Examples of Assessment Criteria (Humanities)

Presentation

The presentation was outstanding in most areas. Verbally it was extremely well-articulated and slides were very well-organised. Excellent time management

The presentation was above adequate in most areas. It was verbally well-articulated and slides were well-organised.
Good time management.

The presentation was adequate in most areas. Although overall logic, some limitations in verbal articulation and organization of slides were apparent.  Reasonable time management

The presentation was lacking in most areas. Serious limitations in verbal articulation and slides were poorly organised. 
Poor time management.

Unpacking of article

Author’s motivations and argument (s)/ finding(s) were neatly unpacked and summarized and skillfully framed against broader literature.

Author’s argument (s)/ finding(s) were summarized and unpacked in a logic way.

Although author’s main argument (s)/ finding(s) were unpacked it was done in an incomplete or vague manner.

Unpacking of author’s argument (s)/ finding(s) was unfocused / confusing.

Critique

Critique was sound and well-substantiated covering content and methodological aspects. Analysis revealed a sophisticated level of reflection on the topic and broad understanding of related literature.

Critique was reasonably sound covering both content and methodological aspects, demonstrating good understanding of topic and related literature.

Critique was overall sensible though parts slightly naïve or incomplete, with little or no linkages made to broader literature.

Critique was overly simplistic or unreasonable.

Discussion

The discussion was well planned and guided by the team eliciting exceptional response from colleagues. The team’s performance was exceptional in addressing queries from audience.

The discussion was reasonably well planned and guided by the team eliciting interest from colleagues. The team was effective in addressing queries from audience.

The discussion revealed little amount of planning and guidance from the team eliciting limited interest from colleagues. The team partly addressed queries from audience

The discussion was unplanned and guidance was lacking eliciting little interest from colleagues. The team failed to effectively addressed queries from audienc

Logic and execution (15%)

There is clear evidence of the team’s immersion, engagement and documentation of their chosen community.

There is a clear and consistent logic that underpins the evolution of the project.

 There is some evidence of the team’s immersion, engagement and documentation of their chosen community.

The evolution of the project is underpinned by some logic; although, this may not be consistent throughout.

 The report lacks evidence of the team’s immersion, engagement and documentation of their chosen community.

The evolution of the project lacks a clear logic.

Reflection (40%)

The authors’ offer strong critical reflection on the evolution of both the team and the project around the following areas: critical/creative research and practice; feasibility & time management; safety & ethics; collaboration; originality & innovation; & the assessments.

The authors’ synthesize current experience into future implications.
 

The authors’ offer some critical reflection on the evolution of both the team and the project around the following areas: critical/creative research and practice; feasibility & time management; safety & ethics; collaboration; originality & innovation; & the assessments.

The authors’ synthesize some of their current experience into future implications.

The authors’ do not offer critical reflection on the evolution of the team or the project

The authors’ do not synthesize current experience into future implications.

Organization, Language & style (15%)

The report is written in a clear style and demonstrates consistent voice. The tone of the writing is precise and engaging and shows awareness of audience and purpose.

The report includes a clear logical flow of ideas and concepts. 

Proper formatting with logical layout is observed.

No (few) grammatical or spelling errors are evident.
 

The report is written in quite a clear style and demonstrates quite consistent voice. The tone of the writing is somewhat precise and shows awareness of audience and purpose; although, there may be some inconsistencies.

The report includes a quite logical flow of ideas and concepts. 

Proper formatting with logical layout is generally observed.

A few grammatical or spelling errors are evident.

The report is not written in a clear style and lacks consistent of voice. The tone of the writing is imprecise and does not show awareness of audience and purpose.

The report lacks a clear logical flow of ideas and concepts. 

Proper formatting with logical layout is not observed.

Grammatical and spelling errors are frequent.

