Rubric drafts
| High Distinction (85-100%) | Distinction (75-84%) | Credit (65-74%) | Pass (50-64%) | Fail (0-49%) |
Professional competency: 10 points | Excellent understanding demonstrated, superior grasp of the information, totally comfortable with the information presented. 10 points (100%) | Very good understanding demonstrated, a strong understanding of information. 8 points (80%) | Good understanding demonstrated, a good grasp of the information. 6 points (60%) | Limited but adequate understanding demonstrated, developing grasp of the information. 4 points (40%) | Little or no understanding demonstrated, uncomfortable with the information presented. 2 points (20%) |
Research skills: 10 points | A range of existing and new information is effectively presented. 10 points (100%) | Effective use of existing and new information. 8 points (80%) | Good use of existing and/or new information. 6 points (60%) | Some use of existing and/or new information. 4 points (40%) | Little or no recognition of existing or new information. 2 points (20%) |
The organisation of material: 8 points | Complex information is presented in a logical and seamless way to facilitate understanding, easy to follow. 8 points (100%) | Information is presented in a logical sequence and is easy to follow. 7 points (87.5%) | Contains a reasonable introduction, body and conclusion and is quite easy to follow. 6 points (75%) | The organisation is loose and it is just possible to follow the presentation. 4 points (50%) | No structure or sequence of information, hard to follow the presentation. 2 points (25%) |
Communication: 9 points | Well-paced, effective and interesting, the speaker is entertaining or stimulating, confident and in control. 9 points (100%) | Well-paced, good use of voice (tone, diction) and pausing throughout. 8 points (88.9%) | Consistently audible and clear voice, well-paced speech, some good use of pausing. 7 points (77.8%) | Mostly audible, mostly reasonably well-paced speech, some unnecessary pausing. 5 points (55.6%) | Inaudible and spoken too quickly or too slowly, many unnecessary pauses. 3 points (33.3%) |
Communication: 3 points | Anticipates questions, elaborates and explains when answering, responds confidently and in a friendly manner. 3 points (100%) | Can anticipate and answer all questions (including challenging ones) with ease, elaborates where appropriate. 3 points (100%) | Can anticipate and answer most questions with ease but needs to elaborate. 2 points (66.7%) | Can anticipate and/or answer rudimentary questions from the audience. 2 points (66.7%) | Unable to anticipate or answer questions from the audience about the subject. 1 point (33.3%) |
| High Distinction | Distinction | Credit | Pass | Fail |
Professional competency: 25% | Excellent understanding demonstrated, superior grasp of the information, totally comfortable with the information presented. 85-100% | Very good understanding demonstrated, a strong understanding of information. 75-84% | Good understanding demonstrated, a good grasp of the information. 65-74% | Limited but adequate understanding demonstrated, developing grasp of the information. 50-64% | Little or no understanding demonstrated, uncomfortable with the information presented. 0-49% |
Research skills: 25% | A range of existing and new information is effectively presented. 85-100% | Effective use of existing and new information. 75-84% | Good use of existing and/or new information. 65-74% | Some use of existing and/or new information. 50-64% | Little or no recognition of existing or new information. 0-49% |
The organisation of material: 20% | Complex information is presented in a logical and seamless way to facilitate understanding, easy to follow. 85-100% | Information is presented in a logical sequence and is easy to follow. 75-84% | Contains a reasonable introduction, body and conclusion and is quite easy to follow. 65-74% | The organisation is loose and it is just possible to follow the presentation. 50-64% | No structure or sequence of information, hard to follow the presentation. 0-49% |
Communication: 22% | Well-paced, effective and interesting, the speaker is entertaining or stimulating, confident and in control. 85-100% | Well-paced, good use of voice (tone, diction) and pausing throughout. 75-84% | Consistently audible and clear voice, well-paced speech, some good use of pausing. 65-74% | Mostly audible, mostly reasonably well-paced speech, some unnecessary pausing. 50-64% | Inaudible and spoken too quickly or too slowly, many unnecessary pauses. 0-49% |
Communication: 8% | Anticipates questions, elaborates and explains when answering, responds confidently and in a friendly manner. 85-100% | Can anticipate and answer all questions (including challenging ones) with ease, elaborates where appropriate. 75-84% | Can anticipate and answer most questions with ease but needs to elaborate. 65-74% | Can anticipate and/or answer rudimentary questions from the audience. 50-64% | Unable to anticipate or answer questions from the audience about the subject. 0-49% |
Point scores do not fall within the grade descriptor bands
Points used for grade descriptors must translate to percentage scores within each grade descriptor range. In the above example, many of the point scores used are well above or below the grade percentage ranges. By using a percentage rubric, this problem can be avoided. This can be implemented in two ways: 1) by using a percentage range rubric where scores can be assigned anywhere within the prescribed range, or 2) by using the midpoints for the percentage range to describe each column. An advantage of using the midpoints of the grade descriptors is that it infers consistency between graders, and prevents grade inflation and deflation which can occur by using the high or low points within the percentage range. This also improved the transparency of the rubric, because students can clearly see how their rubric result translates to their overall result.
