Marking Rubric Assignment 3
Criteria Level of achievement.
The examples below are indicative of
Unsatisfactory performance Level of achievement.
The examples below are indicative of
Marginal performance Level of achievement. The examples below are indicative of
Acceptable Performance Level of achievement. The examples below are indicative of
Proficient Performance
Literature review
5% 0-1
Major errors in the required criteria. 1.1-3
Issues not well defined and identified.
Relevance to public health poorly articulated.
Rationale for the research is unclear.
Explanation for qualitative methodology unclear.
Inadequate use of relevant literature.
Incorrect and/or inconsistent in-text referencing with typographical or spelling mistakes. 3.1-4
Issues well defined and identified.
Relevance to public health articulated.
Rationale for the research is clear as is the explanation for the qualitative methodology.
Use of relevant published literature.
Correct and consistent in-text referencing with few typographical or spelling mistakes.
4.1-5
Issues very well defined and clearly identified.
Significant relevance to public health that is well articulated.
Rationale for the research is exceptional, as is the explanation for the qualitative methodology.
Excellent use of relevant published literature.
Correct and consistent in-text referencing with very few typographical or spelling mistakes.
Research question and objectives
5% 0-1
Research question is unclear.
Objectives lack relevance and/or capacity to be measured.
Limited or no link between the literature, the research question and the objectives. 1.1-3
Research question lacks clarity.
Objectives are not always consistent with the research question and may be difficult to assess. Does not demonstrate a link between the literature and the research question, and the objectives. 3.1-4
Clear research question.
Objectives are relevant to the research question and able to be assessed. May demonstrate a link between the literature the research question and the objectives.
4.1-5
Exceptional research question, that links to the literature and
objectives that are consistent with the selected paradigm and able to be assessed in a way consistent with that paradigm.
Methodology
5% 0-1
Limited or no explanation and/or justification of the qualitative methodology. Limited or no use of relevant literature.
Inadequate acknowledgement of sources. 1.1-3
Unclear explanation and/or justification of the qualitative methodology. Insufficient use of relevant published literature.
Inadequate acknowledgement of sources.
3.1-4
Clear explanation and justification of the qualitative methodology with some considerations to the strengths and limitations of the methodology. Use of sufficient and relevant published literature.
Adequate acknowledgement of sources.
4.1-5
Clear and well-articulated link between the research question and methodology that demonstrates a superior understanding of the methodology.
Excellent use of relevant published literature
Correct and consistent in-text referencing with very few typographical or spelling mistakes.
Methods
10% 0-2
Methods not explained and/or very limited consideration given to:
Sampling
Rigor
Data collection
Data analysis
Reporting 2.1-5
Methods poorly explained and/or poor consideration given to
Sampling
Rigor
Data collection
Data analysis
Reporting
5.1-8
Methods explained and consideration given to
Sampling
Rigor
Data collection
Data analysis
Reporting
8.1-10
Demonstrated understanding of the methodological implications on the use of methods.
Methods well explained and consideration given to Sampling, Rigor
Data collection, Data analysis
Reporting
Method example (5%) 0-1
Method is not presented 1.1-3
Method is poorly explained or developed 3.1-4
Method is well demonstrated with consistency with the research goal 4.1-5
An excellent example of the method, which has been adapted to be consistent with epistemological position.
Ethical considerations
5% 0-1
Did not identify ethical issues.
Did not consider how to address ethical issues. 1.1-3
Did not identify all potential ethical issues with proposed methods and research issue. Did not address all ethical issues. 3.1-4
Identified potential ethical issues and indicated how they would be addressed. 4.1-5
Identify potential ethical issues and indicated how they would be addressed. Referred to relevant
NHMRC statements on qualitative research e.g. consent, covert observation, researching children or vulnerable populations.
Outcomes and significance
5% 0-1
Did not identify benefits and/or outcomes in relation to public health. 1.1-3
Unclear explanation of the benefits and outcomes of the study for public health. 3.1-4
Explained the potential outcomes of the study and the significance in relation to public health.
4.1-5
Well-articulated explanation of the benefits of the study that linked to the relevant stakeholders and reporting.
Consideration of the public health impact for individual, community and government.