Marking Rubric for Assessment Task – Global Homework Experts

NURBN3033_semester2_2022_Assessmenttask1 Debate
Marking Rubric for Assessment Task 1 Debate

order now
Criteria HD (80-100) D (70-79) C (60-69) P (50-59) F (0-49)
Introduction
The debater introduces
the argument to be
explored in a coherent
manner and provides a
clear concise explanation
of how the argument will
be logically elaborated.
(5 Marks)
Shows a sophisticated
attempt to provide a
comprehensive
introduction to the
argument and has
provided a comprehensive
and logical explanation for
the direction of the
debate. (5 marks)
Shows a considered
attempt to provide an
introduction to the
argument and has
provided a considered
logical explanation for the
direction of the debate. (4
marks)
Shows a moderate
attempt to provide an
introduction to the
argument. A moderate
attempt to provide a
logical explanation for the
direction of the debate.
(3 marks)
Shows a minimal attempt
to provide an introduction
to the argument and a lack
of a logical explanation for
the direction of the
debate. (2 mark)
Evidence of limited effort
to provide an introduction
to the argument and a lack
of a logical explanation for
the direction of the
debate.
(0-1 mark)
Main Body & Argument
The debaters give sound
arguments that are
coherently established and
maintained throughout the
debate. The argument
flows logically.
Arguments are presented
in a clear way that leads
the viewers to consider
taking the speakers side of
the argument.
(10 marks)
Comprehensive attempts
to establish a coherent
argument that is
maintained throughout the
debate. The argument is
entirely logical throughout
the debate.
(9-10 marks)
High-level attempts to
establish a coherent
argument. The attempts
to maintain an argument
are of high-level. The
argument flows logically
most of the debate.
(7-8 marks)
Moderate attempts to
establish a coherent
argument. The attempts
to maintain an argument
are moderate in nature.
The argument flows
logically most of the
time.
(5-6 marks)
Minimal attempts to
establish a coherent
argument. The attempts
to maintain an argument
are minimal in nature. The
argument flows logically
some of the time.
(3-4 marks)
Very limited attempt to
establish a coherent
argument. The attempts to
establish an argument are
poorly maintained. The
argument does not flow
logically.
(0-2 marks)
Analysis in Argument
Relevant considerations of
opposing arguments are
given in the debate and
the provision of a coherent
rebuttals of the counter
arguments are given to
support the intended
direction of the
argument.
(10 marks)
Comprehensive
consideration of opposing
arguments given in the
debate. There is
comprehensive evidence of
coherent and compelling
rebuttals of the counter
arguments to support the
intended direction of the
argument. (9-10 marks)
High-level consideration of
opposing arguments given
in the debate. There is
high-level evidence of
coherent rebuttals of the
counter arguments given
to support the intended
direction of the
argument. (7-8 marks)
Moderate consideration of
opposing arguments given
in the debate. There is
moderate evidence of
coherent rebuttals of the
counter arguments to
support the intended
direction of the
argument. (5-6 marks)
Minimal consideration of
opposing arguments given
in the debate. There is
minimal evidence of a
rebuttals given for the
counter arguments to
support the intended
direction of the
argument.(3-4 marks)
Very limited consideration
of opposing arguments
given in the debate. There
is very limited evidence of
rebuttals given for the
counter arguments to
support the intended
direction of the
argument.(0-2 marks)