1. Knowledge and Understanding of the Subject

Outstanding level of knowledge

Very good level of knowledge

Significant gaps in knowledge

2. Development of Research Topic

Bold, original, and focused

Somewhat original, and focused

Unoriginal and somewhat focused

3. Creation and Articulation of a Well-Reasoned Argument

Creative, fully coherent and developed

Clear, coherent and developed

Lacking coherence, but has some clarity

4. Analysis and Close Reading of Primary Sources and Secondary Scholarship

Insightful analysis and detailed knowledge of the field

Persuasive analysis and good knowledge of the field

Satisfactory analysis and some knowledge of the field

5. Grammar and Syntax

None or very few errors

Passable grammar and syntax

Poor grammar and syntax

6. Style and Expression

Outstanding

Meets proper academic standard

Satisfactory

7. Referencing and Bibliography

Conforms fully to style required by the instructor

Largely conforms to style required by the instructor

Partially conforms to style required by course instructor

Content

Paper demonstrates strong ability to analyze issues of war through the lens of film. Paper flows from one issue to the next seamlessly. Author’s writing demonstrates a robust understanding of the material. In-depth discussion & analysis in all sections of the paper.

Paper  demonstrates an ability to analyze issues of war through the lens of film. Paper generally ties together information from all sources. Paper flows with only some disjointedness. Author's writing demonstrates an understanding of the material. In-depth discussion & elaboration in most sections of the paper

Paper  demonstrates limited ability to analyze issues of war through the lens of film. Sometimes ties together information from all sources. Paper does not flow - disjointedness is apparent. Author's writing does not demonstrate an understanding of the material. The writer has omitted pertinent content or content runs-on excessively. Quotations from others outweigh the writer’s own ideas excessively.

Paper  demonstrates no ability to analyze issues of war through the lens of film. Paper does not flow and appears to be created from disparate issues. Headings are necessary to link concepts. Writing demonstrates no understanding the material. 

Research Quality

Cites all data obtained from other sources. Citation style is consistent and correct.

Cites all data obtained from other sources. Some minor variation in consistency or correctness of citation style.

Cites most data obtained from other sources. Citation style is either inconsistent or incorrect.

Does not cite sources.

Writing Mechanics

No spelling &/or grammar mistakes.

Minimal spelling &/or grammar mistakes.

Noticeable spelling & grammar mistakes.

Unacceptable number of spelling and/or grammar mistakes.

Structure

Uses a logical structure appropriate to paper's subject, purpose, audience, thesis, and disciplinary field. Sophisticated transitional sentences often develop one idea from the previous one or identify their logical relations. It guides the reader through the chain of reasoning or progression of ideas.

Shows a logical progression of ideas and uses fairly sophisticated transitional devices; e.g., may move from least to more important idea. Some logical links may be faulty, but each paragraph clearly relates to paper's central idea.

May list ideas or arrange them randomly rather than using any evident logical structure. May use transitions, but they are likely to be sequential (first, second, third) rather than logic-based. While each paragraph may relate to central idea, logic is not always clear. Paragraphs have topic sentences but may be overly general, and arrangement of sentences within paragraphs may lack coherence.

No appreciable organization; lacks transitions and coherence.

15 -13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3 - 0

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

20-18

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

6-0

15 -13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3 - 0

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

20-18

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

6-0

15 -13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3 - 0

Advanced
A+

The Team’s performance is outstanding. The presentation was well- structured and ideas were very clearly articulated and summarized. The argumentation was both sound and compelling, effectively unpacking a comprehensive list of well-substantiated arguments to cement their position, which reflected great familiarity with relevant literature and independent thinking. The team skillfully identified the weaknesses in the opposing group’s position, while being very resourceful and effective in sustaining their position both against the other team and the rest of the class.

Proficient
B+ to A

The team performance is good.  The presentation was organised and ideas were clearly articulated and summarized. The argumentation was for the most sound, effectively unpacking a list of well-substantiated arguments to shoulder their position, which reflected familiarity with relevant literature. The team was able to identify some of the major weaknesses in the opposing group’s position, while sustaining their position both against the other team and the rest of the class.

Functional
C+ to B

The team performance is adequate. The team put forward some relevant arguments line but there were slight issues with articulation of ideas and organization. The argumentation was valid but wobbly as arguments put forward were not sufficiently elaborated upon or substantiated and /or some relevant arguments were left aside, which indicated limited familiarity with relevant literature. The team was able to identify at least one weakness in the opposing group’s position, while partly sustaining their position both against the other team and the rest of the class.

