CHIR13012- RESEARCH LITERACY FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
STUDENT DETAILS (student to complete):
Name: Zac Williams
SID: s0272671
First marker: A. Vitiello
ASSESSMENT 1- PORTFOLIO MARKING RUBRIC & FEEDBACK
EXCELLENT
MARKING DOMAIN
(100-85%)
COMPLETION OF TASKS
 All six, unit reflections were
presented in the portfolio
 All six topics were reflected upon
(2.5 MARKS FOR EACH using the CHESEMELT/RESEARCH
POINT, MELT approach
TOTAL OF 5 MARKS
 Language used always supported
GRAMMAR & LANGUAGE
the self-reflective learning process.
It demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
(2.5 MARKS FOR EACH the weekly tasks
POINT,  All reflective tasks were written
without any grammatical or spelling
TOTAL OF 5 MARKS)
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
CRITICAL SELF-
RESEARCHMELT throughout the
REFLECTION AND LOGIC portfolio
 The level of reflection was always
appropriate for the year of study
(3 MARKS FOR EACH engaged. The reflective process, as a
vehicle for change, was always
POINT,
apparent throughout the portfolio
TOTAL OF 15 MARKS)
 The student clearly demonstrated an
appreciation of the nuances relating
to research literacy and clearly
embedded their newly discovered
understanding within their written
reflections
VERY GOOD
(84-75%)
 Only five, unit reflections were
presented in the portfolio
 Only two topics were reflected upon
using the CHESEMELT/RESEARCH
MELT approach
 Language used almost always
supported the self-reflective
learning process. It almost always
demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
the questions asked
 Most reflective 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
Due date: 27/9/19
Submission for unit/course: CHIR13012- Research Literacy for Health Professionals
Second marker:
ABOVE AVERAGE
(74-65%)
 Only four, unit reflections were
presented in the portfolio
 Only two topics were reflected upon
using the CHESEMELT/RESEARCH MELT
approach
 In a slight majority of instances, the
language used supported the self-
reflective learning process. In a slight
majority of instances, the language
used always demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to the
questions asked
 A slight majority of reflective 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
PASS
(64-50%)
 Only three, unit reflections were
presented in the portfolio
 Only one topic was reflected upon
using the CHESEMELT/RESEARCH
MELT approach
 The language used sometimes
supported the self-reflective
learning process. It sometimes
demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
the questions asked
 Only some of the reflective 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
FINAL MARK
BORDERLINE
(49-45%)
 Only one or two, unit reflections
were presented in the portfolio
 Only one topic was reflected upon
using the CHESEMELT/RESEARCH
MELT approach
 Rarely did the language support the
self-reflective learning process.
Rarely did the language used
demonstrate candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
the questions asked
 Only a few of the reflective tasks
were written without any
grammatical or spelling errors
 There were infrequent
demonstrations of exemplary levels
of critical self-reflection in the
portfolio
 There was somewhat clear and
consistent evidence of the use of a
reflective guideline, i.e. CHESEMELT
or RESEARCHMELT in only a few
parts of the portfolio
 The level of reflection was rarely
appropriate for the year of study
engaged. The reflective process, as a
vehicle for change, was infrequently
apparent throughout the portfolio
 The student generally failed to
demonstrate an appreciation of the
nuances relating to research literacy,
but attempted to embed their
understanding within their written
/30
FAIL
(< 45%)
 No unit reflections were presented
in the portfolio
 No unit topic was reflected upon
using the CHESEMELT/RESEARCH
MELT approach
 Language used almost never
supported the self-reflective
learning process. The language used
almost never demonstrated candour
and intellectual honesty with respect
to the questions asked
 All of the reflective tasks included
significant grammatical or spelling
errors
 There were not any demonstrations
of exemplary levels of critical self-
reflection in the portfolio
 There was no clear and consistent
evidence of the use of a reflective
guideline, i.e. CHESEMELT or
RESEARCHMELT in any part of the
portfolio
 The level of reflection was not
appropriate for the year of study
engaged. The reflective process, as a
vehicle for change, was not
apparent throughout the portfolio
 The student clearly demonstrated a
lack of understanding of the
nuances relating to research literacy
and failed to embed their newly
discovered understanding within
their written reflections
  The student was always successful in
putting forward an argument that
was logical and well-reasoned
 There were ample references, or
external resources, to support the
REFERENCING & THE USE
entire portfolio
OF ADDITIONAL  All references fully adhered to the
EXTERNAL REFERENCES prescribed style guide
OR RESOURCES  All references were from well-
respected journals and were
PubMed indexed
 The supporting material always
(3 MARKS FOR EACH
strengthened the points being made
POINT, in the portfolio
