ASSESSMENT RUBRICS

Program: PISMP TESL SK & SJKC January 2013 Intake

Year / Semester : 2016 / 8

Course /Code: Curriculum Studies / TSL3143

PROJECT:
Part 1: Round Table Discussion Group Oral Presentation (20%)
Scale

Range

High
Distinction

17 20%

Distinction

12 16%

Credit

9 12%

Pass

5 8%

Fail

< 4%

Descriptor
Excellent and convincing interpretation, synthesis and expression
of significant background information;
Speaker presents information in logical and interesting sequence
which audience can follow;
Language use is correct with no errors, and enhances
understanding.
Team member transitions are organized and seamless.
Very good interpretation, synthesis and expression of good
background information;
Speaker presents information in logical and interesting sequence
which audience can follow;
Language use is correct with minor errors but still not distracting:
Team member transitions are fairly organized.
Satisfactory interpretation, synthesis and reasonable background
information;
Speaker presents information in logical sequence which
audience can follow but with slight difficulty;
Language use is correct with minor errors and somewhat
distracting at times;
Team member transitions are somewhat disorganized.
Vague and ambiguous interpretation with some background
information;
Audience has difficulty following presentation because
information jumps around;
Language use is still largely correct but with major errors which
cause distraction;
Some team members do not contribute and lack team spirit.
Provides little or no information or background on the issue;
Audience cannot understand presentation because of poor
sequence of information;
Language use is incorrect most of the time and impedes
understanding;
No evidence of team work or only one team member contributes.

Part 2: Written Essay Individual Task (60%)

Scale

Range

High
Distinction

53 60%

Distinction

47 52%

Credit

39 46%

Pass

30 - 38 %

Fail

< 30%

Descriptor
Very well discussed, displaying excellent or thorough
understanding of the question or key concepts;
The arguments are fluent and clearly constructed and
supported by appropriate examples;
Very fluent writing with very few minor language errors;
thoroughly coherent and excellent level of organization.
Excellent range of the key literature.
Well discussed, displaying a good understanding of the
question or key concepts;
The arguments are well supported by appropriate
examples;
Fluent writing with a few significant language errors; clear
and coherent and very good level of organization.
Good range of the key literature.
Satisfactorily discussed, displaying an understanding of
the question;
Some coherent arguments presented with certain
weaknesses in overal structure and clarity;
Fairly fluent writing with some minor language errors but
does not hinder understanding; generally good
organization;
Adequate range of some of the key literature.
Adequately discussed by displaying some flaws in
understanding the question or key concepts:
Adequate evidence of supporting details;
Awkward writing with some major language errors but
does not hinder understanding; quite satisfactory and
reasonable organization.
Limited range of the literature.
Answer is inaccurate showing a lack of understanding of
the question or key concepts;
No evidence of supporting details;
Weak writing with many major and minor language errors
that impede comprehension; weak and unsatisfactory
organization.
Not supported by literature throughout.

Part 3: Reflective Essay Individual Task (20%)

Scale

Range

High
Distinction

17 20%

Distinction

12 16%

Credit

9 12%

Pass

5 8%

Fail

< 4%

Descriptor
Very well reflected, displaying excellent or thorough
understanding of the question;
The arguments are fluent and clearly constructed and
supported by appropriate examples;
Discussion reflects an in-depth knowledge and clear
understanding of key concepts;
Evidence of very good analytical skill;
Very fluent writing with very few minor language errors;
thoroughly coherent and excellent level of organization.
Excellent range of the key literature.
Well reflected, displaying a good understanding of the
question;
The arguments are well supported by appropriate examples;
Discussion reflects sound knowledge and mostly clear
understanding of key concepts;
Good evidence of analytial skill:
Fluent writing with a few significant language errors; clear and
coherent and very good level of organization.
Good range of the key literature.
Satisfactorily reflected, displaying an understanding of the
question;
Some coherent arguments presented with certain weaknesses
in overal structure and clarity;
Discussion reflects satisfactory understanding of key
concepts;
Satisfactory evidence of analytical skills;
Fairly fluent writing with some minor language errors but does
not hinder understanding; generally good organization;
Adequate range of some of the key literature.
Adequately reflected by displaying some flaws in
understanding the question:
Adequate evidence of supporting details;
Discussion reflects adequate understanding of key concepts;
Adequate evidence of analytial skills;
Awkward writing with some major language errors but does
not hinder understanding; quite satisfactory and reasonable
organization.
Limited range of the literature.
Answer is inaccurate showing a lack of understanding of key
concepts;
No evidence of supporting details;
No evidence of analytical skill;
Weak writing with many major and minor language errors that
impede
comprehension;
weak
and
unsatisfactory
organization.
Not supported by literature throughout.
3