
Methods, Results;
Conclusions; So what?).
75 %75 %
Provides an easy to read
and understandable
abstract that summarises
the content of the article
and includes all required
sections (Issue addressed;
Methods, Results;
Conclusions; So what?).
100 %
Provides a tight, easy to
read, understandable
abstract that summarises
the content of the article
and includes all required
sections (Issue addressed;
Methods, Results;
Conclusions; So what?).
Introduction
Weight 10.00%
0 %0 %
Is unable to provide an
introduction OR provides
one which is irrelevant to
the article.
25 %25 %
Attempts to provide an
adequate overview of the
topic. Attempts to provide
relevant definitions. Is
unable to provide a clear
statement of the article’s
purpose.
50 %50 %
Provides an adequate
overview of the topic
including appropriate
definitions. Includes an
adequate statement of the
article’s purpose.
75 %75 %
Provides a clear overview of
the topic including
appropriate definitions.
Includes an appropriate
statement of the article’s
purpose.
100 %
Provides a succinct and
clear overview of the topic
including appropriate
definitions. Includes a clear
statement of the article’s
purpose.
Methods
Weight 5.00%
0 %0 %
Does not provide a methods
section.
25 %25 %
Attempts to describe
process of finding relevant
literature however the
content is unclear and does
not include the chosen
databases and/or search
terms.
50 %50 %
Describes the process of
finding relevant literature
including stating the
chosen databases and
search terms. Limited
consideration given to
explaining how resulting
evidence was selected to be
integrated into the article.
75 %75 %
Clearly describes the
process of finding relevant
literature including stating
the chosen databases and
search terms used.
Consideration given to
explaining how resulting
evidence was selected to be
integrated into the article.
100 %
Clearly and succinctly
describes the process of
finding relevant literature
including stating the
chosen databases and
search terms. Critical
thought applied to
explaining how resulting
evidence was selected to be
integrated into the article.
Health Promotion Partnerships, Politics and Power – Marking Rubric 2 of 3
Understanding of chosen
setting
Weight 20.00%
0 %0 %
Is unable to demonstrate an
understanding of the
setting. Factual errors
presented.
25 %25 %
Demonstrates a limited
understanding of the
setting. Provides few or
only general details. Uses
inappropriate references.
5050 %
Demonstrates some
understanding of the
setting. Provides mostly
relevant information. Uses
mostly appropriate
references.
75 %75 %
Demonstrates a good
understanding of the
setting. Provides relevant,
clear information. Uses
appropriate references.
Some evidence of critical
thinking.
100 %
Demonstrates a very good
understanding of the
setting. Provides relevant,
clear, detailed information.
Comprehensively uses
appropriate references.
Outstanding critical
thinking demonstrated.
Understanding of
comprehensive health
promotion
Weight 25.00%
0 %0 %
Is unable to demonstrate an
understanding of how
comprehensive health
promotion (settings
approach) may be applied
in the chosen setting.
Factual errors presented.
25 %25 %
Demonstrates a limited
understanding of how
comprehensive health
promotion (settings
approach) may be applied
in the chosen setting.
Attempts to consider
characteristics of those in
the setting. Provides some
ideas but these are unclear
and/or not supported by
appropriate
evidence/references and
examples.
50 %50 %
Demonstrates some
understanding of how
comprehensive health
promotion (settings
approach) may be applied
in the chosen setting and
describes some enablers
and barriers. Considers
some characteristics of
those in the setting.
Provides a thesis (position
taken or ongoing idea)
which is mostly supported
by evidence/references and
examples.
75 %75 %
Demonstrates a good
understanding of how
comprehensive health
promotion (settings
approach) may be applied
in the chosen setting and
comprehensively describes
enablers and barriers.
Considers the
characteristics of those in
the setting. Provides a
thesis (position taken or
ongoing idea) which is
supported by relevant
evidence/references and
examples.
100 %
Demonstrates a very good
understanding of how
comprehensive health
promotion (settings
approach) may be applied
in the chosen setting.
Closely considers the
characteristics of those in
the setting. Provides a
thoughtful thesis (position
taken or ongoing idea)
which is strongly supported
by relevant
evidence/references and
examples.
Conclusion
Weight 10.00%
0 %0 %
Is unable to provide a
conclusion OR provides one
which is irrelevant. Unable
to demonstrate an
understanding of
implications and
recommendations from the
literature.
25 %25 %
Attempts a conclusion but
does not provide an
adequate summary.
Demonstrates limited
understanding of relevant
implications and
recommendations from the
literature.
50 %50 %
Provides an adequate
summary and
demonstrates an
understanding of most
content related to
implications and
recommendations from the
literature.
75 %75 %
Provides a logical summary
and demonstrates a general
understanding of
implications and
recommendations from the
literature.
100 %
Provides a logical, concise,
and persuasive summary
and demonstrates a welldeveloped understanding of
implications and
recommendations from the
literature.
Health Promotion Partnerships, Politics and Power – Marking Rubric 3 of 3
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA:
Paraphrasing, citing and
referencing
Weight 5.00%
0 %0 %
Is unable to paraphrase; a
significant amount of
content is lacking
references; and makes
significant errors in
referencing. THE ABOVE
MAY RESULT IN
PLAGIARISM.
25 %25 %
Attempts to paraphrase
with limited success; and
makes significant errors in
referencing. THE ABOVE
MAY RESULT IN
PLAGIARISM.
50 %50 %
Attempts to paraphrase but
is not always successful;
and makes some noticeable
errors in referencing. THE
ABOVE MAY RESULT IN
PLAGIARISM.
75 %75 %
Paraphrases appropriately;
and generally references
well. There may be some
minor errors with citing and
referencing.
100 %
Paraphrases well; and
references well. No errors
with citing and referencing.
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA:
Organisation
Weight 5.00%
0 %0 %
Unable to structure an
argument: Sections are
disorganised and there is
little or no paragraphing.
There is little or no evidence
of continuity.
25 %25 %
Attempts to structure an
argument but is not always
successful: Sections do not
flow on from each other,
and paragraphs within
sections are poorly
constructed and disrupt
any flow. Attempts to link
the content throughout the
different sections in the
report but is not always
successful.
50 %50 %
Demonstrates some ability
to structure an argument:
Sections generally flow on
from each other, and
paragraphs within sections
generally flow. Is generally
able to link the content
throughout the different
sections in the report.
75 %75 %
Demonstrates the ability to
structure an argument well:
Sections flow on from each
other, and paragraphs
within sections generally
flow. Links the content
throughout the different
sections in the report.
100 %
Demonstrates the ability to
structure an argument very
effectively: Sections flow on
from each other, and
paragraphs within sections
flow. Links the content
throughout the different
sections in the report very
well.
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA:
Writing style: grammar,
spelling and use of
language
Weight 5.00%
0 %0 %
Uses very basic grammar
and vocabulary with very
limited control; errors
severely distort the
meaning.
25 %25 %
Uses basic grammar and
vocabulary with limited
flexibility and accuracy;
errors cause strain for the
reader.
50 %50 %
Uses an adequate range of
grammar and vocabulary
with some flexibility and is
mostly accurate: errors
occur but these do not
impede communication.
75 %75 %
Uses a sufficient range of
grammar and vocabulary
with ease and is mostly
accurate; occasional errors.
100 %
Uses a wide range of
grammar and vocabulary
naturally and with
accuracy; rare minor errors.
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA:
Formatting
Weight 5.00%
0 %0 %
Formatting is largely
absent and/or incorrect.
Two or more of the
following are missing: cover
page, page numbers and
headings.
25 %25 %
Formatting is incomplete.
One or more of the
following are missing: cover
page, page numbers and
headings.
50 50 %
Cover page, page numbers
and headings all included.
Formatting is mostly
appropriate. Only one Word
document for the entire
assessment is submitted.
75 %75 %
Cover page, page numbers
and headings all included
and neatly formatted with
possibly a few minor errors.
Only one Word document
for the entire assessment is
submitted.
100 %
Cover page, page numbers
and headings all included
and neatly formatted with
no errors. Only one Word
document for the entire
assessment is submitted.

The post Health Promotion Partnerships, Politics and Power appeared first on My Assignment Online.