TOTAL OF 15 MARKS)  The supporting material was always
well referenced and followed the
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
commendable sense of ownership
(2 MARKS FOR EACH with respect to the material
presented
POINT,
 All tables/graphs were clear and
TOTAL OF 10 MARKS)
conveyed the necessary information
correctly
 The portfolio always remained
within the stated word limit (+/-
10%)
ADDITIONAL FOCUSED
FEEDBACK
Marker to complete
DOMAINS
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)
their written reflections
 The student was mostly successful in  The student was successful in putting
putting forward an argument that
was logical and well-reasoned
 There were ample references, or
external resources, to support most
of the portfolio
 Most references fully adhered to the
prescribed style guide
 Most references were from well-
respected journals and were
PubMed indexed
 The supporting material mostly
strengthened the points being
made in the portfolio
 The supporting material was mostly
well referenced and followed the
prescribed style guide
 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
 Most tables/graphs were clear and
conveyed the necessary information
correctly
 The portfolio mostly remained
within the stated word limit (+/-
10%)
written reflections
forward an argument that was logical
and well-reasoned in a majority of
cases
 There were ample references, or
external resources, to support the slight
majority of the portfolio
 The majority of references fully adhered
to the prescribed style guide
 The majority of references were from
well-respected journals and were
PubMed indexed
 The supporting material in the majority
of times strengthened the points being
made in the portfolio
 In the majority of times, the supporting
material was in the majority of times
was well referenced and followed the
prescribed style guide
 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
 The majority of tables/graphs were
clear and conveyed the necessary
information correctly
 In the majority of instances, the
portfolio always remained within the
stated word limit (+/-10%)
FIRST MARKER
their newly discovered
understanding within their written
reflections
 The student was occasionally
successful in putting forward an
argument that was logical and well-
reasoned
 There were ample references, or
external resources, to support some
of the portfolio
 Some of the references adhered to
the prescribed style guide
 Only some references were from
well-respected journals and were
PubMed indexed
 The supporting material on occasion
strengthened the points being made
in the portfolio
 The supporting material was
occasionally well referenced and
followed the prescribed style guide
 Overall the portfolio was developed
to an adequate level and was on
occasion easy to navigate through
and use
 The hyperlinks and other
multimedia elements (if used) were
occasionally functional and/or
relevant to the topic at hand
 The learner has demonstrated a
satisfactory sense of ownership with
respect to the material presented
 In some instances, tables/graphs
were clear and conveyed the
necessary information correctly
 The portfolio on occasion remained
within the stated word limit (+/-
10%)
SECOND MARKER
reflections
 The student was seldom successful
in putting forward an argument that
was logical and well-reasoned
 There were very few references, or
external resources, to support the
portfolio
 Only a few references adhered to
the prescribed style guide
 Only a few references were from
well-respected journals and were
PubMed indexed
 The supporting material rarely
strengthened the points being made
in the portfolio
 The supporting material was rarely
well referenced and did not follow
the prescribed style guide
 Overall the portfolio was developed
to a below average level and was
difficult to navigate through and use
 The hyperlinks and other
multimedia elements (if used) were
rarely functional and/or relevant to
the topic at hand
 The learner has demonstrated a
below average sense of ownership
with respect to the material
presented
 In only a few instances were
tables/graphs were clear and
conveyed the necessary information
correctly
 The portfolio rarely remained within
the stated word limit (+/-10%)
FINAL AGREED MARK
 The student did not put forward an
argument that was logical and well-
reasoned
 There were not any references, or
external resources that supported
the portfolio
 None of the references adhered to
the prescribed style guide
 None of the references were from
well-respected journals or PubMed
indexed
 The supporting material failed to
add much to the points being made
in the portfolio
 The supporting material was not
well referenced and did not follow
the prescribed style guide
 Overall the portfolio was very poorly
developed and was very difficult to
navigate through and use
 The hyperlinks and other
multimedia elements (if used) were
never functional and/or relevant to
the topic at hand
 The learner has demonstrated a very
poor sense of ownership with
respect to the material presented
 None of the tables/graphs were
clear and failed conveyed the
necessary information correctly
 The portfolio failed to remain within
the stated word limit (+/-10%)
5. GENERAL COMPOSITION & OVERALL PRESENTATION (10)
TOTAL ( /50)