Original:
| Distinction (75-84%) |
Professional competency: 10 points | Very good understanding demonstrated, a strong understanding of information. 8 points (80%) |
Research skills: 10 points | Effective use of existing and new information.
|
The organisation of material: 8 points | Information is presented in a logical sequence and is easy to follow. 7 points (87.5%) |
Communication: 9 points | Well-paced, good use of voice (tone, diction) and pausing throughout. 8 points (88.9%) |
Communication:
| Can anticipate and answer all questions (including challenging ones) with ease, elaborates where appropriate. 3 points (100%) |
Improvement:
| Distinction – 79% |
Professional competency: 10 points | Very good understanding demonstrated, a strong understanding of information. |
Research skills: 10 points | Effective use of existing and new information. |
The organisation of material: 8 points | Information is presented in a logical sequence and is easy to follow. |
Communication: 9 points | Well-paced, good use of voice (tone, diction) and pausing throughout. |
Communication: 3 points | Can anticipate and answer all questions (including challenging ones) with ease, elaborates where appropriate. |
Using shared point values across multiple grade descriptors
The same point value should never be used across multiple criteria. This is bad practice for two reasons: firstly, because it means at least one of the point values will not reflect the grade descriptor percentage range; and secondly, because it disincentivizes students aiming for the higher of the two bands. One of the reasons this may occur is because you have a criterion that is worth a very small amount of points. A consideration to make when you have a criterion worth a very small scoring is whether it is needed at all; does this criterion allow the students to demonstrate one of the course learning outcomes? If not, consider removing this criterion entirely. If yes, make sure that your criteria have a percentage weighting as appose to a point value. Then, use the percentage ranges or percentage midpoints to describe each criterion. This way, you're not trying to split X amount of points across 5 criteria. This will also assist in the rubric implementation within the LMS system.
Original:
| High Distinction (85-100%) | Distinction (75-84%) | Credit (65-74%) | Pass (50-64%) | Fail (0-49%) |
Communication:
| Anticipates questions, elaborates and explains when answering, responds confidently and in a friendly manner.
| Can anticipate and answer all questions (including challenging ones) with ease, elaborates where appropriate. 3 points (100%) | Can anticipate and answer most questions with ease but needs to elaborate.
| Can anticipate and/or answer rudimentary questions from the audience.
| Unable to anticipate or answer questions from the audience about the subject.
|
Improvement:
| High Distinction (85-100%) | Distinction (75-84%) | Credit (65-74%) | Pass (50-64%) | Fail (0-49%) |
Communication:
| Anticipates questions, elaborates and explains when answering, responds confidently and in a friendly manner.
| Can anticipate and answer all questions (including challenging ones) with ease, elaborates where appropriate. 75-84% | Can anticipate and answer most questions with ease but needs to elaborate.
| Can anticipate and/or answer rudimentary questions from the audience.
| Unable to anticipate or answer questions from the audience about the subject.
|
Variability between criteria for each grade descriptor
Each grade descriptor is described using a percentage range (for example, a distinction is 75-84%). You can grade anywhere within this range when assigning scores for each criterion, however, it is important that you are consistent with the score allocation. In the above example, a pass for the criteria "the organisation of material" is 50%, whereas for "communication (delivery)" it is 55.6%. These scores are both within the grade descriptor bands, however, it means that a pass is not consistent between criteria. An improvement would be to use the midpoint of the grade descriptor band to grade the entire column. This will improve consistency across the rubric.
