Promoting Health in Individuals and Populations Assignment 2: Funding proposal Promoting Health in Individuals and Populations Assignment 2: Marking criteria

Facets of Inquiry Fail If you were ticked here, this facet of research needs work

Pass If you were ticked here, this facet of research was OK but could be improved

Credit If you were ticked here, this facet of research is good

Distinction If you were ticked here, this facet of research is well done

High Distinction If you were ticked here, this facet of research is excellent

Weighting

A. Clarify purpose of and rationale for the project.

□ The rationale for the project was poorly described and not supported by evidence. The purpose of the project was not stated, or not clearly stated. The abstract did not summarise the goals, objectives or strategies of the project.

□ The rationale for the project was described, and some aspects were supported by evidence. The purpose of the project was stated but not clearly stated. The abstract summarised the goals, objectives and strategies of the project.

□ The rationale for the project was described, and supported by evidence. The purpose of the project was clearly stated. The abstract summarised the goals, objectives and strategies of the project.

□ The rationale for the project was well described, and supported by evidence. The purpose of the project was clearly stated. The abstract summarised the goals, objectives or strategies and the project.

□ The rationale for the project was extremely well written and described in detail, and supported by evidence. The purpose of the project was clearly stated. The abstract summarised the goals, objectives and strategies of the project.

20%

B. Outline informed and strategies and activities in your project plan, evaluation plan and funding.

□ The project plan and the key objectives and strategies were poorly described and the evaluation plan was poorly outlined.

□ The project plan and the key objectives and strategies were described and there was adequate detail of the evaluation plan.

□ The project plan and the key objectives and strategies were well described and evaluation plan showed a good level of detail and was appropriately matched to the program plan.

□ The project plan and the key objectives and strategies were very well described and evaluation plan was clear and well matched to the program plan.

□ The project plan and the key objectives and strategies were extremely well described and evaluation plan was excellent.

30%

C. Evaluate information/ critical appraisal

□ The project did not appear to be evidence-based, and there was very little indication of critical appraisal of the literature in the area.

□ The project did appear to be evidence-based, and there was some critical appraisal of the literature in the area.

□ It was clear that the program was evidence- based, and there was good critical appraisal of the literature in the area.

□ It was very clear that the program was evidence- based, and there was very good critical appraisal of the literature in the area.

□ The evidence-base of the program was extremely well described and the critical appraisal of the relevant literature was clearly evident.

30%

D. Organise information and communicate knowledge, demonstrating ability to adhere to prescribed structure.

□ The assignment did not cover all aspects of the to the proposal structure. The assignment was poorly written, and lacked coherence between and within sections. □ The assignment exceeded the word count by more than 10%, and/or a word count is not provided but it appears to exceed the word count by more than 10%.

□ The assignment covered all aspects of the to the proposal structure. The assignment was difficult to follow in some sections, and slightly lacked coherence between and within sections.

□ The assignment covered all aspects of the proposal structure adequately. The assignment was written well and demonstrated coherence between and within sections.

□ The assignment was well written, covering all aspects of the proposal structure well. It was coherent within and between paragraphs.

□ The assignment was exceptionally well written, covering all aspects of the proposal structure succinctly but with enough detail. □ The assignment was within 10% of the word count.

10%

E. Analyse & synthesise and integrate new knowledge throughout

□ The assignment poorly combined and integrated a range of sources of evidence and poorly or incorrectly related this to the project plan.

□ The assignment attempted to combine and integrate a range of sources of evidence and attempted to relate this to the project plan.

□ The assignment has combined and integrated a range of sources of evidence and there was a good attempt to relate to the project plan.

□ The assignment has combined and integrated a range of sources of evidence well and this is well reflected in the project plan.

□ The assignment has combined and integrated a range of sources of evidence well and this is extremely well reflected in the project plan.

5%

F. Apply discipline conventions and “publication” requirements

□ Sources within the assignment were not acknowledged. □ The assignment did not include a reference list.

□ Most of the sources within the assignment were acknowledged partially and/or incorrectly. □ The reference list is provided but with many mistakes or is incomplete.

□ All sources within the assignment were acknowledged partially and/or incorrectly. □ The reference list provided had some mistakes.

□ The assignment acknowledged all sources fully and correctly. □ The assignment included a reference list, including all sources and mostly consistently followed an established referencing style.

□ The assignment acknowledged all sources fully and correctly, differentiating between quotations and paraphrasing. □ The assignment included a reference list, including all sources and consistently followed an established referencing style.

5%

Total out of 100