Assignment3 Campaign Critique for Youtube

MDIA5023: Assessment 1: Tutorial Facilitation Weight: 20%

Students: Date/Wk: Tutor: Class:

Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction Demonstrated understanding of key ideas of readings

Little or weak understanding of conceptual knowledge. Many errors in explaining the key concepts and theories.

A basic level of understanding of conceptual knowledge.Some errors in explaining the key concepts and theories.

An average understanding of conceptual knowledge. Few errors in explaining the key concepts and theories.

A good understanding of conceptual knowledge. Accurate and clear explanation of the key concepts and theories.

A nuanced and sophisticated understanding of conceptual knowledge. Accurate and clear explanation of the key concepts and theories.

Demonstrated ability to contextualise the reading in relation to broader academic debates

Little to no evidence of student’s attempt to engage with additional readings of academic references to make connections or form new meanings.

Some attempts to use no less than 5 academic references to make connections or form new meanings. Some misunderstandings or misuse of resources may be present.

Appropriate use of no less than 5 academic references to make connections, synthesize information and form new meanings.

Productive use of no less than 5 academic references to make connections, synthesize information and form new meanings.

Productive and critical engagement with no less than 5 academic references to contextualise the discussions within broader academic debates and construct new meanings.

Ability to facilitate discussions in class

Little to no engagement with the audience; little to no response to the audience.

Some engagement with the audience; weak response to the audience.

Some rapport with the audience; some attempt to address questions or comment on discussions.

Strong rapport with the audience; strong ability to address questions or comment on discussions.

Strong rapport with the audience; strong ability to address questions, comment on discussions, and identity opportunities to lead in the discussions.

Ability to communicate clearly, succintly and confidently

Poor presentation that was difficult to understand. Lack of confidence.

Some problems in clarity and structure. Delivered with some confidence.

Easy to follow presentation. Delivered with confidence within time limit.

Well organised presentation. Good posture and competent delivery within time limit.

Polished, well-structured and interesting presentation delivered with confidence and within time limit.

Comments: Grade:

MDIA5023: Environmental Scanning Report Weight: 30%

Students: Date/Wk: Tutor: Class:

Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction Demonstrated understanding and application of relevant conceptual knowledge

Poor/mistaken understanding of relevant conceptual knowledge.

Basic understanding of relevant conceptual knowledge.

An average grasp of relevant conceptual knowledge.

A sound grasp of relevant conceptual knowledge.

A nuanced and sophisticated grasp of relevant conceptual knowledge.

Appropriateness of research methods

Little research; inapproriately designed; little to no discussion of rationale of the research method choice.

Some appropriate research to support part of the report. Some coverage of the rationale of research method choice. Little to no understanding of the limits of the research design.

Clear coverage of appropriate and somewhat realiable research methods to support most part of the report; Modest attempts to provide rationale of the research method choice. Some understanding of the limits of the research design.

Carefully designed research which is both appropriate and reliable and supports the whole report. Well-articulated rationale. Solid understanding of the limits of the research design.

Compelling research methodology with strong rationale for the triangulation of research methods. Highly appropriate and reliable research to support the whole report. Sophisticated understanding of the limits of the research design.

Depth of analysis Little to no attempt to conduct evidence-based analysis.Of little value to the critique of and recommendations for public relations programs.

Some attempts to conduct evidence- based analysis by drawing on research outcomes; some key questions addressed; mainly descriptive, lacking depth to provide value to the critique of and recommendations for public relations programs.

Some synthesis of research outcomes with most key questions addressed in reasonable depth. Of some value to the critique of and recommendations for public relations programs.

Well-rounded synthesis of in-depth analysis based on research outcomes. Of good value to the critique and recommendations for public relations programs.

Well-rounded and insightful analysis based on research outcomes. Solid foundation for the critique and recommendations for public relations programs.

Writing style Incoherent and poorly written, highly problematic in referencing style, grammar and structure. Well outside word count.

Weak writing of a below-average quality with many to some errors in referencing style, grammar and structure. Close to or within word count.

An average writing style. Adequate structure. A moderate number of errors in referencing style and grammar. Within word count.

Above average, professional style of writing that is well structured and poses almost no problems for readers. Well- written with few errors in referencing style, grammar and structure. Clearly edited to fit within word count.

Exceptionally well-written characterised by a sophisticated, professional writing with little to no errors in referencing style, grammar and structure. Skillfully edited to fit within word count.

Comments: Grade:

MDIA5023: Assessment 3: Campaign Critique Weight: 50%

Students: Date/Wk: Tutor: Class:

Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction Effective research of the organisation, the situation and the pubic relations campaign

Little research; inapproriately designed; little to no discussion of rationale of the research method choice.

Some appropriate research to support part of the report. Some coverage of the rationale of research method choice. Little to no understanding of the limits of the research design.

Clear coverage of appropriate and somewhat reliable research methods to support most part of the report; Modest attempts to provide rationale of the research method choice. Some understanding of the limits of the research design.

Carefully designed research which is both appropriate and reliable and supports the whole report. Well-articulated rationale. Solid understanding of the limits of the research design.

Compelling research methodology with strong rationale for the triangulation of research methods. Highly appropriate and reliable research to support the whole report. Sophisticated understanding of the limits of the research design.

Demonstrated understanding of relevant concepts, theories, prcedures and tools

Little or weak understanding of and many errors in applying relevant concepts and tools.

A basic level of understanding of and some errors in applying relevant concepts and tools.

An average understanding of relevant concepts and tools with reasonably good application to the critique.

A good understanding of relevant concepts and tools with good application to the critique.

A nuanced and sophisticated understanding of relevant concepts and tools with a strong ability to apply these to the critique.

Demonstrated ability to offer thoughtful critique and recommendations

Little or weak critique and recommendations; not linked to research and of little value.

Some critique and recommendations;some links to the research and no less than 7 academic references; of some value.

Good critique and recommendations building on research and no less than 7 academic references, which provide some rationale.

Thoughtful and clearly articulated critique and recommendations building on research and no less than 7 academic references.

Convincing critique and recommendations building on research and no less than 7 academic references.

Writing style Incoherent and poorly written, highly problematic in referencing style, grammar and structure. Well outside word count.

Weak writing of a below-average quality with many to some errors in referencing style, grammar and structure. Close to or within word count.

An average writing style. Adequate structure. A moderate number of errors in referencing style and grammar. Within word count.

Above average, professional style of writing that is well structured and poses almost no problems for readers. Well-written with few errors in referencing style, grammar and structure. Clearly edited to fit within word count.

Exceptionally well-written characterised by a sophisticated, professional writing with little to no errors in referencing style, grammar and structure. Skillfully edited to fit within word count.

Comments: Grade: