iRubric: Assessment Criteria for Written Self Evaluation of CO302 rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Assessment Criteria for Written Self Evaluation of CO302

Assessment Criteria for Written Self Evaluation CO205

Written self evaluation of video role play

Rubric Code: M72CCA

By mleitz

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Social Sciences

Type: Assessment

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Component 20 %
	High Distinction 100-85% 0 pts	Distinction 84-75% 0 pts	Credit 74-65% 0 pts	Pass 64-50% 0 pts	Fail Below 50% 0 pts
Setting the Scene 3 %
Setting the scene 1 % Defines the Issue	High Distinction Succintly and clearly defines the issue in the role play within word limit, with no errors	Distinction Succinctly defines the issue in the role play within word limit, with limited errors	Credit Clearly defines the issue in the role play within word limit, with many errors	Pass Attempts to define the issue in the role play but with many errors and word limit problems.	Fail No attempt to define the issue in role play
Setting the scene 1 % Defines the approach taken	High Distinction Succinctly and clearly defines the approach taken in the role play within word limit, with no errors	Distinction Succinctly defines the approach taken in the role play within word limit, with limited errors.	Credit Clearly defines the approach taken in the role play within word limit, with many errors.	Pass Attempts to define the approach taken in the role play, but with many errors and word limit problems.	Fail No attempt to define the approach taken in the role play
Setting the scene 1 % Explains what stage the counselling is at, in relation to the approach taken	High Distinction Succinctly and clearly explains the stage the counselling process is at in relation to approach, within word limit, and with no errors.	Distinction Succinctly explains the stage the counselling proces is at in relation to approach, within word limit, with limited errors.	Credit Clearly explains the stage the counselling process is at in relation to approach, within word limit, but with many errors.	Pass Attempts to explain the stage the counselling process is at in relation to approach, but with many errors and word limit problems.	Fail No attempt to explain the stage the counselling process is at in relation to approach taken.
Justifying the Approach Taken 5 %
Justify the approach 2 % Explains why the particular approach was taken with the grieving client	High Distinction Succinctly and clearly explains why the approach was taken with this client, within word limit, and with no errors.	Distinction Succinctly explains why the approach was taken with this client within word limit, with limited errors.	Credit Clearly explains why the approach was taken with this client within word limit, with many errors.	Pass Attempts to explain why the approach was taken with this client, but with many errors and word limit problems.	Fail No attempts to explain why the approach was taken with this client.
Justify the approach 2 % Explains the relevance of the approach in relation to the grieving client's presenting issues.	High Distinction Succinctly and clearly explains the relevance of the approach taken in relation to the grieving client's presenting issues, within word limit, and with no errors.	Distinction Succinctly explains the relevance of the approach taken in relation to the grieving client's presenting issues, within word limit, with limited errors.	Credit Clearly explains the relevance of the approach taken in relation to the grieving client's presenting issues, within word limit, with many errors.	Pass Attempts to explain the relevance of the approach taken in relation to the grieving client's presenting issues, but with many errors and word limit problems.	Fail No attempts to explain the relevance of the approach taken in relation to the grieving client's presenting issues.
Justify the approach 1 % Offers appropriate literature sources to support the explanations made	High Distinction A comprehensive and well sourced list of references cited, and no errors in their presentation.	Distinction A good number of some well sourced references cited, with limited errors in thier presentation.	Credit A satisfactory number of some well sourced references cited, with many errors in thier presentation.	Pass Attempts to find some well sourced references are evident, but too few and many errors.	Fail No attempts evident of finding some well sourced references.
Critical review of the approach 10 %
Critical review of the approach 2 % Explains what worked and why	High Distinction Evidence of sound awareness of what was effective in role play, communicated concisely within word limit and with no errors.	Distinction Evidence of good awareness of what was effective in role play, communicated concisely within word limit and with limited errors.	Credit Evidence of satisfactory awareness of what was effective in role play, communicated clearly within word limit but with many errors.	Pass Evidence of some awareness of what was effective in role play, but communicated with many errors and word limit problems.	Fail No evidence of awareness of what was effective in role play.
Critical review of the approach 2 % Explains what didnt work and why	High Distinction Evidence of sound awareness of what was ineffective in role play, communicated concisely within word limit and with no errors.	Distinction Evidence of good awareness of what was ineffective in role play, communicated concisely within word limit and with limited errors.	Credit Evidence of satisfactory awareness of what was ineffective in role play, communicated clearly within word limit but with many errors.	Pass Evidence of some awareness of what was ineffective in role play, but communicated with many errors and word limit problems.	Fail No evidence of awareness of what was ineffective in role play.
Critical review of the approach 2 % Explains what could have been done to improve on the approach	High Distinction Evidence of sound awareness of how to improve on approach in role play, communicated concisely within word limit and with no errors.	Distinction Evidence of good awareness of how to improve on approach in role play, communicated concisely within word limit and with limited errors.	Credit Evidence of satisfactory awareness of how to improve on approach in role play, communicated clearly within word limit but with many errors.	Pass Evidence of some awareness of how to improve on approach in role play, but communicated with many errors and word limit problems.	Fail No evidence of awareness of how to improve on approach in role play.
Critical review of the approach 2 % Explains what you would want to do differently next time and why	High Distinction Evidence of sound awareness and explanation of what needs to be done differently next time, communicated concisely within word limit and with no errors.	Distinction Evidence of good awareness and explanation of what needs to be done differently next time, communicated concisely within word limit and with limited errors.	Credit Evidence of satisfactory awareness and explanation of what needs to be done differently next time, communicated clearly within word limit but with many errors.	Pass Evidence of some awareness and explanation of what needs to be done differently next time, but communicated with many errors and word limit problems.	Fail No evidence of awareness and explanation of what needs to be done differently next time.
Critical review of the approach 2 % Explains what you would want to do the same but enhance further next time and why	High Distinction Evidence of sound awareness of what is good in approach but could be enhanced for next time, communicated concisely within word limit and with no errors.	Distinction Evidence of good awareness of what is good in approach but could be enhanced for next time, communicated concisely within word limit and with limited errors.	Credit Evidence of satisfactory awareness of what is good in approach but could be enhanced for next time, communicated clearly within word limit but with many errors.	Pass Evidence of some awareness of what is good in approach but could be enhanced for next time, communicated with many errors and word limit problems.	Fail No evidence of awareness of what is good in approach nor what could be enhanced for next time.
Formal aspects of writing 2 %
Formal aspects of writing 2 % Quality of writing style and accuracy of APA referencing	High Distinction Excellent structure, flow of argument, grammar, spelling, punctuation, academic prose, within word limit. APA referencing is accurate with no errors.	Distinction Good structure, flow of argument, grammar, spelling, punctuation, academic prose, within word limit. APA referencing has some errors.	Credit Satisfactory structure, flow of argument, grammar, spelling, punctuation, academic prose, within word limit. APA referencing has many errors.	Pass Attempts at structure, flow of argument, grammar, spelling, punctuation, academic prose, evident but with many errors and word limit problems, and many problems with APA referencing.	Fail No attempt to structure paper, argument does not flow, many errors with grammar, punctuation, spelling, academic prose, APA referencing, and word limit.

Subjects:

Types:

Assessment

Discuss this rubric