This table describes indicative performance standards for each assessment criterion.
These standards inform the process of determining your mark, however your final mark will be the result of a holistic professional judgement made by the assessor.Midterm Assignment
| Student Name: | Student Number: | ||||||
| Assessment Task 4 – Group Project: Presentation (pre-peer assessment provisional mark shared by all members of the group) | Provisional mark: / 100% | ||||||
| Task-specific criteria |
High Distinction (HD) |
Distinction (DN) |
Credit (CR) |
Pass (PP) |
Fail (NN) |
||
| Your presentation included: | Your presentation included: | Your presentation included: | Your presentation included: | Your presentation included: | |||
| Redesign a basic visual system model(s) to communicate your perspective of a sustainability problem that arises from current systems. | Very clear visual models enabling an insightful and concise presentation of the complex interaction between elements, and functions of systems which contribute to or maintain a sustainability problem. | Clear visual models incorporating highly relevant elements, interactions and goals of systems as they relate to the sustainability problem. | Clear visual models incorporating many relevant elements, interactions and goals of existing systems. Some lack of clarity arising from less relevant elements or omission of significant elements and likely interactions. | Basic system model(s) presented, though usefulness in defining sustainability problem limited by oversimplification or inclusion of unnecessary detail. | No use of visual models to support the explanation of a complex sustainability problem. | ||
| Describe the model(s) with justification of elements and relationships and new boundaries and choice of system(s) incorporated, where relevant. | A compelling justification for the choice of boundaries and incorporated system(s) and why these are considered most appropriate for understanding of sustainability problem and proposed interventions. | Good justification of boundaries and choice of system(s) as they relate to either understanding the sustainability problem or proposed interventions. | Simple justification for boundaries and choice of system(s). | Simple justification for either boundaries or choice of system(s) only. | Choice of boundaries and system(s) implied though not stated. | ||
| Identify points of intervention, describing in detail at least one shallow and deep leverage point. | Compelling explanation of multiple interventions. Clear awareness of shallow and deep leverage. Supporting rationale or evidence to justify the proposed interventions and anticipated influence on the system(s). | A well developed and convincing overview of multiple leverage points, the nature of each and clear consideration of how at least one of these might change the dynamics of the system(s). | A description of at least one intervention. Why the group believes this is likely to be a shallow or deep leverage point and general reflection on how this might influence the system(s). | A description of at least one intervention and why the group believe this is likely to be a shallow or deep leverage point. | A potential intervention named or mentioned without further explanation. | ||
| Identify system(s) features which may resist proposed interventions, as well as potential unintended consequences. | Clear insight and reasoned critique of the nature of proposed interventions, sources of significant resistance to system(s) change and foreseeable unintended consequences. Consideration of approaches to anticipate unknown responses and adaptive learning. | Clear insight and explanation of more likely sources of resistance to change. Significance of potential unintended consequences contrasted with anticipated impact of interventions. | A description and some explanation of likely sources of resistance to change and potential unintended consequences of proposed interventions. | A description of a source of resistance to change and potential unintended consequence for one of the proposed interventions. | No clear description of potential resistance to proposed intervention(s). No obvious insight into the potential for unintended consequences. | ||
| Presentation and clarity of visual and written communication | Extremely well designed and engaging delivery. An integrated whole. Highly relevant material, coherent with consistent language. | Well designed presentation. Clear delivery with highly relevant and coherent content. | Reasonably well designed presentation, encompassing all of the required elements. | Adequately designed presentation, allowing for communication of basic concepts. Some significant omissions or lack of coherence between parts. | Poorly designed presentation, lacking sufficient detail or clarity to convey a reasonable understanding of the core concepts in systems thinking. | ||
| Assessment Task 4 – Group Project: Peer Assessment Modification of Your Mark
Each individual student’s mark will be based on the group mark for the project as presented but modified by peer assessment in the following way. Instructions for students (to be followed after the presentation of your project): Start with the total number of people officially in your group and subtract 1 (e.g., if there are 5 people officially in your group including yourself then: 5 – 1 = 4). Now multiply that number by 10 (e.g., 4 times 10 = 40). This is the number of peer points you can distribute to your team mates. Distribute these points to reflect the amount of work your team mates put into the group project. For example, if everyone worked equally hard then give them 10 points each. Alternatively (in the case of the example of giving points to four people), if two people worked harder than the other two then, you can give these two people 11 points and the other two people 9 points each. Importantly you must allocate a total of 40 points, no more or no less, if you are peer assessing 4 people. Calculating your mark: the points provided by all members of the group will be combined to generate a modification rate for each student. Your individual mark for the group project will be the group’s provisional mark for the presentation modified by your modification rate (see the box at the right for how this works). So your individual mark could go up, go down, or stay the same as compared with the group’s provisional mark for the project. Note: the process of peer assessment in and of itself cannot result in a student receiving more than full marks for the group project, nor can it result in a student failing the unit. |
The Modification Process
If your modification rate is: 1, then the provisional mark becomes your individual mark. greater than 1 but less than or equal to 1.2, then 4 marks are added to your provisional mark. greater than 1.2, then 8 marks are added to your provisional mark. less than 1 but greater than or equal to 0.8, then 4 marks are deducted from your provisional mark. less than 0.8, then 8 marks are deducted from your provisional mark. Your modification rate: |
||||||
| Assessment Task 4 – Group Project: Total Marks for individual student | Your Mark: / 100% | ||||||
| Comments: Overall grade: | |||||||