Assessment 2: Persuasive Media and Health Communication
| High Distinction 80% + |
Distinction 70 – 79% |
Credit 60 – 69% |
Pass 50 – 59% |
Below Pass 49% – |
|
| The Conversation Pitch (10 Marks) |
The pitch overview is highly relevant and uses high-level evidence to articulate the argument. The significance of the pitch and examples provided are of a very high standard. Highly persuasive techniques have been used to construct the pitch. The narrative is highly articulate and convincing. |
The pitch overview is clearly articulated with strong evidence and examples to support the argument, The significance of the pitch is clearly demonstrated. Strong persuasive techniques have been used to construct the pitch. The narrative is well articulated and convincing |
The pitch overview is well articulated with some good evidence and examples to support the argument. The significance of the pitch is discussed. Some persuasive techniques have been used to construct the pitch. The narrative is somewhat convincing but could be strengthened |
The pitch overview is somewhat identified but more evidence is needed in the narrative to support the argument. The significance needs further discussion. Persuasive techniques are lacking although some evidence has been provided in the pitch. The narrative needs to be strengthened in a more convincing way. |
The pitch overview is not well identified or articulated. The pitch is lacking in persuasion, evidence, significance, and articulation. |
| Personal Brand (5 Marks) |
Highly persuasive techniques have been used to construct the pitch. The narrative is highly articulate and convincing Grammar, spelling and language are of a very high standard; highly sophisticated language has been used. In-text and end-text referencing is 100% compliant with the ECU Referencing guide. |
Strong persuasive techniques have been used to construct the pitch. The narrative is well articulated and convincing Grammar, spelling and language are of a high standard; complex sentences and language have been used. In-text and end-text referencing is mostly compliant with the ECU Referencing guide. |
Some persuasive techniques have been used to construct the pitch. The narrative is somewhat convincing but could be strengthened Grammar, spelling and language are of a good standard with a clear flow. In-text and end-text referencing is sometimes compliant with the ECU Referencing guide. |
Grammar, spelling and language errors were present in the writing, which impact the quality of expression. It would be beneficial to proof read writing carefully before submitting. Referencing was attempted, with insufficient referencing or incorrect presentation. |
The pitch is lacking in persuasion, evidence and articulation. There are significant spelling, grammar and language errors that make the writing difficult to read and follow. ECU Learning Advisors can assist with improving spelling, grammar and language. Referencing was inadequate and/or incorrectly presented. |
| Verbal communicati on skills and presentation Spelling, grammar and language and referencing (10 marks) |
Presentation was succinct, with very well-developed verbal presentation skills. Presentation was to time and of very high quality. Overall Design of presentation and slides was sound, a good balance of information and visual appeal. Engaging colours and images were presented. Grammar, spelling and language are of a very high standard; highly sophisticated language has been used. In-text and end-text referencing is 100% compliant with the ECU Referencing guide. |
Presentation was succinct, with well developed verbal presentation skills. Presentation was to time and of very good quality. Overall Design of presentation and slides was sound, a good balance of information and visual appeal. Engaging colours and images were presented. Grammar, spelling and language are of a high standard; complex sentences and language have been used. In-text and end-text referencing is mostly compliant with the ECU Referencing guide. |
Presentation was succinct, with good verbal presentation skills. Presentation was to time and of good quality. Overall Design of presentation and slides was sound, a good balance of information and visual appeal. Engaging colours and images were presented. Grammar, spelling and language errors were present in the writing, which impact the quality of expression. It would be beneficial to proof read writing carefully before submitting. Referencing was attempted, with insufficient referencing or incorrect presentation. In-text and end-text referencing is sometimes compliant with the ECU Referencing guide. |
Presentation was concise, verbal communication and presentation skills require further practice. Presentation was not within time limit and was poor in quality. Overall design of slides lacking visual appeal, difficult to read, and disjointed. There are significant spelling, grammar and language errors that make the writing difficult to read and follow. ECU Learning Advisors can assist with improving spelling, grammar and language. Referencing was inadequate and/or incorrectly presented. |
Verbal presentation skills are lacking. Video lacks consistency and structure. Presentation was not within time limit. And of low quality. Overall design of presentation and slides lacking balance, cohesion, and visual appeal. There are significant spelling, grammar and language errors that make the writing difficult to read and follow. ECU Learning Advisors can assist with improving spelling, grammar and language. Referencing was inadequate and/or incorrectly presented. |
| Peer Review (5 marks) |
Peer review activities provide highly insightful, respectful and professional recommendations to the reviewer. The reviewer has displayed exemplary professional courtesy in this team activity |
Peer review activities provide insightful and supportive recommendations. Good professional courtesy is evidenced. |
Peer review activities provide some good. The reviewer could demonstrate a more professional narrative in their feedback. |
Peer review activities have been provided but they need more insight / evidence or professionalism displayed in their feedback. |
Peer review was not undertaken or does not meet the requirements for professional feedback. |