Literature Review

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) =