Learning Outcomes
|
Evidence
|
HD
(21.5-25)
|
D
(18.5-21)
|
C
(15.5-18)
|
P
(12.5-15)
|
N
(0-12)
|
Grade
Score range /25
Score
|
1. Critically analyse the theoretical, legal, ethical and policy frameworks for inter professional mental health practice including evidence-based interventions for mental health and well-being. |
Response demonstrates a critical analysis of theoretical, legal, policy and ethical frameworks for inter-professional mental health practice and evidence-based interventions . |
Excellent critical analysis of theoretical, legal, policy and ethical frameworks for mental health practice and evidence-based interventions for mental health and well-being. |
Very good critical analysis of theoretical, legal, policy and ethical frameworks for mental health practice and evidence-based interventions for mental health and well-being. |
Good critical analysis of theoretical, legal, policy and ethical frameworks for mental health practice and evidence-based interventions for mental health and well-being. |
Limited but adequate critical analysis of theoretical, legal, policy and ethical frameworks for mental health practice and evidence-based interventions for mental health and well-being. |
Poor critical analysis of theoretical, legal, policy and ethical frameworks for mental health practice and evidence-based interventions for mental health and well-being. |
/25
|
5. Demonstrate mastery of and reflect critically on evidence-based practice for common mental health presentations to demonstrate understanding of the impact of health breakdown, the psycho-social dimensions of the illness experience, and the effects on significant others. |
Response demonstrates an advanced understanding of evidence-based practice for common mental health presentations and the impact of health breakdown, the psychosocial dimensions of the illness experience and how this effects significant others. |
Excellent understanding of evidence-based practice for common mental health presentations. Response shows an advanced understanding of the impact of health breakdown, the psychosocial dimensions of the illness experience and how this effects significant others. |
Very good understanding of evidence-based practice for common mental health presentations. Response shows an understanding of the impact of health breakdown, the psychosocial dimensions of the illness experience and how this effects significant others. |
Good understanding of evidence-based practice for common mental health presentations. Response shows some understanding of the impact of health breakdown, the psychosocial dimensions of the illness experience and how this effects significant others. |
Limited but adequate understanding of evidence-based practice for common mental health presentations. Response shows limited understanding of the impact of health breakdown, the psychosocial dimensions of the illness experience and how this effects significant others. |
Poor understanding of evidence-based practice for common mental health presentations. Response shows a poor understanding of the impact of health breakdown, the psychosocial dimensions of the illness experience and how this effects significant others. |
/25
|
Structure: introduction, conclusion, organisation, grammar, spelling, punctuation, word length |
Response demonstrates knowledge of essay structure and the importance of correct grammar, spelling and punctuation to present a well- structured and coherent argument within a set word limit. |
The ideas are arranged logically. Paragraphs have solid topic sentences. Transitions link paragraphs. Line of reasoning flows. Consistently accurate with spelling, grammar, use of punctuation. |
The ideas are arranged logically. All paragraphs have topic sentences. Transitions link paragraphs. Line of reasoning flows. Generally accurate with spelling, grammar, use of punctuation. |
The ideas are arranged logically. A few paragraphs without topic sentences. Transitions mostly link paragraphs. Line of reasoning, generally flows. Some inaccuracies with spelling, grammar, use of punctuation. |
Ideas are generally arranged logically, but sometimes fail to make sense. Many paragraphs without topic sentences. The reader has some idea of what the writer intends. Grammatical errors; and errors in writing are distracting to the reader. |
Ideas are not logically organised. Line of reasoning difficult to identify. Frequently, ideas fail to make sense. Many grammatical errors and conversational writing style leave the reader confused. |
/25
|
Referencing*: quality of sources, use of recommended resources, in-text referencing and reference list. |
Response is well researched and appropriately referenced using scholarly sources. All statements of fact are supported with an in-text reference. |
Highly accurate use of in-text referencing and consistently adheres to APA referencing style. Excellent selection of peer reviewed evidence to support assertions and arguments. Information is paraphrased. |
Generally accurate in-text referencing and very good adherence to APA referencing style. Very good selection of peer reviewed evidence to support assertions and arguments. Information is paraphrased. |
Generally accurate in-text referencing and evidence of adherence to APA referencing style. Good selection of peer reviewed evidence to support assertions and arguments. Information is mostly paraphrased. Quotes are used sparingly. |
Occasional inaccuracies with in-text referencing and deviation from APA referencing style. Adequate selection of peer reviewed evidence, some lack of judgment about quality. Some attempt to paraphrase. Some over reliance on direct quotes. |
Many inaccuracies with in-text referencing or in-text references are absent. Poor or inadequate selection of peer reviewed evidence. Over reliance on direct quotes. Frequent deviation from APA style. |
/25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sub-total
Mark
|
/100
/30
|