Rubrics

Critical Proposal Rubric (1,800 words max)

Criteria	Explanation	Fail	3rd	2:2	2:1	1st
Summary	Does the proposal summarise the chosen empirical article?	No summary of the chosen empirical paper.	The chosen empirical paper is described, but with inaccuracies or imprecision.	The chosen empirical paper is described, with only a few errors, gaps, or a minor lack of clarity.	The chosen empirical paper is clearly and fully summarised, with appropriate terminology and precision.	The chosen empirical paper is clearly and fully summarised, with excellent terminology, accuracy and accessibility, showing a comprehensive understanding of the paper.
Research Question	Does the proposal critique the research question and general domain?	No overview of the research domain or research question addressed.	The proposal summarises the research area and general question addressed, but does so imprecisely or with errors.	The proposal accurately summarises the domain of research and the specific question addressed in the paper.	The proposal accurately summarises the domain of research and the specific question addressed in the paper and does so in an accessible and precise manner.	The proposal accurately summarises the domain of research and the specific question addressed in the paper and does so in an accessible and precise manner while evaluating the merit or importance of the research.
Method	Does the proposal critically evaluate the chosen method and operationalisation of variables?	No attempt to evaluate the methods of the paper.	Evaluation of the methods are few and preliminary.	Evaluation of the method is clear, but doesn’t consider important aspects.	Evaluation of the method is clear and focusses on important aspects.	Evaluation of the method is clear, identifies the most important aspects, and the impact on possible results is argued.
Outcome	Has the proposal critically evaluated the analysis, reporting, and interpretation of the results?	No discernible evaluation of the results section.	The proposal makes few, superficial comments on the presentation and analysis of results.	The proposal makes a good attempt at presenting an evaluation of the results, but they are preliminary.	The proposal makes good suggestions for how the results may be more accurately presented and analysed.	The proposal shows insight in the evaluation of analysis, reporting and interpretation of the results of the chosen study.
Discussion	Does the proposal address how well results are integrated into the literature, and how the authors address limitations and opportunities for extension?	The proposal has failed to address how the results sit within the literature or the authors efforts to critique their own work.	The proposal presents preliminary ideas on how the research integrates results and appraises the research.	The proposal presents clear appraisal of how the research integrates results and appraises the research.	The proposal presents thoughtful evaluation of how the research integrates results and appraises the research.	The proposal examines how results are discussed well and presents a robust examination of the researchers discussion.
Improvements	Does the proposal present means by which to avoid limitations and/or build on strengths of the study?	The proposal makes no effort to mitigate limitations or build on strengths.	The proposal has identified steps by which to EITHER avoid limitations or accentuate positive aspects of the study.	The proposal has dealt with limitations AND strengths and proposed improvements.	The proposal has identified important limitations and strengths and presented feasible improvements.	The proposal identifies and argues the most salient areas of improvement and presents carefully considered and supported suggestions for improvement.
Critical Reflection/Conclusion	Does the proposal clearly summarise key points from the essay and propose specific means by which the student may improve research in this area?	No reflection on how the points made in the essay work together or how the student may feasibly improve work in this area.	There is an effort to synthesise the argument made during the essay and an attempt to illustrate how the author may improve research in this area, but it is vague.	A conclusion is presented and it features reflections on future improvement that don’t tie together or have limited focus on priority.	The conclusion brings the main points of the critique together and a clear set of ideas presented by which the student may improve research in the area.	The conclusion synthesises the main points of the critique nicely with clear evaluation. The student has presented a thoughtful and focussed reflection on how they might make a meaningful improvement in the research field.
Format and Referencing	Is the proposal well-written, well-presented, with appropriate in-text citations and references?	The proposal is poorly formatted and referencing is either absent or very poorly inserted / inaccurately listed at the end.	The format is adequate and there is some appropriate referencing, but there are also lots of inaccuracies and omissions.	The format and referencing is appropriate for the most part, but there are a number of minor errors.	Formatting is good and references are inserted accurately and appropriately in the text and listed correctly at the end.	The format is clear and professional and referencing is to a high academic standard.

Note: A declaration of AI use (or non-use) is compulsory.

Mini-Dissertation Rubric (1,800 words max)

Criteria	Explanation	Fail	3rd	2:2	2:1	1st
Structure	Is the Mini-Dissertation well-structured with clear sections?	Incorrect or missing sections. APA formatting missing or poorly followed.	Poor structure with possibly missing sections. Not according to APA formatting.	Reasonable structure with all relevant sections. Some minor errors in APA formatting.	Good structure with all relevant sections. APA format followed generally well.	Excellent structure with all relevant sections. APA format fully followed with excellent attention to detail.
Introduction: Background	Does the introduction set the scene and provide theoretical/empirical background?	Area of interest unclear. Relevant background research missing or incorrectly reported.	Some attempt at introducing area of interest and background research, but with errors or lack of clarity.	Introduces area of interest and background research reasonably clearly. Relationship between claims and evidence mostly clear.	Introduces area of interest clearly. Background research clearly presented, including relevant theory and/or empirical evidence.	Introduces area of interest thoughtfully. Background research very clearly presented and authoritative, with comprehensive overview.
Introduction: Research Question	Is there a clear research question and justification for the study?	Little or no justification for the study. No outline of the research question.	Poor justification for the study. Outline of the research question possibly not included.	Reasonable justification for the study. Outline of the research question included.	Clear justification for the study. Good outline of the research question included.	Very clear justification for the study. Excellent outline of the research question included.
Method	Is the method clearly described and appropriate?	Method missing or very poorly reported.	Method poorly reported with missing details.	Method reasonably reported with some minor details missing.	Method well reported, including all relevant details.	Method excellently reported, with all details clear and accurate.
Results	Are the results clearly presented and analyzed?	Results missing or incomprehensible.	Results poorly presented with errors or missing information.	Results reasonably presented with some minor errors or unclear elements.	Results well presented and analyzed.	Results excellently presented and analyzed, adding to the narrative.
Discussion	Does the discussion interpret results and relate them to previous research?	No interpretation of results or relation to previous research.	Poor attempt at interpreting results and relating to previous research.	Reasonable attempt at interpreting results and relating to previous research.	Clear interpretation of results and good relation to previous research.	Excellent interpretation of results and insightful relation to previous research.
Critical Reflection	Does the Mini-Dissertation demonstrate critical thinking and reflection?	No evidence of critical thinking or reflection.	Limited evidence of critical thinking or reflection.	Some evidence of critical thinking and reflection.	Clear evidence of critical thinking and reflection.	Excellent critical thinking and insightful reflection throughout.
Sources	Does the Mini-Dissertation use a range of appropriate sources?	Inappropriate or no citations. No evidence of meaningful reading.	Some appropriate citations but no evidence of wider reading.	Mostly appropriate citations with limited evidence of wider reading.	Wide range of appropriate citations with evidence of wider reading.	Wide range of appropriate and creative citations with clear demonstration of extensive reading.
Presentation	Is the Mini-Dissertation well-presented with correct APA referencing?	Poor presentation and referencing.	Inadequate presentation and referencing with many errors.	Satisfactory presentation and referencing with some minor errors.	Good presentation and referencing with very few errors.	Excellent presentation and referencing to a high academic standard.