Original:
| Pass (50-64%) |
Professional competency: 8 points | The organisation is loose and it is just possible to follow the presentation.
|
Communication:
| Mostly audible, mostly reasonably well-paced speech, some unnecessary pausing. 5 points (55.6%) |
Improvement:
| Pass – 57% |
Professional competency: 8 points | The organisation is loose and it is just possible to follow the presentation. |
Communication: | Mostly audible, mostly reasonably well-paced speech, some unnecessary pausing. |
The criteria do not add up to 100(%)
When implementing a rubric in Blackboard or Turnitin, it is recommended that you use one of the percentage options (in order to correctly reflect the grade descriptors). Because of this, the criteria also need to be expressed in terms of percentage, adding up to 100%. Your chosen tool will convert this percentage score to the point score for the assessment piece. This is also ideal because it allows you to easily look at the assessment holistically in terms of what overall grade descriptor the student received as a result of their rubric grading.
Original:
Professional competency: 10 points |
Research skills: 10 points |
The organisation of material: 8 points |
Communication: 9 points |
Communication: 3 points |
Improvement:
Professional competency: 25% |
Research skills: 25% |
The organisation of material: 20% |
Communication: 22% |
Communication: 8% |
Lack of Transparency – Generic Essay
| Fail | Pass | Credit | Distinction | High Distinction |
|
Thought | Poor argument and critical thinking skills. Little or no evidence of your ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Adequate argument. Basic critical thinking skills. Fair ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Competent argument. Good critical thinking skills. Solid ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Well-supported argument. Well-developed critical thinking skills. Sophisticated ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | A clear, concise argument. Excellent critical thinking skills. Superior ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | /50 |
Research | Basic or poor engagement with the question or topic. Little selection or use of relevant evidence. Sources barely integrated into the essay. | Good engagement with the question or topic. Adequate selection and use of relevant evidence. Few sources are integrated into the essay. | Good engagement with the question or topic. Competent selection and use of relevant evidence. Sources well integrated into the essay. | Very good engagement with the question or topic. Comprehensive selection and use of relevant evidence. Sources are capably integrated into the essay. | Excellent engagement with the question or topic. Outstanding selection and use of relevant evidence. Sources skillfully integrated into the essay. | /30 |
Presentation | Poorly structured essay with unclear introduction and weak conclusion. | Adequate essay with good introduction and fair conclusion. The paragraph sequence could be more logical. | Competently structured essay with a clear introduction and reasonable conclusion. Paragraphs in a logical sequence. | Well-structured essay with a clear introduction and solid conclusion. Paragraphs in a logical sequence. | Outstandingly structured essay with a succinct, clear introduction and a strong conclusion. Paragraphs in a logical sequence. | /10 |
Writing | Poor style with little attention to spelling and punctuation. A pattern of ungrammatical writing. | Coherent style with adequate attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar. Grammatical errors. | Coherent style with competent attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar. A few grammatical errors. | Clear, coherent style with comprehensive attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar. | Clear, coherent style with outstanding attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar. | /10 |
| High Distinction + 100% | High Distinction 92% | Distinction 79% | Credit 69% | Pass 57% | Fail 25% | Absent Fail 0% |
Thought 50% | The student demonstrates exemplary performance with no errors. | A clear, concise argument. Excellent critical thinking skills. Superior ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Well-supported argument. Well-developed critical thinking skills. Sophisticated ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Competent argument. Good critical thinking skills. Solid ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Adequate argument. Basic critical thinking skills. Fair ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Poor argument and critical thinking skills. Little or no evidence of your ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | The student submits no assessment item or does not attempt this part of the task. |
