Mentoring in workplace- assignment

013106 – Mentoring in the workplace - Assessment 1 Rubric This task requires students to analyse their chosen context for designing a mentoring program (OR evaluating an existing mentoring program), critically link to and analyse relevant literature and their own mentoring/professional experience.

F P C D HD

Depth and breadth of analysis of context

No or shallow analysis of the context.

Limited analysis of the context, only flagging ideas discussed in class.

Analysis of the context includes factors discussed in class, and ideas developed through own research.

Insightful analysis of the context, demonstrating both deep knowledge and broad awareness.

The analysis is of a quality consistent with that generated by a professional or expert practitioner.

Relevance and criticality of analysis of literature

Literature selected is not relevant to the chosen context or sources are of low quality. Little or inadequate critical analysis of selected literature.

Literature is relevant and of sufficient quality, adhering to professional and scholarly standards. There is limited analysis of the literature, considering ideas flagged in class.

The literature selected includes relevant and well-selected sources. The analysis is well written, considered and organised.

The literature selection is considered, discerning and includes a good selection of sources. The analysis is insightful, detailed and suggests a developed knowledge of the material.

The quality of the literature selected, and analysis is consistent with those generated by a professional or expert practitioner.

Relevance and depth of insights on student’s mentoring/professional experience

There is no or few relevant connections made with the student’s mentoring/professional experience and the implications for mentoring design/evaluation in the current context.

There are some relevant connections made with the student’s mentoring/professional experience. Student considers some of the implications for mentoring design/evaluation in the current context.

There are detailed and relevant connections made with the student’s mentoring/professional experience. The student considers the implications for mentoring design/evaluation in the current context.

There are insightful connections made with the student’s mentoring/professional experience. The student has clearly considered the implications for mentoring design/evaluation in the current context and includes recommendations.

The student has demonstrated critical insight into their mentoring/professional experience that is evidence of a high degree of understanding and reflection.

Clarity of expression and logical structuring of argument

Not well-written. Contains many spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. The paper does not present ideas in a coherent way or may lack logic and the line of argument may be unclear. Poor or incomplete structure and organisation. Sources may or may not be used, may be incorrectly cited or not referenced.

There are some spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors suggesting limited proofing or editing. The paper presents ideas in a coherent way but there are some issues with writing, presentation, and structure. Sources are used but may be incorrectly or inconsistently formatted or cited.

The paper is well written with no, or very few, errors of grammar, spelling, and punctuation. There is a clear line of argument and ideas are presented logically. Sources are used correctly.

The paper is of a high standard with no errors in presentation. The writing is clear and articulate. The argument is easy to follow and clearly signposted throughout. Sources are used correctly, and academic/professional conventions are adhered to throughout.

The paper is of a consistently high standard, clearly evidencing significant time spent writing and editing. The paper may be considered fit for publication.

UTS