Assessment Criteria | My Assignment Tutor

HSH702 AT2 Rubric Assessment CriteriaHigh DistinctionDistinctionCreditPassFailHealth organisation (5 marks) An appropriate organisation has been chosen to put forward this policy. The organisation’s aims and objectives, as well as its values/ideologies (if known), are presented. The reader should understand why this agency is advocating for this issue.An excellent outline of a relevant/logical organisation is presented. The organisation’s aim, objectives, and values/ideologies (if known) are described.A comprehensive outline of a relevant/logical organisation is presented. The organisation’s aim, objectives, and values/ideologies (if known) are described.A relevant/logical organisation is presented. The organisation’s aim, objectives, and values/ideologies (if known) are described.A relevant/logical organisation is included. The information provided is cursory and/or brief.An organisation is not presented or is not a relevant or logical choice for the topic.Background to health issue (20 marks) A comprehensive background to the health issue is presented. The issue/problem is clearly stated and there is evidence for the extent and urgency of the issue and its impact for the defined population group The reader should understand why this health issue needs to be addressed, and why it should be addressed in that population.A comprehensive background to the issue that the policy is seeking to address is presented.Population group clearly and comprehensively defined.Evidence drawn from a wide range of contemporary relevant, peer reviewed, and grey/professional literature.An appropriately articulated background to the issue that the policy is seeking to address is presented.Population group appropriately defined.Evidence is drawn from the literature and is presented for the extent and urgency of the issue.A limited background to the issue that the policy is seeking to address is presented.Population group briefly defined.Evidence is drawn from the literature and is presented for the extent and urgency of the issueA background to the issue that the policy is seeking to address is presented.Population group vaguely defined.Limited evidence is presented for the extent and urgency of the issue.No background or an incomplete/inaccurate background to the issue/problem that the policy is seeking to address is presented.No population group defined or population group is not appropriate for the issue.Aim(s)/Objectives (5 marks) Clearly stated aim/s and objectives of the policy for advocacy are provided. The read knows what it is the policy/organisation is seeking to achieve. The aims and objectives are highly developed.Aim/s and objective/s clearly stated, highly developed.Aim/s and objective/s developed.Aim/s and objective/s described.Aim/s and objective/s included.Aim/s and objective/s of the policy are not included or are unclear.Recommendations (15 marks) A minimum of three recommendations/calls to action for government are provided. They are well developed, relevant, and clearly articulated. They clearly relate to the objectives and problem definitionA set of recommendations are provided. All recommendations relate to the aim/s and objective/s and are clearly articulated.Minimum number of recommendations are included.All recommendations are well developed.Evidence is drawn from a wide range of contemporary, relevant, peer reviewed, and grey/professional literature.A set of recommendations are provided. All recommendations relate to the aim/s and objective/s.Minimum number of recommendations are included.All recommendations are well developed.Evidence is drawn from a range of relevant sources.A set of recommendations are provided. Most recommendations relate to the aim/s and objective/s.Minimum number of recommendations are included.Most recommendations are well developed.Evidence is drawn from a limited and/or poor range of sources.A set of recommendations are provided, though there is some confusion with relation to the aim/s and objective/s.Minimum number of recommendations are included. Some recommendations may lack development.Limited and poor evidence used.Recommendations are not included or the minimum number are not include or they lack development or are not related to the aim/s and objective/s.No or limited or poor evidence used.Professionalism of writing and presentation (5 marks)Content is logically structured, fluently written, uses correct terminology. Language clearly and effectively communicates ideas. Structure and presentation provide a logical flow and clear presentation of key issues and concepts.Submission is free of spelling or grammatical errors.Submission adheres to word limit and is submitted according to assignment guidelines (including format and self-assessment rubric).Content is clearly written and logically structured with few spelling or grammatical errors. An academic tone and level of argument is generally used.Submission adheres to word limit and is submitted according to assignment guidelines (including format and self-assessment rubric).Content is clearly written and logically structured.Submission adheres to word limit and is submitted according to assignment guidelines (including format and self-assessment rubric)..Content conveys meaning, although there are some problems with the standard of presentation (spelling, punctuation, syntax, grammar or style).Not all of the submission is submitted according to assignment guidelines (including format and self-assessment rubric).Writing style very difficult to understand. Work contains frequent errors in spelling, punctuation, syntax or grammar; style is inconsistent or inappropriate.Not submitted according to assignment guidelines (including format and self-assessment rubric).