Note: A declaration of AI use (or non-use) is compulsory.

CHIP Learning Log Rubric - Reflection 1 (600 words max including APA references)

Reflection on a Chosen CHIP Topic from 2 Perspectives

Criteria	Explanation	Fail	3rd	2:2	2:1	1st
Structure	Is the reflective account well-structured? Does it ask and answer a clear question?	Most requirements not met. Missing key elements.	Some requirements met but poorly achieved. Contains basic elements but lacks coherence.	Most requirements met. Sets and addresses a question, but not explicitly.	All or most requirements met to a high standard. Addresses an explicit question well.	All requirements met to a very high standard. Addresses a clear question excellently.
Perspectives	Does the reflective account adopt 2 out of 6 perspectives?	Perspectives not mentioned or unclear.	One or two perspectives mentioned but poorly linked to the topic.	Two perspectives stated and partially linked to the topic.	Two perspectives explicitly stated and well-linked to the topic.	Two perspectives explicitly stated and linked to the topic thoughtfully and creatively.
Reflection	Does the account demonstrate reflection on lecture content and offer personal opinions?	Only repeats facts. No reflection or personal opinion.	Gives facts with little reflection. Opinions given without support.	Demonstrates some reflection. Gives opinions but doesn’t relate to learning.	Demonstrates good reflection. Gives opinions and shows how they’ve changed.	Demonstrates thoughtful reflection. Gives insightful opinions and shows development.
Argument	Is the account well-argued with appropriate examples?	Ideas hard to follow. No examples.	Ideas not logically presented. Poor use of examples.	Ideas mostly logical. Use of relevant examples.	Ideas logical and well-argued. Good use of examples.	All ideas logical and exceptionally well-argued. Creative use of examples.
Sources	Does the account use a range of sources to support arguments?	No or inappropriate citations.	Some appropriate citations but no wider reading.	Mostly appropriate citations with limited wider reading.	Wide range of citations with some wider reading.	Wide range of creative citations with clear wider reading.
Presentation	Is the account well-presented with correct APA referencing?	Poor presentation and referencing.	Inadequate presentation and referencing with many errors.	Satisfactory presentation and referencing with some minor errors.	Good presentation and referencing with very few errors.	Excellent presentation and referencing to a high academic standard.

Note: A declaration of AI use (or non-use) is compulsory.

CHIP Learning Log Rubric - Reflection 2 (600 words max including APA references)

Reflection on Specific ‘Reading Journey’ Within Another CHIP Topic

Criteria	Explanation	Fail	3rd	2:2	2:1	1st
Structure	Is the reflective account well-structured? Does it build on a specific reading and discuss a debate/issue?	Most requirements not met. Doesn’t identify specific reading or discuss issue.	Some requirements met but poorly achieved. Lacking in detail.	Most requirements met. Identifies reading and presents limited discussion.	All or most requirements met to a high standard. Explicitly identifies reading and discusses in detail.	All requirements met to a very high standard. Explicit identification and comprehensive discussion.
Reflection	Does the account demonstrate reflection on lecture content and offer personal opinions?	Only repeats facts. No reflection or personal opinion.	Gives facts with little reflection. Opinions given without support.	Demonstrates some reflection. Gives opinions but doesn’t relate to learning.	Demonstrates good reflection. Gives opinions and relates to course content.	Demonstrates thoughtful reflection. Gives insightful opinions showing development from course and reading.
Argument	Is the account well-argued with appropriate examples?	Ideas hard to follow. No examples.	Ideas not logically presented. Poor use of examples.	Ideas mostly logical. Use of relevant examples.	Ideas logical and well-argued. Good use of examples.	All ideas logical and exceptionally well-argued. Creative use of examples.
Sources	Does the account use a range of sources to support arguments?	No or inappropriate citations.	Some appropriate citations but no wider reading.	Mostly appropriate citations with limited wider reading.	Wide range of citations with some wider reading.	Wide range of creative citations with clear wider reading.
Presentation	Is the account well-presented with correct APA referencing?	Poor presentation and referencing.	Inadequate presentation and referencing with many errors.	Satisfactory presentation and referencing with some minor errors.	Good presentation and referencing with very few errors.	Excellent presentation and referencing to a high academic standard.

Note: A declaration of AI use (or non-use) is compulsory.