Developing
Below C

The team performance is lacking in a majority of areas. The team’s presentation was unfocused and disorganized resulting in a fractured argumentation line. The team’s argumentation failed to bring forward some of the most compelling arguments and the arguments presented were conveyed in an overly simplistic / anecdotal manner revealing poor analytical skills knowledge of relevant literature. The team was unable to identify weaknesses in the opposing group’s presentation, and unable to sustain their position both against the other team and the rest of the class.

Group dynamics

The team worked well together to achieve objectives. Goals are clear, all members are committed, actively involved in discussions and in decision making. Each member contributed in a valuable way to the project. All data sources indicated a high level of mutual respect and collaboration

The team worked relatively well together to achieve objectives. Goals are for the most clear, all members are committed, and involved in discussions and decision making. Members contributed to the project in equal terms. All data sources indicated a healthy level of mutual respect and collaboration

The team worked well together most of the time, with only a few occurrences of communication breakdown or failure to collaborate Goals are not entirely clear, level of commitment varies amongst members, with some more involved than others in discussions and decision making. Members were mostly respectful of each other.

The team did not collaborate or communication well. Goals were unclear or inexistent. Some members would work independently, without regard to objectives or priorities / member contributions are highly uneven. A lack of respect and regard was frequently noted.

Individual contribution

The individual contributed in a valuable way to the project, showing excellent time management skills while assuming a constructive leadership role. Her/his level of engagement demonstrated strong commitment to the class and the learning outcomes. The level of analysis and reflection was outstanding.

The individual made a timely and valuable contribution to the project. Her/his level of engagement demonstrated commitment to the class and the learning outcomes. The level of analysis and reflection was good.

The individual did not contribute as heavily as others but did meet all responsibilities
She/he had a level of engagement that demonstrated a reasonable commitment to the class and/or the learning outcomes. The level of analysis and reflection could have been deeper.

The individual did not contribute to the project and failed to meet responsibilities.
She/he had a level of engagement that did not demonstrate a commitment to the class or the learning outcomes. His contribution simply involved restating information without reflective thought.

Frequency of Participation

Proactively and always contributes to class discussion. Initiates discussion on issues related to course topic, speaking multiple times, adding new information/evidence each time.

Proactively and frequently contributes to class discussions on issues related to course topic, speaking more than once, adding new information/evidence each time.

Few contributions to class discussion. Seldom volunteers but responds to direct questions.

Student never participates in class discussions or respond to direct questions.

Quality of Participation

Comments and questions are deep and reflect considerable engagement with the course material.

Comments and questions demonstrate adequate engagement with course material.

Comments and questions are superficial and do not reflect adequate engagement with course material.

Comments and questions reflect little or no engagement with course material.

Preparation

Student is always well prepared for class discussions and demonstrates strong comprehension of the material.

Student demonstrates that he or she has thought about the material ahead of class.

Student has only casually or partially thought about course material.

Student shows no signs of having read or thought about the material ahead of class.

Relevance of Contributions

Contributions are relevant and promote deeper analysis of the topic.

Contributions are relevant but do not promote deeper analysis.

Contributions are sometimes misguided or distracting.

Contributions are either off-topic or nonexistent.

0

Never participated in group discussions or was extremely disruptive to the group process

None

Could not be depended upon to complete any task

Never contributed anything to the group project

None

1

Occasionally participated in group discussion with little or no positive contribution

Got things done, but usually late

Minimum

2

Usually participated in group discussion with occasional contribution to the discussion 

Contributed what was expected from the group

Usually got things done on time

Occasionally provided contribution that met our expectation

Average

3

Always participated positively in group discussions, made sure everyone had a chance to participate.

Always got things done on time and accurately

Above Average

4

Actively contributed to help the group to achieve our goals and listened to others. Helped gets us moving forward without dominating it.

Significantly contributed towards the success of the group and beyond what was expected from him/her

Could always be counted on to pick up the slack

Provided thoughtful and meaningful intellectual contribution

Wouldn't have been possible without her/him

Arrives on time and remains with team during activities

Demonstrates a good balance of active listening & participation

Asks useful or probing questions

Shares information and personal understanding

Is well prepared for team activities

Shows appropriate depth of knowledge

Identifies limits of personal knowledge

Is clear when explaining things to others

Gives useful feedback to others

Accepts useful feedback from others

Is able to listen and understand what others are saying

Shows respect for the opinions and feelings of others