Exercise and metabolic disease/assessment overview

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Assessment weighting[edit | edit source]

Activity Task Due Summative* Learning Outcomes Generic Skills
Activity 1 End week 4 (decontextualise) 15% 1, 3 (decontextualise) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (decontextualise)
Activity 2 Start week 9 (decontextualise) - 1, 3 (decontextualise) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 (decontextualise)
Activity 3 End week 12 (decontextualise) 30% 1 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 (decontextualise)
Reflection Activity End week 14 (decontextualise) 25% 1, 2, 3 (decontextualise) 1, 3, 6, 9, 10 (decontextualise)
Exam 30%

Assessment marking rubric[edit | edit source]

Activity 1[edit | edit source]

Criteria and Qualities Weight <50% 65-75% >85%
Clarity 25 Annotations are unclear and confusing throughout Language generally provides the reader with an understanding of the paper and the points raised in the annotations. Use of annotations are not always clear The language is clear and expressive. All parts (structured sentence or dot points) provide the reader with a clear understanding of the main points
Relevance 25 Few, if any, references are related to the topic. There is inadequate primary/original references or scientifically supported literature The references cover the topic but the relationship to your topic is not always clear. There is adequate use of original, scientific research Your references clearly relate to your topic and provide mainly original scientific references.
Analysis 50 All annotations are lacking in completeness, thought, and/or critique Annotations are generally well written but some are lacking in completeness, thought, and /or critique All annotations are thoughtful, complete, and well critiqued

Activity 2 and 3[edit | edit source]

Criteria and Qualities Weight <50% 65-75% >85%
Clarity 10 Intention of resource unclear. Convoluted expression. Numerous mechanical errors (punctuation, grammar, spelling, web-based errors) Few mechanical errors. Resource is ambiguous in few sections Resource is crisp, clear and succinct. No or very few mechanical errors
Clarity - Flow 10 No apparent direction to review, subtopics appear disjointed Structure has general direction but does not always flow to specific conclusions. Relevance to problem is sometimes clear Structure is intuitive and general ideas flow to specific conclusions. Relevance to the problem is always clear
Clarity - Presentation 10 Text is unclear with inappropriate use of text or images and other media. No or little aesthetic appeal Use of text, images and other media is predominately clear with some minor issues present. Aesthetics are mostly good Clear and appropriate use of text and images. Innovative and effective use of other media (e.g. use of multi-media and/or social media). Aesthetically appealing
Relevance 30 Few relevant studies included, inappropriate content and argument Not all major parts of literature are included with some redundancy. Sources are mostly cited where specific statements are made. Significance of subject is not always clear. Issues with critiquing of literature are present Coverage is in depth without redundancy. References are cited when specific statements are made. Significant to the subject is clear. Appropriate critique of literature thorough and clear. Any alternative views acknowledged
Synthesis and Application 35 There is no indication that information was synthesize to provide conclusions. No relevance to real world application Conclusions/recommendations are good but lack insight and not expressed in a succinct manner. Application to the real world are limited and not completely supported by the review Succinct and precise conclusions and recommendations made. Insights into the problem and gaps in the literature are appropriate. Conclusions and application to the real world are strongly supported in the review
Referencing 15 Referencing inconsistent or no referencing. Reader not provided with opportunities to follow up further information Few omissions or inconsistencies in references. Opportunities to provide further information are lacking Referencing complete and consistent. Reader provided with many links for further readings and information

Reflection Activity[edit | edit source]

Criteria and Qualities Weight <50% 65-75% >85%
Clarity 20 Language is unclear and confusing throughout. Concepts are either not discussed or are presented inaccurately A number of lapses in clarity and accuracy The language is clear and expressive. The reader can create a mental picture of the situation being described. Abstract concepts are explained accurately. Explanation of concepts makes sense to an uninformed reader
Relevance 25 Most of the reflection is irrelevant to student and/or purposes of the activity/reflection questions Student makes attempts to demonstrate relevance, but the relevance is not always clear to the reader The learning experience being reflected upon is relevant and meaningful to student and course learning goals
Analysis 25 Reflection does not move beyond description of the learning experience(s) Student makes attempts at applying the learning experience to understanding of self, others, and/or course concepts but lacks depth of analysis The reflection moves beyond simple description of the experience to an analysis of how the experience contributed to student understanding of self, others, and/or course concepts
Interconnections 30 No attempt to demonstrate connections to previous learning, external literature or experience There is little to no attempt to demonstrate connections between the learning experience and previous other personal and/or learning experiences The reflection demonstrates connections between the experience and material from other courses; past experience; and/or personal goals

References[edit | edit source]

Adapted from:Steven Jones, Coordinator, Office of Service Learning, IUPUI. http://ctl.iupui.edu/common/uploads/library/CSL/CSL529447.doc Accessed 5:15pm 10/10/2010.