Research 30% | The student demonstrates exemplary performance with no errors. | Excellent engagement with the question or topic. Outstanding selection and use of relevant evidence. Sources skillfully integrated into the essay. | Very good engagement with the question or topic. Comprehensive selection and use of relevant evidence. Sources are capably integrated into the essay. | Good engagement with the question or topic. Competent selection and use of relevant evidence. Sources well integrated into the essay. | Good engagement with the question or topic. Adequate selection and use of relevant evidence. Few sources are integrated into the essay. | Basic or poor engagement with the question or topic. Little selection or use of relevant evidence. Sources barely integrated into the essay. | The student submits no assessment item or does not attempt this part of the task. |
Presentation 10% | The student demonstrates exemplary performance with no errors. | Outstandingly structured essay with a succinct, clear introduction and a strong conclusion. Paragraphs in a logical sequence. | Well-structured essay with a clear introduction and solid conclusion. Paragraphs in a logical sequence. | Competently structured essay with a clear introduction and reasonable conclusion. Paragraphs in a logical sequence. | Adequate essay with good introduction and fair conclusion. The paragraph sequence could be more logical. | Poorly structured essay with unclear introduction and weak conclusion. | The student submits no assessment item or does not attempt this part of the task. |
Writing 10% | The student demonstrates exemplary performance with no errors. | Clear, coherent style with outstanding attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar. | Clear, coherent style with comprehensive attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar. | Coherent style with competent attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar. A few grammatical errors. | Coherent style with adequate attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar. Grammatical errors. | Poor style with little attention to spelling and punctuation. A pattern of ungrammatical writing. | The student submits no assessment item or does not attempt this part of the task. |
It is unclear how the qualitative rubric maps to the quantitative score
Using a qualitative rubric for unweighted assessment is a great way to provide students with an idea of how they are going. It also provides them with clear benchmarks for improvement. However, using a qualitative rubric is not recommended when providing a grade for an assessment piece. For a rubric to be an effective tool for a piece of graded assessment, there needs to be transparency in how the resulting grade is calculated. This can be done by setting up a percentage rubric, and using specific criteria weights with the midpoint of each grade band descriptor is an effective way to ensure that the resulting score reflects the grade descriptor for that column and also improved the transparency and consistency of the rubric.
Original:
| Fail | Pass | Credit | Distinction | High Distinction |
|
Thought | Poor argument and critical thinking skills. Little or no evidence of your ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Adequate argument. Basic critical thinking skills. Fair ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Competent argument. Good critical thinking skills. Solid ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Well-supported argument. Well-developed critical thinking skills. Sophisticated ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | A clear, concise argument. Excellent critical thinking skills. Superior ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | /50 |
Improvement:
| Fail | Pass | Credit | Distinction | High Distinction |
Thought | Poor argument and critical thinking skills. Little or no evidence of your ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. 25% | Adequate argument. Basic critical thinking skills. Fair ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. 57% | Competent argument. Good critical thinking skills. Solid ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. 69% | Well-supported argument. Well-developed critical thinking skills. Sophisticated ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. 79% | A clear, concise argument. Excellent critical thinking skills. Superior ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument.
|
The grade descriptors are low on the left instead of high on the left
To successfully implement a rubric into Blackboard or Turnitin, the left-hand side needs to be 100%. That is, the highest grade point needs to be on the left-hand side. It is best practice to begin with the highest grade descriptor on the left-hand side. This is because then the first descriptor students see reading left to right is the highest achievement level, encouraging students to aim for this grade.
