ASSESSMENT 1- PORTFOLIO MARKING RUBRIC & FEEDBACK
STUDENT DETAILS (student to complete):
Name:
SID:
First marker:
EXCELLENT
MARKING DOMAIN
(100-85%)
 All weekly tasks in the unit outline
COMPLETION OF TASKS were attempted and completed in a
timely manner
(5 MARKS)  All components outlined in the unit
outline were included in portfolio
 Language used always supported
the self-reflective learning process
 The language used always
GRAMMAR & LANGUAGE demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
(5 MARKS) the weekly tasks
 All weekly tasks were written
without any grammatical or spelling
errors
 There were frequent demonstrations
of exemplary levels of critical self-
reflection throughout the portfolio
 There was clear and consistent
evidence of the use of a reflective
guideline, i.e. CHESEMELT or
RESEARCHMELT throughout the
portfolio
 The level of reflection was always
CRITICAL SELF-
appropriate for the year of study
REFLECTION AND LOGIC engaged. The reflective process, as a
vehicle for change, was always
(15 MARKS) apparent throughout the portfolio
 The student clearly demonstrated an
appreciation of the nuances relating
to research literacy and clearly
embedded their newly discovered
understanding within their written
reflections
 The student was always successful in
putting forward an argument that
was logical and well-reasoned
VERY GOOD
(84-75%)
 Most weekly tasks in the unit outline
were attempted and completed in a
timely manner
 Most of the components outlined in
the unit outline were included in
portfolio
 Language used almost always
supported the self-reflective
learning process
 The language used almost always
demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
the weekly tasks
 Most weekly tasks were written
without any grammatical or spelling
errors
 There were demonstrations of
exemplary levels of critical self-
reflection in most parts of the
portfolio
 There was clear and consistent
evidence of the use of a reflective
guideline, i.e. CHESEMELT or
RESEARCHMELT in most parts of the
portfolio
 The level of reflection was mostly
appropriate for the year of study
engaged. The reflective process, as a
vehicle for change, was mostly
apparent throughout the portfolio
 The student mostly demonstrated
an appreciation of the nuances
relating to research literacy and
mostly embedded their newly
discovered understanding within
their written reflections
 The student was mostly successful in
putting forward an argument that
was logical and well-reasoned
Due date:
Submission for unit/course:
Second marker:
ABOVE AVERAGE
(74-65%)
 A slight majority of tasks were
attempted and completed in a timely
manner
 A majority of the components outlined
in the unit outline were included in
portfolio
 In a majority of instances, the language
used supported the self-reflective
learning process
 In a majority of instances, the language
used always demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to the
weekly tasks
 A slight majority of weekly tasks were
written without any grammatical or
spelling errors
 There were demonstrations of
exemplary levels of critical self-
reflection throughout a majority
portfolio
 There was clear and consistent evidence
of the use of a reflective guideline, i.e.
CHESEMELT or RESEARCHMELT in a
majority of parts of the portfolio
 The level of reflection was in the
majority of instances appropriate for
the year of study engaged. The
reflective process, as a vehicle for
change, was mostly apparent
throughout the portfolio
 The student somewhat demonstrated
an appreciation of the nuances relating
to research literacy and in the majority
of cases embedded their newly
discovered understanding within their
written reflections
 The student was successful in putting
forward an argument that was logical
and well-reasoned in a majority of
cases
PASS
(64-50%)
 Only some of tasks were attempted
and completed in a timely manner
 Only some of the components
outlined in the unit outline were
included in portfolio
 The language used sometimes
supported the self-reflective
learning process
 The language used sometimes
demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
the weekly tasks
 Only some of the weekly tasks were
written without any grammatical or
spelling errors
 There were demonstrations of
exemplary levels of critical self-
reflection in some parts of the
portfolio
 There was adequately clear and
consistent evidence of the use of a
reflective guideline, i.e. CHESEMELT
or RESEARCHMELT in some parts of
the portfolio
 The level of reflection was
occasionally appropriate for the year
of study engaged. The reflective
process, as a vehicle for change, was
occasionally apparent throughout
the portfolio
 The student somewhat
demonstrated an appreciation of
the nuances relating to research
literacy and on occasion embedded
their newly discovered
understanding within their written
reflections
 The student was occasionally
successful in putting forward an
argument that was logical and well-
reasoned
FINAL MARK /50
BORDERLINE FAIL
(49-45%) (< 45%)
 Most of the tasks were either
 Only a few of tasks were attempted
incomplete, not attempted or not
and completed in a timely manner
addressed in a timely manner
 Only a few of the components
 Almost none of the components
outlined in the unit outline were
outlined in the unit outline were
included in portfolio
included in portfolio
 Language used almost never
 Rarely did the language support the
supported the self-reflective
self-reflective learning process
learning process
 Rarely did the language used
 The language used almost never
demonstrate candour and
demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
intellectual honesty with respect to
the weekly tasks
the weekly tasks
 Only a few of the weekly tasks were
 All of the weekly tasks included
written without any grammatical or
significant grammatical or spelling
spelling errors
errors
 There were infrequent
 There were not any demonstrations
demonstrations of exemplary levels
of exemplary levels of critical self-
of critical self-reflection in the
reflection in the portfolio
portfolio
 There was no clear and consistent
 There was somewhat clear and
evidence of the use of a reflective
consistent evidence of the use of a
guideline, i.e. CHESEMELT or
reflective guideline, i.e. CHESEMELT
RESEARCHMELT in any part of the
or RESEARCHMELT in only a few
portfolio
parts of the portfolio
 The level of reflection was not
 The level of reflection was rarely
appropriate for the year of study
appropriate for the year of study
engaged. The reflective process, as a
engaged. The reflective process, as a
vehicle for change, was not
vehicle for change, was infrequently
apparent throughout the portfolio
apparent throughout the portfolio
 The student clearly demonstrated a
 The student generally failed to
lack of understanding of the
demonstrate an appreciation of the
nuances relating to research literacy
nuances relating to research literacy,
and failed to embed their newly
but attempted to embed their
discovered understanding within
understanding within their written
their written reflections
reflections
 The student did not put forward an
 The student was seldom successful
argument that was logical and well-
in putting forward an argument that
reasoned
was logical and well-reasoned

