Overview details about the assessments

Activity tasks


here is come comment
Activity Task
Due
Summative*
Learning Outcomes
Generic Skills
Annotated bibliography
Week 5
20%
1, 3
1, 2, 4
Wiki resource
Start week 9
30%
1, 3
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Reflection Activity
week 14
20%
1,2
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Exam (open book)
Final exam period
30%
1, 2, 3
1, 2, 3
*contribution to unit grade. Note that 30% of unit grade comes from an open-book end of semester exam.

Assessment


Annotated Biobliography


Marking Criteria
  1. Clarity – Use of clear language and explanations with minimal errors, 20%
  2. Analysis – Appropriate structure and flow of concepts and arguments, 20%
  3. Relevance – Coverage of the content explicitly related to the content area, 20%
  4. Analysis – thoughtful, complete and well critiqued with clear description of strengths and weaknesses, 30%
  5. Referencing – appropriate referencing, 10%
Broad Grade Descriptors

  1. Distinction Standard All annotations are thoughtful, complete, and well critiqued. The reader has a clear understanding of the strength and weaknesses of the paper and how they relate to the project. References clearly relate to your topic and provide mainly original scientific references. Annotation reference is complete and linked The interpretation and critique of the paper is clear, providing the reader with an insight without a need to refer to the paper itself. The language is clear and expressive. All parts (structured sentence or dot points) provide the reader with a clear understanding of the main points of the paper.
  2. Pass Standard. This would be characterised by such aspects as: annotations are generally well written but some are lacking in completeness, thought, and /or critique. The references cover the topic but the relationship to the topic is not always clear. There is adequate use of original, scientific research. Annotation reference is present. The analysis of the paper is present but not always clear and requires the reader to refer to the article itself to understand the analysis. Language generally provides the reader with an understanding of the paper. Uses of annotations are not always clear.
  3. Fail Standard. All annotations are lacking in completeness, thought, and/or critique. The reader is not left with any idea of the relative strengths or weaknesses of the paper or how it is useful to the project. Few, if any, references are related to the topic. There is inadequate primary/original references or scientifically supported literature. Annotation reference is not present or grossly incorrect. Interpretation, thought and analysis of the paper is unclear. Summary is unclear and confusing throughout.

Wiki Resource



Marking Criteria
  1. Clarity – Use of clear language and explanations with minimal errors, 10%
  2. Flow – Appropriate structure and flow of concepts and arguments, 10%
  3. Presentation – Use of text, images and other media, 10%
  4. Relevance – Coverage of the content explicitly related to the content area, 25%
  5. Synthesis and application – Conclusions and recommendations made based on the provided evidence. Insights and applications into the evidence offered, 35%
  6. Referencing – referencing used throughout the resource, 10%

Broad Grade Descriptors

  1. Distinction Standard This would be earned through an outstanding representation of the resource for the prescribed chronic disease and exercise. Succinct and precise conclusions and recommendations made based on the strong evidence provided. Critical analysis is obvious and not all information is taken as being correct. Insights into the problems and gaps in the literature are appropriate and alternative views acknowledged. The resource developed will be clear and easy to follow, well referenced with clear links to further information for those interested. The resource is aesthetically appealing. Coverage will be in depth without redundancy. Few or no grammatical errors exist.
  2. Pass Standard. This would be characterised by such aspects as: general coverage of the literature with some redundancy, conclusions and recommendations are generally good but may lack some insight and application to the real world. There are few mechanical errors and the content is generally clear with appropriate use of other media.
  3. Fail Standard. The resource would have little evidence with no critical appraisal. Conclusions or recommendations are unclear and made from few or inappropriate evidence. The resource is unclear and convoluted with many mechanical errors.



Reflection Activity


Marking Criteria
  1. Clarity – Use of clear language and explanations with minimal errors, 20%
  2. Relevance – the content is closely linked to the reflection questions and learning outcomes, 25%
  3. Analysis – analyses how the experience contributed to student understanding of self, others, and/or course concepts, 25%
  4. Interconnections –demonstrates connections between the experience and material from other courses; past experience; and/or personal goals, 30%
Broad Grade Descriptors
  1. Distinction Standard This would be earned through an outstanding representation of the learning experience being reflected upon and is relevant and meaningful to student and course learning goals. The reflection moves beyond simple description of the experience to an analysis of how the experience contributed to student understanding of self, others, and/or course concepts. The reflection demonstrates connections between the experience and material from other courses; past experience; and/or personal goals. The written work would be correctly referenced and grammatically sound. The language is clear and expressive and the explanation of concepts is clear to the uninformed reader.
  2. Pass Standard. This would be characterised by such aspects as: attempts to demonstrate relevance, but the relevance is not always clear to the reader, a number of lapses in clarity and accuracy, attempts at applying the learning experience to understanding of self, others, and/or course concepts but lacks depth of analysis.
  3. Fail Standard. This could have a reflection that does not move beyond description of the learning experience(s). Most of the reflection is irrelevant to student and/or purposes of the activity/reflection questions. No attempt to demonstrate connections to previous learning, external literature or experience are made. Language is unclear and confusing throughout. Concepts are either not discussed or are presented inaccurately.

Adapted from:Steven Jones, Coordinator, Office of Service Learning, IUPUI. http://ctl.iupui.edu/common/uploads/library/CSL/CSL529447.doc Accessed 5:15pm 10/10/2010.