Original:
| Fail | Pass | Credit | Distinction | High Distinction |
|
Thought | Poor argument and critical thinking skills. Little or no evidence of your ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Adequate argument. Basic critical thinking skills. Fair ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Competent argument. Good critical thinking skills. Solid ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Well-supported argument. Well-developed critical thinking skills. Sophisticated ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | A clear, concise argument. Excellent critical thinking skills. Superior ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | /50 |
Improvement:
| High Distinction + | High Distinction | Distinction | Credit | Pass | Fail | Absent Fail |
Thought | The student demonstrates exemplary performance with no errors. | A clear, concise argument. Excellent critical thinking skills. Superior ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Well-supported argument. Well-developed critical thinking skills. Sophisticated ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Competent argument. Good critical thinking skills. Solid ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Adequate argument. Basic critical thinking skills. Fair ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | Poor argument and critical thinking skills. Little or no evidence of your ability to define and apply concepts relevant to your argument. | The student submits no assessment item or does not attempt this part of the task. |
Competency for something that isn't competency
Proficient | Competent | Novice | |
Definition Explicitness for the problem description | Aim outlines the purpose of the investigation specifically, explicitly, and relevantly. | Aim outlines the purpose of the investigation with some lapse in explicitness, specificity or relevance. | Aim not given or does not satisfactorily outline the purpose of the investigation. |
Methods Clarity and correctness of methods | An innovative and correct method of solution to the problem. | An average and mostly correct and complete method of solution to the problem. | A solution to the problem is not described, or not correct. |
Accuracy Correctness of mathematics | All calculations/ algebra/ graphs complete and correct. | Calculations/ algebra/ graphs partially correct or complete. | Calculations/ algebra/ graphs incorrect or not present. |
Conclusion Logical and connected conclusion | The conclusion is explicit, logically and mathematically correct and consistent with the aim, method and results. | The conclusion has some lapse in explicitness, logical and mathematical correctness or consistency with the aim, method and results. | The conclusion is not present or not explicit, not logically and mathematically correct, or not consistent with the aim, method and results. |
Communication Written mathematical communication | The written expression uses sophisticated mathematical language. | The written expression uses some appropriate mathematical language. | Written expression is not included or does not use mathematical language. |
Competency grade descriptors should only be used for approved accreditation assessment
Each column of your rubric should be defined using the SCU grade descriptors and respective percentage bands. Other descriptors, such as competency satisfactory//unsatisfactory should only be used for approved accreditation assessment. In this example, the use of proficient-novice leads to major transparency problems in respect to how these rubric descriptors translate to the overall assessment grade. Using the SCU grade descriptors encourages transparency in the grading process and makes it clearer to students how their rubric result translates to their overall SCU letter grade score for that assessment piece.
No weighting is provided for the rubric criteria
If using a rubric for graded assessment, it is important that criteria weightings are clearly signposted to students within the rubric. Qualitative rubrics should only be used for non-graded assessment pieces. Including specific percentage weightings adding up to 100% within the rubric assists in implementation, transparency, and also minimised manual grade calculation mistakes by utilising the automatic calculations within the LMS.
Criteria | High Distinction 85-100% | Distinction 75-84% | Credit 65-74% | Pass 50-64% | Fail 0-49% |
Definition Explicitness for the problem description 5% | Aim outlines the purpose of the investigation specifically, explicitly, and relevantly. 85-100% | Aim outlines the purpose of the investigation with a minor lapse in explicitness, specificity or relevance. 75-84% | Aim outlines the purpose of the investigation with some lapse in explicitness, specificity or relevance. 65-74% | Aim outlines the purpose of the investigation with a substantial lapse in explicitness, specificity or relevance. 50-64% | Aim not given or does not satisfactorily outline the purpose of the investigation. 0-49% |
Methods Clarity and correctness of methods 35% | An innovative and correct method of solution to the problem. 85-100% | Above average and substantially correct method of solution to the problem. 75-84% | An average and mostly correct and complete method of solution to the problem. 65-74% | Sound but partially incomplete or incorrect method of solution to the problem. 50-64% | A solution to the problem is not described, or not correct. 0-49% |
Accuracy Correctness of mathematics 40% | All calculations/ algebra/ graphs complete and correct. 85-100% | Only minor errors or omissions in calculations/ algebra/ graphs. 75-84% | Calculations/ algebra/ graphs partially correct or complete. 65-74% | Calculations/ algebra/ graphs half correct or complete. 50-64% | Calculations/ algebra/ graphs incorrect or not present. 0-49% |
Conclusion Logical and connected conclusion 10% | The conclusion is explicit, logically and mathematically correct and consistent with the aim, method and results. 85-100% | The conclusion has a minor lapse in explicitness, logical and mathematical correctness or consistency with the aim, method and results. 75-84% | The conclusion has some lapse in explicitness, logical and mathematical correctness or consistency with the aim, method and results. 65-74% | The conclusion has a substantial lapse in explicitness, logical and mathematical correctness or consistency with the aim, method and results. 50-64% | The conclusion is not present or not explicit, not logically and mathematically correct, or not consistent with the aim, method and results. 0-49% |
