Skip to main content
iRubric: Final assignment (Honnours) rubric

iRubric: Final assignment (Honnours) rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Final assignment (Honnours) 
Programme design Grading Rubric (Honnours)
This rubric is for grading student's written final assignments.
Rubric Code: CXX75C3
By Cornelia
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Social Sciences  
Type: Assignment  
Grade Levels: Graduate

Powered by iRubric Criterion
  Exceptional

5 pts

Good

4 pts

Fair

3 pts

Poor

2 pts

Substandard

1 pts

None

0 pts

Formatting:
5 pts

Cover page, index, introduction, summary, page numbers
Exceptional

- Includes a cover page, index, introduction, summary and page numbers.
- All of the above are done correctly.
Good

- Includes a cover page, index, introduction or summary and page numbers.
- All of the above are done correctly.
Fair

- Includes most of the following: a cover page, index, introduction or summary and page numbers.
- Most of the above are done correctly.
Poor

- Includes a few of the following: a cover page, index, introduction or summary and page numbers.
- Most of the above are done incorrectly.
Substandard

- Many of the components are missing.
- Most of the components are done incorrectly.
None

- None of the components are provided.
- All of the components are done incorrectly.
Literature review:
15 pts

Population
Exceptional

- Exceptional and concise sintese of the literature on the targeted population.
- Relevant and abundant references were used in the review.
- Exceptional good link between components of the review.
- Extremely well-written.
Good

- Good and concise sintese of the literature on the targeted population.
- Relevant references were used in the review.
- Good link between components of the review.
- Well-written.
Fair

- Fair sintese of the literature on the targeted population.
- Some relevant references were used in the review.
- Fair link between components of the review.
Poor

- Poor sintese of the literature on the targeted population.
- Few relevant references were used in the review.
- Poor link between components of the review.
Substandard

- The sintese of the literature on the targeted population is substandard.
- Little to non relevant references were used in the review.
- No link between components of the review.
None

- No literature review is included on the population.
Literature review:
15 pts

Leadership development
Exceptional

- Exceptional and concise sintese of the literature on leadership development.
- Relevant and abundant references were used in the review.
- Exceptional good link between components of the review.
- Extremely well-written.
Good

- Good and concise sintese of the literature on leadership development.
- Relevant references were used in the review.
- Good link between components of the review.
- Well-written.
Fair

- Fair sintese of the literature on leadership development.
- Some relevant references were used in the review.
- Fair link between components of the review.
Poor

- Poor sintese of the literature on leadership development.
- Few relevant references were used in the review.
- Poor link between components of the review.
Substandard

- The sintese of the literature on leadership development is substandard.
- Little to non relevant references were used in the review.
- No link between components of the review.
None

- No literature review is included on leadership development.
Literature review:
10 pts

Writing, comprehension and overall impression.
Exceptional

- The literature review is the correct length, between 3 and 4 pages.
- There is a exceptional good link between leadership development, children and the role of recreation programmes.
- The writing is extremely clear, concise and logical.
- Exceptional literature review as a complete concept.
Good

- The literature review is almost the correct length, between 3 and 4 pages.
- There is a good link between leadership development, children and the role of recreation programmes.
- The writing is clear, concise and logical.
- Good literature review as a complete concept.
Fair

- The literature review is a little longer or shorter that the recommended length, between 3 and 4 pages.
- There is a link between leadership development, children and the role of recreation programmes.
- The writing is mostly clear, concise and logical.
- Fair literature review as a complete concept.
Poor

- The literature review is a lot longer or shorter that the recommended length, between 3 and 4 pages.
- There is a poor to no link between leadership development, children and the role of recreation programmes.
- The writing is not clear, concise or logical.
- Poor literature review as a complete concept.
Substandard

- The literature review is not the correct lenght
- There is a no link between leadership development, children and the role of recreation programmes.
- The writing is not clear, concise or logical and below standard.
- Literature review as a complete concept is substandard.
None

- No literature review is included.
Client description:
5 pts

Description of the client
Exceptional

-The client is named and described in exceptional detail.
- All the information given in the case study is included as well as other extra information that will be needed to design a programme.
Good

- The client is named and described in detail.
- All the information given in the case study is included as well as some additional information.
Fair

- The client is named and described in some detail. - - Most of the information given in the case study is included.
Poor

- The client is named but no further detail is described.
- Some of the information given in the case study is included.
Substandard

- The client is named.
- Little to non description of the client is included.
None

- The client is not named or described at all.
Outcomes:
5 pts

Outcomes for the programme
Exceptional

- Outcomes provided are exceptionally linked to the relevant literature.
- Outcomes provided are clearly composed from the client profiles.
- Outcomes are practically viable and realistic.
- Number of outcomes are fully inline the timeframe of programme (4 days) and number of participants.
Good

- Outcomes provided are well linked to the relevant literature.
- Outcomes provided are composed from the client profiles.
- Outcomes are practically viable and realistic.
- Number of outcomes are inline the timeframe of programme (4 days) and number of participants.
Fair

- Outcomes provided are fairly linked to the relevant literature.
- Outcomes provided are mostly composed from the client profiles.
- Outcomes are mostly practically viable and realistic.
- Number of outcomes are somewhat inline with the timeframe of the programme (4 days) and number of participants.
Poor

- Outcomes provided are poorly linked to the relevant literature.
- Outcomes provided are not of poorly composed from the client profiles.
- Outcomes are mostly not practically viable or realistic.
- Number of outcomes are not inline with the timeframe of the programme (4 days) and the number of participants.
Substandard

- Outcomes provided are not linked to the relevant literature.
- Outcomes provided are not composed from the client profiles.
- Outcomes are not practically viable or realistic.
- Number of outcomes are not inline with the timeframe of the programme (4 days) and the number of participants.
None

