|
Written Communication Assessment Rubric
(from PHPH-679 Public Health Practicum Experience v2009.07.10)
|
|
Topic
(weight)
|
Assessment of Topic
(Note: Assigned score within a range is subjective assessment of degree criterion is met.)
|
Topic Score
|
Wt.
|
Topic Points
(=Topic Score x Wt.)
|
|
|
Exceptional
(range 9.0-10.0)
|
Acceptable
(range 8.0-8.9)
|
Marginal
(range 7.0-7.9)
|
Unacceptable
(range 0-6.9)
|
|
|
|
|
Organiza-tion
&
Style
(1.5)
|
Information is presented in a logical, interesting way, which is easy to follow.
Purpose is clearly stated and explains the structure of work.
|
Information is presented in a logical manner, which is easily followed.
Purpose of work is clearly stated assists the structure of work.
|
Work is hard to follow as there is very little continuity.
Purpose of work is stated, but does not assist in following work.
|
Sequence of information is difficult to follow. No apparent structure or continuity.
Purpose of work is not clearly stated.
|
|
x1.5
|
=
|
|
Content
&
Know-ledge
(5.0)
|
Relates the goals of the learning Agreement to the learning experience
Demonstration of full knowledge of the core and cross-cutting public health competencies with explanations and elaboration
|
Relates most of the goals of the learning Agreement to the learning experience.
Demonstration of full knowledge of the core competencies of public health with explanations and elaboration
|
Relates the goals of the learning Agreement to the learning experience.
Fails to demonstrate knowledge of the public health competencies
|
Fails to relate the goals of the learning Agreement to the learning experience.
Fails to demonstrate knowledge of the public health competencies
|
|
x5.0
|
=
|
|
Format
&
Aesthe-tics
(1.5)
|
Format is consistent throughout including heading styles and captions.
Figures and tables are presented logically and reinforce the text.
|
Format is generally consistent including heading styles and captions.
Figures and tables are neatly done and provide intended information.
|
Mostly consistent format.
Figures and tables are legible, but not convincing.
|
Work is illegible, format changes throughout, e.g. font type, size, etc.
Figures and tables are sloppy and fail to provide intended information.
|
|
x1.5
|
=
|
|
Spelling
&
Gram-mar
(1.0)
|
Negligible misspellings and/or grammatical errors.
|
Minor misspellings and/or grammatical errors.
|
Several spelling and grammatical errors.
|
Numerous spelling and grammatical errors.
|
|
x1.0
|
=
|
|
Refer-ences
(1.0)
|
Reference section complete and comprehensive.
Consistent and logical referencing system.
All appropriate persons and organizations appropriate acknowledged
|
Minor inadequacies in references.
Consistent referencing system.
Some organizations or persons not acknowledged
|
Inadequate list of references or references in text.
Inconsistent or illogical referencing system.
Some organizations or persons not acknowledged
|
No acknowledgements given
No referencing system used.
|
|
x1.0
|
=
|
|
Gross points for evaluation component (sum of Topic Points in rightmost column; maximum of 100) ∑
|
|
|
Penalty for tardiness (mandatory 10% of gross points) (if any) -
|
|
|
Points for evaluation component to use in student evaluation rubric (gross points minus penalty) =
|
|
Rolly
MediaAdvocacyPaperRubric.docx
0