Communication Written mathematical communication 10% | The written expression uses sophisticated mathematical language. 85-100% | The written expression uses appropriate mathematical language. 75-84% | The written expression uses some appropriate mathematical language. 65-74% | The written expression shows little use of appropriate mathematical language. 50-64% | Written expression is not included or does not use mathematical language. 0-49% |
Too many criteria
High Distinction 85-100% | Distinction 75-84% | Credit 65-74% | Pass 50-64% | Fail 0-49% | |
Introduction 5% | The introduction is clear and concise and clearly defines key elements of the problem. | The introduction is well-developed and defines all key elements of the problem. | The introduction defines most key elements of the problem and may include one or two minor errors. | The introduction excludes major definitions and/or has one major misunderstanding evident | The introduction lacks accurate definitions for any key problems. |
Patient assessment 15% | Concise patient assessment includes a comprehensive identification and analysis of all client issues relevant to the patient’s functional limitations effectively structured for clarity. | Clearly written patient assessment, with a well-developed analysis and assessment of all issues relevant to the patient’s functional limitations. | The patient's assessment includes a considered analysis and assessment of most issues relevant to the client’s functional limitations. | Patient assessment conveys a basic analysis and assessment of some issues relevant to the patient’s functional limitations. | Patient assessment is unclear and does not address the analysis and assessment of issues relevant to the patient’s functional limitations. |
Prescription components 20% | Prescription comprehensively and correctly identifies and justifies all components. | Prescription is thorough and correctly identifies and justifies all components. | Prescription identifies and justifies most required components | Prescription identifies most of the required components and demonstrates an adequate attempt at justification. | Inadequate or incorrect prescription. Insufficient identification of components. |
Prescription measurements 10% | Accurately includes all required measurements. | Includes required measurements with one or two minor errors or omissions. | Includes required measurements with one or two major errors or omissions. | There are several excluded or incorrect measurements. | Measurements are incorrect or absent entirely. |
Training and education 10% | All training and education components are identified and discussed in a comprehensive, creative and clearly articulated program that effectively meets the patient’s needs. | All training and education components and needs are identified and discussed in a thorough and well thought out program that meets the patient’s needs. | Most training and education components and needs are considered in a program that addresses the patient’s needs. | Adequate training and education components and needs are included in a plan that meets some patient needs. | Inadequately identifies and discusses training and education needs. Justification is inadequate or absent. |
Scholarly evidence and clinical reasoning 20% | Integrates at least 10 references (70% are highly relevant, current academic/scientific evidence); to support a comprehensive and professional clinical reasoning approach. | Includes at least 10 references (60% are reliable and current academic/scientific references); all highly relevant and provide clear evidence to support thorough clinical reasoning. | Includes at least 8 references (50% are reliable academic/scientific references); all relevant and provide clear evidence to support clinical reasoning | Includes less than 6 references somewhat relevant; provides evidence to support some clinical reasoning. | Few if any appropriate references. Little or no evidence to support clinical reasoning. |
Conclusion 5% | A logical conclusion with strong justification demonstrating confidence in the assessment. | A detailed conclusion includes some decision making justification demonstrating some confidence in the assessment. | The conclusion is detailed but contains little overall justification of the decision making process throughout the assessment. | The conclusion is limited and demonstrates a lack of confidence in the assessment. | The conclusion is extremely lacking and demonstrates clear misunderstandings with the assessment. |
Report structure and length 5% | Professional report structure that adheres to the template and word limit. | Professional report that closely follows the template and word limit. | Well-written report with occasional minor errors. Follows the word limit. | Report writing conventions used but missing elements of the template. Does not adhere to the task word limit. | The report did not comply with standard report writing conventions. The report requires considerable further development. |
Professional standard of written communication 5% | Uses formal, academic language and consistently adheres to grammatical conventions. | Uses clear language and mostly adheres to grammatical conventions. | Follows grammatical conventions and the template with minor mistakes. | Some informal language including contains grammatical errors. | Informal Language is used with many grammatical errors. |
Referencing 5% | Accurate and consistent use of the APA 7th referencing conventions, both in the text and the references list. | APA 7th referencing conventions followed in the text and the references list but with a few minor errors. | APA 7th referencing conventions but with some errors. | Follows the APA 7th referencing conventions in places but not consistently and with some errors. | References and sources acknowledged occasionally and/or with significant errors. |
There are too many criteria
The recommended amount of criteria is 3-5. This is to ensure that the components being assessed with the rubric align with the major unit learning outcomes, and also make the focus and expectations clear to students. Having 3-5 clear and descriptive criteria also increases efficiency in the marking process.
