Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments. The audience is mostly engaged, line of reasoning is easy to follow. Effective use of presentation aids. Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented, the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence. Engages the audience, demonstrates cultural sensitivity. Carefully and well prepared presentations aids are used. Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments. Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivity

Effective communication Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence. No effort is made to keep audience engaged, audience cannot follow the line of reasoning. Little use of presentation aids, or the presentation aids and material used are irrelevant. Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical. Attempts are made to keep the audience engaged, but not always successful. Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow. Presentation aids are used more for effect than relevance.

Use of academic and discipline conventions and sources of evidence Poorly written with errors in spelling, grammar. Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in using the APA style. Is written according to academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary) and has accurate spelling, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction. Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.

Ethico moral reasoning (recognises ethical and moral issues within a discipline and is able to reason based on these principles) Difficulty in formulating own opinion and lack of recognition of ethical principles and competing interests. Does not clearly demonstrate moral-ethical reasoning. Difficulty in justifying conclusions based on moral- ethical principles but recognises different viewpoints. Conclusions are justified based on moral-ethical principles. Formulates and justifies conclusions based on moral-ethical principles. Can recognise the competing interests in arguments and identify ethical issues embodied in them. Uses ethical principles to identify competing interests and views. Sophisticated understanding of the ethical and moral positions. Well-articulated viewpoint based on moral-ethical reasoning.

Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge Limited synthesis and analysis. Limited application/recommendations based upon analysis. Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application. Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge. Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases.

Specific position (perspective or argument) takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Others’ points of view are acknowledged. Justifies any conclusions reached with well-formed arguments not merely assertion. Specific position (perspective or argument) is expertly presented and accurately takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) and scope of the assignment. Justifies any conclusions reached with well- developed arguments. Specific position (perspective or argument) is presented expertly, authoritatively and imaginatively, accurately taking into account the complexities of the issue(s) and scope of the assignment. Limits of position are acknowledged. Justifies any conclusions reached with sophisticated arguments.

Critical reasoning, presentation and defence of an argument and/or position Specific position (perspective or argument) fails to take into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Makes assertions that are not justified. Specific position (perspective or argument) begins to take into account the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Justifies any conclusions reached with arguments not merely assertion.

Knowledge and understanding Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline. Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s. A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s. Points for this criteria Key components of the assignment are not addressed. Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. evidence from the research/course materials. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.

Content, Audience and Purpose Points for this criteria Does not meet minimum standard Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. Meets minimum standard Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment Moves beyond minimum standard Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. Exceeds minimum standard Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment. Exceeds minimum standard and exhibits high levels of independence Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment.

Distinction (Advanced) High Distinction (Exceptional) Evidence of a high level of achievement of the learning objectives of the course demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, use of methodology and communication skills. Evidence of an exceptional level of achievement of learning objectives across the entire content of the course demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, creativity, originality, use of methodology and communication skills.

Report and presentation As discussed above, your final two assessments are inter-linked: - Assessment 3 requires you to write a report. - For Assessment 2 you are to present the preliminary findings of your report (Assessment 3). o The presentation (Assessment 2) provides you with an opportunity to receive feedback from the learning facilitator which you are then to implement and address in your final report. Fail (Unacceptable) Pass (Functional) Credit (Proficient) Evidence of unsatisfactory achievement of one or more of the learning objectives of the course, insufficient understanding of the course content and/or unsatisfactory level of skill development. Evidence of satisfactory achievement of course learning objectives, the development of relevant skills to a competent level, and adequate interpretation and critical analysis skills. Evidence of a good level of understanding, knowledge and skill development in relation to the content of the course or work of a superior quality on the majority of the learning objectives of the course. Demonstration of a high level of interpretation and critical analysis skills.