| riteria | Description | High Distinction (80-100%) | Distinction (70-79%) | Credit (60-69%) | Pass (50-59%) | Fail (0-49%) |
| Criterion 1 Weighting 40% | Ability to discuss and critically evaluate the use of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories |
Demonstrated a critical analysis by presenting concise, coherent and logical arguments that revealed thorough and insightful synthesis of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories. Use of a wide range of references to support your arguments. (3- 5 references) |
Demonstrated a critical analysis by presenting concise, coherent, and logical arguments that revealed thorough synthesis of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories. Use of a range of references to support your arguments.(2-3 References.) |
Demonstrated a critical analysis by presenting logical arguments that revealed sound synthesis of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories. Use of references to support your arguments.(1-2 References) |
Presented some logical arguments that revealed some synthesis of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories. Use of some references to support your arguments. (1 reference) |
Limited synthesis of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories. Limited/no use of references to support your arguments. |
| Criterion 2 Weighting 40% | Ability to identify and clearly articulate gaps in the evaluation, using supporting literature |
Explicitly identified the gaps in the evaluation of your chosen article and justified recommendations to fill these gaps, drawing from an extensive range of supporting literature (5-6 References) |
Explicitly identified the gaps in the evaluation of your chosen article and justified recommendations to fill these gaps, drawing from a range of supporting literature (4-5 References) |
Identified the gaps in the evaluation of your chosen article and justified recommendations to fill these gaps, drawing from a range of supporting literature (2-3 References) |
Identified the gaps in the evaluation of your chosen article and justified recommendations to fill these gaps, drawing from a limited range of supporting literature (1-2 References) |
Limited demonstration of identifying gaps in the evaluation |
| Criterion 3 Weighting 20% | Ability to communicate effectively with appropriate referencing (written and/or verbal delivery) |
Consistent, coherent, concise and cohesive expression Appropriate vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, paragraphs, syntax, spelling Does not exceed word count Consistent, appropriate referencing, using UTAS Harvard or Vancouver style |
Predominantly coherent, concise and cohesive expression Largely appropriate vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, paragraphs, syntax, spelling Exceeded word count/time limit by no more than 20% Predominantly appropriate referencing using UTAS Harvard or Vancouver style |
Generally coherent, concise and cohesive expression Largely appropriate vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, paragraphs, syntax, spelling Exceeded word count/time limit by no more than 20% Generally appropriate referencing using UTAS Harvard or Vancouver style |
Inappropriate vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, paragraphs, syntax, spelling Inappropriate or inadequate referencing Exceeded word count/time limit by more than |