- No outcomes for the programme are included.
Programme:
30 pts

Programme for the client
Exceptional

- A detailed programme is included.
- Clear indication of a time frame and what will be done is included.
- The programme address all and more the named outcomes.
- The programme is realistic and practically viable.
Good

- A programme is included. - Good indication of a time frame and what will be done.
- The programme address all the named outcomes.
- The programme is realistic and practically viable for the most part.
Fair

- A programme is included.
- Fair indication of a time frame and what will be done.
- The programme address some of the named outcomes.
- The programme is relatively realistic and practically viable.
Poor

- A programme is included but unclear.
- Poor indication of a time frame and what will be done.
- The programme address little of the named outcomes.
- The programme is not realistic and practically viable.
Substandard

- A programme is unclear.
- Time frame is not included.
- The programme do not address the named outcomes.
- The programme is not realistic and practically viable.
None

No programme is included.
Activity analysis:
15 pts

Choice and motivation
Exceptional

- Enough activities are included for the programme.
- Backup activities are included.
- All the activities are suitable for the targeted client.
- All activities are exceptionally motivated for inclusion.
Good

- Enough activities are included for the programme.
- A few backup activities are included.
- All the activities are suitable for the targeted client.
- All activities are motivated for inclusion.
Fair

- Activities are included for the programme.
- Most of the activities are suitable for the targeted client.
- Most of the activities are motivated for inclusion.
Poor

- Some of the activities are included for the programme.
- A few of the activities are suitable for the targeted client.
- Most of the activities are not motivated for inclusion.
Substandard

- Most of the activities are not included.
- The activities are not suitable for the targeted client.
- Activities are not motivated for inclusion.
None

- Activities are not included.
Activity analysis:
5 pts

Description
Exceptional

- All activities are thoroughly explained and described in precise detail.
Good

- All activities are explained and described in detail.
Fair

- Most of the activities are explained and described in detail. / Activities are not described in proper detail.
Poor

- Most of the activities are poorly explained and described.
Substandard

- Most of the activities are not explained and described.
None

- No description of activities are included.
Facilitation:
25 pts

Facilitation techniques that will be used in the programme
Exceptional

- Enough time are scheduled in the programme for facilitation.
- All the facilitation techniques are suitable for the targeted client.
- It is clear from the facilitation how the outcomes will be met.
- All facilitation techniques are exceptionally motivated for inclusion.
Good

- Enough time are scheduled in the programme for facilitation.
- All the facilitation techniques are suitable for the targeted client, with minor adjustments.
- It is clear from the facilitation (most) how the outcomes will be met.
- All facilitation techniques are motivated for inclusion.
Fair

- Time are scheduled in the programme for facilitation but not enough in for every session.
- Most of the facilitation techniques are suitable for the targeted client.
- It is clear from the facilitation how some of the outcomes will be met.
- Most of the facilitation techniques are motivated for inclusion.
Poor

- Very little time is scheduled in the programme for facilitation.
- Some of the facilitation techniques are suitable for the targeted client.
- It is not clear from the facilitation how the outcomes will be met.
- Most of the facilitation techniques are not motivated for inclusion.
Substandard

- Very little to no time is scheduled in the programme for facilitation.
- Most of the facilitation techniques are not suitable for the targeted client.
- It is not clear from the facilitation how the outcomes will be met.
- Facilitation techniques are not motivated for inclusion.
None

- Facilitation is not included in the programme.
Facilitation:
5 pts

Description
Exceptional

- All facilitation techniques are thoroughly explained and described in precise detail.
Good

- All facilitation techniques are explained and described in detail.
Fair

- Most of the facilitation techniques are explained and described in detail. / Facilitation techniques are not described in proper detail.
Poor

- Most of the facilitation techniques are poorly explained and described.
Substandard

- Most of the facilitation techniques are not explained and described.
None

- No description of facilitation techniques are included.
Technical care
5 pts

Spelling, grammar and punctuation
Exceptional

- Assignment contains less than 1/2 errors in grammar, spelling or punctuation.
- Language is clear and precise.
- The overall impression is extremely good.
Good

- Assignment contains very few errors in grammar, spelling or punctuation.
- Language is clear and precise.
- The overall impression is good.
Fair

- Assignment contains a few errors in grammar, spelling or punctuation.
- Language is mostly clear and precise
- The overall impression is fair.
Poor

- Assignment contains some errors in grammar, spelling or punctuation.
- Language is not clear and precise
- The overall impression is poor.
Substandard

- Assignment contains numerous errors in grammar, spelling or punctuation.
- The overall impression is substandard.
None

- No assignment handed in.
References
10 pts

In texts, list, format
Exceptional

- All references that are cited in text are also cited in reference list.
- All the references cited in list are also cited in the text.
- All references (list and text) are completely correct and according to the NWU guidelines.
Good

- All references that are cited in text are also cited in reference list.
- All the references cited in list are also cited in the text.
- All references (list and text) are mostly correct and according to the NWU guidelines.
Fair

- Most of the references that are cited in text are also cited in reference list.
- Most of the references cited in list are also cited in the text.
- All references (list and text) are mostly correct and according to the NWU guidelines.
Poor

- Some of the references that are cited in text are also cited in reference list.
- Some of the references cited in list are also cited in the text. AND/ OR
- Various of the references (list and text) are incorrect and not according to the NWU guidelines.
Substandard

- Most of the references that are cited in text are also cited in reference list.
- Most of the references cited in list are also cited in the text. AND/ OR
- Most of the references (list and text) are incorrect and not according to the NWU guidelines.
None

- No references are included.



Keywords:
  • Writing



Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.


Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n98