NURBN3033_semester2_2022_Assessmenttask1 Debate

Conclusion of Argument
Clear and concise
summations with
appropriately persuasive
closing remarks given.
(5 marks)
Comprehensive
summation that is concise
with a comprehensive and
persuasive closing remarks
that follow naturally from
the debate to underscore
the intended argument.
(5 marks)
High-level summation that
is concise with a high
level attempt made to
provide persuasive closing
remarks that follow
naturally from the debate
to underscore the
intended argument.
(4 marks)
Moderate summation that
is concise with a moderate
attempt made to provide
persuasive closing remarks
that follow naturally from
the debate to underscore
the intended argument.
(3 marks)
Minimal summation with
very little attempt made to
provide persuasive closing
remarks that follow
somewhat naturally from
the debate to underscore
the intended argument.
(2 marks)
Very limited summation
with very little attempt
made to provide
persuasive closing
remarks. Remarks made
do not follow naturally
from the debate to
underscore the intended
argument.
(1 mark)
Teamwork/ Self
Evaluation
The team clearly worked
together to formulate a
convincing debate.
Individual evaluation
completed including a
summary of group
processes, what worked
well and what didn’t,
individual reflection of
role in the team, and
learnings from group
debate process.
(5 marks)
All team members
communicated clearly and
confidently.
Comprehensive evaluation
on group processes and
comprehensive individual
reflection.
(5 marks)
All team members
communicated clearly.
High-level evaluation on
group processes and high
level individual
reflection.
(4 marks)
Members of the team
seldom communicated
clearly.
Moderate evaluation on
group processes and
moderate individual
reflection.
(3 marks)
Members of the team
failed to communicate
clearly.
Minimal evaluation on
group processes and
minimal individual
reflection.
(2 marks)
Members of the team
failed to communicate
effectively.
Individual evaluation on
group processes and
reflection was not
completed or very
limited. (0-1 mark)
Presentation/
Persuasiveness
Articulation is very clear
throughout the video.
Engagement with the
audience/camera is
exhibited through eye
contact and speaking
directly to the camera.
Footage itself is stable,
clearly focused with easily
heard audio.
(2.5 marks)
All arguments delivered by
the team were logical and
convincing. Team
members maintained
excellent eye contact,
voice inflection and
delivery rate. Video
footage is clear and easy
to watch. Length of
presentation is within
assigned time limits.
(2.5 marks)
Most arguments delivered
by the team were logical
and convincing. Team
members maintained
frequent eye contact, good
voice and delivery
rate. Video footage is clear
to watch. Length of
presentation is within
assigned parameters.
(2 marks)
The team delivered some
arguments which were
logical and convincing.
Team members displayed
poor eye contact, poor
voice and delivery
rate. Video footage is
sound for the viewer
to watch. Length of
presentation is within
1 minute of assigned
parameter.
(1.5 marks)
The team delivered a few
arguments which were
logical and convincing.
Team members displayed
minimal eye contact,
monotone voice, poor
delivery and rate.Video
footage is poor for the
viewer to watch. Length of
presentation is within
2 minutes of assigned
parameter.
(1 mark)
The team did not
work together to
produce arguments
that were logical and
convincing. Team
members displayed no eye
contact, monotone voice,
poor delivery and
rate. Video footage
difficult for the viewer to
watch. Length of video is
too long or short (more
than 3 minutes either side
of parameters). (0.5
mark)

NURBN3033_semester2_2022_Assessmenttask1 Debate

References
APA 7th ed. used for
referencing. Minimum of
10 academic references
used to support debate.
(At least 5 per side of the
debate)
(2.5 marks)
Excellent analysis and
synthesis of research,
evidence of consulting
minimum number of
academic sources (10).
Excellent inclusion of
research seamlessly
throughout debate to
support material. Accurate
and consistent APA style
referencing.
10 or more good
references used.
(2.5 marks)
Good analysis and
synthesis of research, with
evidence of consulting
minimum number of
academic sources. Good
attempt at inclusion of
research throughout
debate to support
material. Consistent APA
style referencing with only
minor errors.
8- 9 good references
used. (2 marks)
Good attempt at analysis
and synthesis of academic
research, more resources
required. Good attempt at
inclusion of research
throughout debate to
support material, more
research required
Referencing contains some
errors or omissions. 6-7
good references used.
(1.5 marks)
Reasonable but limited
evidence of analysis and
synthesis of academic
research Reasonable
attempt at inclusion of
some references
throughout debate to
support material
Referencing contains
major errors or omissions.
3-4 good references used.
(1 mark)
Extremely limited
evidence of analysis and
synthesis of academic
research. Poor or no
attempt at APA style
referencing. Insufficient or
poor-quality references
used. Less than 3 good
references used.
(0.5 mark)

 

Comments are closed.