 There were ample references, or
external resources, to support the
entire portfolio
 All references fully adhered to the  Most references fully adhered to the
REFERENCING & THE USE
prescribed style guide
OF ADDITIONAL
 All references were from well-
EXTERNAL REFERENCES respected journals and were
OR RESOURCES PubMed indexed
 The supporting material always
strengthened the points being made
(15 MARKS)
in the portfolio
 The supporting material was always  The supporting material was mostly
well referenced and followed the
prescribed style guide
 There were ample references, or
 There were ample references, or  There were ample references, or  There were very few references, or  There were not any references, or
external resources, to support the slight
external resources, to support most external resources, to support some external resources, to support the external resources that supported
majority of the portfolio
of the portfolio of the portfolio portfolio the portfolio
 The majority of references fully adhered
 Some of the references adhered to  Only a few references adhered to  None of the references adhered to
to the prescribed style guide
prescribed style guide the prescribed style guide the prescribed style guide the prescribed style guide
 The majority of references were from
 Most references were from well-  Only some references were from  Only a few references were from  None of the references were from
well-respected journals and were
respected journals and were well-respected journals and were well-respected journals and were well-respected journals or PubMed
PubMed indexed
PubMed indexed PubMed indexed PubMed indexed indexed
 The supporting material in the majority
 The supporting material mostly  The supporting material on occasion  The supporting material rarely  The supporting material failed to
of times strengthened the points being
strengthened the points being strengthened the points being made strengthened the points being made add much to the points being made
made in the portfolio
made in the portfolio in the portfolio in the portfolio in the portfolio
 In the majority of times, the supporting
 The supporting material was  The supporting material was rarely  The supporting material was not
material was in the majority of times
well referenced and followed the occasionally well referenced and well referenced and did not follow well referenced and did not follow
was well referenced and followed the
prescribed style guide followed the prescribed style guide the prescribed style guide the prescribed style guide
prescribed style guide

 Overall the portfolio was developed
to an exemplary level and was very
easy to navigate through and use
 The hyperlinks and other
GENERAL COMPOSITION multimedia elements (if used) were
& OVERALL
all functional and/or relevant to the
PRESENTATION topic at hand
 The learner has demonstrated a
(10 MARKS) commendable sense of ownership
with respect to the material
presented
 The portfolio always remained
within the stated word limit (+/-
10%)
 Overall the portfolio was developed
to an exemplary level and was
somewhat easy to navigate through
and use
 The hyperlinks and other
multimedia elements (if used) were
mostly functional and/or relevant to
the topic at hand
 The learner has demonstrated a
notable sense of ownership with
respect to the material presented
 The portfolio mostly remained
within the stated word limit (+/-
10%)
 Overall the portfolio was developed to
an above average level and was
somewhat easy to navigate through
and use
 The hyperlinks and other multimedia
elements (if used) were all functional
and/or relevant to the topic at hand in a
majority of instances
 The learner has demonstrated an above
average sense of ownership with
respect to the material presented
 In the majority of instances, the
portfolio always remained within the
stated word limit (+/-10%)
 Overall the portfolio was developed
 Overall the portfolio was developed
to an adequate level and was on  Overall the portfolio was very poorly
to a below average level and was
occasion easy to navigate through developed and was very difficult to
difficult to navigate through and use
and use navigate through and use
 The hyperlinks and other
 The hyperlinks and other
 The hyperlinks and other
multimedia elements (if used) were
multimedia elements (if used) were multimedia elements (if used) were
rarely functional and/or relevant to
occasionally functional and/or never functional and/or relevant to
the topic at hand
relevant to the topic at hand the topic at hand
 The learner has demonstrated a
 The learner has demonstrated a  The learner has demonstrated a very
below average sense of ownership
satisfactory sense of ownership with poor sense of ownership with
with respect to the material
respect to the material presented respect to the material presented
presented
 The portfolio on occasion remained  The portfolio failed to remain within
 The portfolio rarely remained within
within the stated word limit (+/- the stated word limit (+/-10%)
the stated word limit (+/-10%)
10%)

ADDITIONAL FOCUSED
FEEDBACK

Marker to complete

DOMAINS FIRST MARKER SECOND MARKER FINAL AGREED MARK

1. COMPLETION OF WEEKLY TASKS (5)
2. GRAMMAR & LANGUAGE (5)
3. CRITICAL SELF-REFLECTION AND LOGIC (15)
4. REFERENCING & THE USE OF ADDITIONAL EXTERNAL
REFERENCES OR RESOURCES (15)
5. GENERAL COMPOSITION & OVERALL PRESENTATION (10)
TOTAL ( /50)