The criteria is not relevant to the learning outcomes
When designing a rubric, it is important that the criteria reflect the learning outcomes for that task, and more specifically, allow the students to demonstrate the learning outcomes defined for the unit. Sometimes, this may involve specific written components such as including definitions within a specific report component, but this is discipline dependent. In general, it is advised to reflect on the inclusion of content and whether this work demonstrates an understanding of the needed professional skill, rather than breaking the assessment down into a huge number of individual components which have overlapping intentions.
High Distinction + 100% | High Distinction 92% | Distinction 79% | Credit 69% | Pass 57% | Fail 25% | Absent Fail 0% | |
Patient assessment 25% | The student demonstrates exemplary performance with no errors. | Concise patient assessment includes a comprehensive identification and analysis of all client issues relevant to the patient’s functional limitations effectively structured for clarity. | Clearly written patient assessment, with a well-developed analysis and assessment of all issues relevant to the patient’s functional limitations. | The patient's assessment includes a considered analysis and assessment of most issues relevant to the client’s functional limitations. | Patient assessment conveys a basic analysis and assessment of some issues relevant to the patient’s functional limitations. | Patient assessment is unclear and does not address the analysis and assessment of issues relevant to the patient’s functional limitations. | The student submits no assessment item or does not attempt this part of the task. |
Prescription 30% | The student demonstrates exemplary performance with no errors. | Prescription comprehensively and correctly identifies and justifies all components, including required measurements. | Prescription is thorough and correctly identifies and justifies all components, including required measurements with one or two minor errors or omissions. | Prescription identifies and justifies most required components, including required measurements with one or two major errors or omissions. | Prescription identifies most of the required components and demonstrates an adequate attempt at justification. There are several excluded or incorrect measurements. | Inadequate or incorrect prescription. Insufficient identification of components. Incorrect or absent measurements. | The student submits no assessment item or does not attempt this part of the task. |
Training and education 10% | The student demonstrates exemplary performance with no errors. | All training and education components are identified and discussed in a comprehensive, creative and clearly articulated program that effectively meets the patient’s needs. | All training and education components and needs are identified and discussed in a thorough and well thought out program that meets the patient’s needs. | Most training and education components and needs are considered in a program that addresses the patient’s needs. | Adequate training and education components and needs are included in a plan that meets some patient needs. | Inadequately identifies and discusses training and education needs. Justification is inadequate or absent. | The student submits no assessment item or does not attempt this part of the task. |
Scholarly evidence and clinical reasoning 25% | The student demonstrates exemplary performance with no errors. | Integrates at least 10 references (70% are highly relevant, current academic/scientific evidence); to support a comprehensive and professional clinical reasoning approach. | Includes at least 10 references (60% are reliable and current academic/scientific references); all highly relevant and provide clear evidence to support thorough clinical reasoning. | Includes at least 8 references (50% are reliable academic/scientific references); all relevant and provide clear evidence to support clinical reasoning | Includes less than 6 references somewhat relevant; provides evidence to support some clinical reasoning. | Few if any appropriate references. Little or no evidence to support clinical reasoning. | The student submits no assessment item or does not attempt this part of the task. |
Professional standard of written communication 10% | The student demonstrates exemplary performance with no errors. | Professional report structure that adheres to the template and word limit. Uses formal, academic language and consistently adheres to grammatical conventions. Accurate and consistent use of the APA 7th referencing conventions, both in the text and the references list. | Professional report that closely follows the template and word limit. Uses clear language and mostly adheres to grammatical conventions. APA 7th referencing conventions followed in the text and the references list but with a few minor errors. | Well-written report with occasional minor errors. Follows grammatical conventions and the template with minor mistakes. Follows the word limit, and APA 7th referencing conventions but with some errors. | Report writing conventions used but missing elements of the template. Some informal language including contains grammatical errors. Follows the APA 7th referencing conventions in places but not consistently and with some errors. Does not adhere to the task word limit. | The report did not comply with standard report writing conventions. Informal Language is used with many grammatical errors. References and sources acknowledged occasionally and/or with significant errors. The report requires considerable further development. | The student submits no assessment item or does not attempt this part of the task. |