Evaluate the use of clinical redesign methodologies

riteria
Description
High Distinction (80-100%)
Distinction (70-79%)
Credit (60-69%)
Pass (50-59%)
Fail (0-49%)

Criterion 1 Weighting 40%
Ability to discuss and critically evaluate the use of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories

Demonstrated a critical analysis by presenting concise, coherent and logical arguments that revealed thorough and insightful synthesis of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories. Use of a wide range of references to support your arguments. (3- 5 references)

Demonstrated a critical analysis by presenting concise, coherent, and logical arguments that revealed thorough synthesis of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories. Use of a range of references to support your arguments.(2-3 References.)

Demonstrated a critical analysis by presenting logical arguments that revealed sound synthesis of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories. Use of references to support your arguments.(1-2 References)

Presented some logical arguments that revealed some synthesis of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories. Use of some references to support your arguments. (1 reference)

Limited synthesis of clinical redesign methodologies and evaluation theories. Limited/no use of references to support your arguments.   

Criterion 2 Weighting 40%
Ability to identify and clearly articulate gaps in the evaluation, using supporting literature 

Explicitly identified the gaps in the evaluation of your chosen article and justified recommendations to fill these gaps, drawing from an extensive range of supporting literature  (5-6 References)

Explicitly identified the gaps in the evaluation of your chosen article and justified recommendations to fill these gaps, drawing from a range of supporting literature  (4-5 References)

Identified the gaps in the evaluation of your chosen article and justified recommendations to fill these gaps, drawing from a range of supporting literature  (2-3 References)

Identified the gaps in the evaluation of your chosen article and justified recommendations to fill these gaps, drawing from a limited range of supporting literature  (1-2 References)

Limited  demonstration of identifying gaps in the evaluation 

Criterion 3 Weighting 20%
Ability to communicate effectively with appropriate referencing (written and/or verbal delivery) 

Consistent, coherent, concise and cohesive expression

Appropriate vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, paragraphs, syntax, spelling

Does not exceed word count

Consistent, appropriate referencing, using UTAS Harvard or Vancouver style

Predominantly coherent, concise and cohesive expression

Largely appropriate vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, paragraphs, syntax, spelling

Exceeded word count/time limit by no more than 20%

Predominantly appropriate referencing using UTAS Harvard or Vancouver style

Generally coherent, concise and cohesive expression

Largely appropriate vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, paragraphs, syntax, spelling

Exceeded word count/time limit by no more than 20%

Generally appropriate referencing using UTAS Harvard or Vancouver style

Inappropriate vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, paragraphs, syntax, spelling

Inappropriate or inadequate referencing

Exceeded word count/time limit by more than