CHIR12005- Foundations of Chiropractic Practice 3
STUDENT DETAILS
Name:
Secret URL
First marker:
EXCELLENT
MARKING DOMAIN
(5)
COMPLETION OF  All reflection tasks in the unit outline
were attempted and completed in a
REFLECTIONS
timely manner
 All components outlined in the unit
(5 MARKS)
outline were included in portfolio
 Language used always supported
the self-reflective learning process
 The language used always
GRAMMAR & LANGUAGE demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
(5 MARKS) the weekly tasks
 All weekly tasks were written
without any grammatical or spelling
errors
CRITICAL SELF-  There were frequent demonstrations
REFLECTION AND LOGIC of exemplary levels of critical self-
reflection throughout the portfolio
 There was clear and consistent
(5 MARKS) evidence of the use of a reflective
guideline, i.e. CHESEMELT or
RESEARCHMELT throughout the
portfolio
 The level of reflection was always
appropriate for the year of study
engaged. The reflective process, as a
vehicle for change, was always
apparent throughout the portfolio
 The student clearly demonstrated an
appreciation of the nuances relating
to research literacy and clearly
embedded their newly discovered
understanding within their written
reflections
 The student was always successful in
putting forward an argument that
was logical and well-reasoned
ASSESSMENT 1- PORTFOLIO MARKING RUBRIC & FEEDBACK
VERY GOOD
(4)
 Most reflection tasks in the unit
outline were attempted and
completed in a timely manner
 Most of the components outlined in
the unit outline were included in
portfolio
 Language used almost always
supported the self-reflective
learning process
 The language used almost always
demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
the weekly tasks
 Most weekly 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
their written reflections
 The student was mostly successful in
putting forward an argument that
was logical and well-reasoned
Due date:
Submission for unit/course: CHIR12005- Foundations of Chiropractic 3
Second marker:
ABOVE AVERAGE
(3)
 A slight majority of tasks were
attempted and completed in a timely
manner
 A majority of the components outlined
in the unit outline were included in
portfolio
 In a majority of instances, the language
used supported the self-reflective
learning process
 In a majority of instances, the language
used always demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to the
weekly tasks
 A slight majority of weekly 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
written reflections
 The student was successful in putting
forward an argument that was logical
and well-reasoned in a majority of
cases
PASS
(2)
 Only some of tasks were attempted
and completed in a timely manner
 Only some of the components
outlined in the unit outline were
included in portfolio
 The language used sometimes
supported the self-reflective
learning process
 The language used sometimes
demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
the weekly tasks
 Only some of the weekly 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
their newly discovered
understanding within their written
reflections
 The student was occasionally
successful in putting forward an
argument that was logical and well-
FINAL MARK
BORDERLINE
(1)
 Only a few of tasks were attempted
and completed in a timely manner
 Only a few of the components
outlined in the unit outline were
included in portfolio
 Rarely did the language support the
self-reflective learning process
 Rarely did the language used
demonstrate candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
the weekly tasks
 Only a few of the weekly 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
reflections
 The student was seldom successful
in putting forward an argument that
was logical and well-reasoned
/25
FAIL
(0)
 Most of the tasks were either
incomplete, not attempted or not
addressed in a timely manner
 Almost none of the components
outlined in the unit outline were
included in portfolio
 Language used almost never
supported the self-reflective
learning process
 The language used almost never
demonstrated candour and
intellectual honesty with respect to
the weekly tasks
 All of the weekly 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 did not put forward an
argument that was logical and well-
reasoned

 There were ample references, or
external resources, to support the
entire portfolio
 All references fully adhered to the  Most references fully adhered to the
REFERENCING & THE USE
prescribed style guide
OF ADDITIONAL
 All references were from well-
EXTERNAL REFERENCES respected journals and were
OR RESOURCES PubMed indexed
 The supporting material always
strengthened the points being made
(5 MARKS)
in the portfolio
 The supporting material was always  The supporting material was mostly
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
GENERAL COMPOSITION  The hyperlinks and other multimedia
& OVERALL elements (if used) were all functional
and/or relevant to the topic at hand
PRESENTATION
 The learner has demonstrated a
commendable sense of ownership
(5 MARKS)
with respect to the material
presented
 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 (5)
4. REFERENCING & THE USE OF ADDITIONAL EXTERNAL REFERENCES OR RESOURCES (5)
5. GENERAL COMPOSITION & OVERALL PRESENTATION (5)
 There were ample references, or
external resources, to support most
of the portfolio
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
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
 The portfolio mostly remained
within the stated word limit (+/-
10%)
 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
 In the majority of instances, the
portfolio always remained within the
stated word limit (+/-10%)
TOTAL ( /25)
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
 The portfolio on occasion remained
within the stated word limit (+/-
10%)
FIRST MARKER
 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
 The portfolio rarely remained within
the stated word limit (+/-10%)
SECOND MARKER
 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
 The portfolio failed to remain within
the stated word limit (+/-10%)
FINAL AGREED MARK