Digital & Collaborative Learning in Context

Assessment 1 - Rubric - November 2015 Intake

The Mind Lab by Unitec | Assessment Rubrics | November 2015

DCL1 Title: Identify, justify and plan a digital and collaborative learning innovation
applied to a specific area of your practice.
Either individually, or in groups of two or three, create a cohesive video presentation where you critically reflect on your practice and propose and justify a plan to
address an area for improvement.
An innovation can be a combination of many types of tool, the ways you use them, new collaborative practice(s) etc.
Remember to consider the perspectives of different stakeholders.
Assessment breakdown
20% Identify and analyse the area for improvement based on a critical reflection of your practice
30% Explain and justify what you hope to achieve by addressing this issue, using supporting evidence (e.g. research literature, policies/guidelines, current practice,
quantitative/qualitative data etc.)
30% Propose a plan for a digital and collaborative innovation and explain how it addresses the identified area for improvement
10% Use and present suitably referenced source material, including peer reviewed journals
10% Deliver and present content effectively, considering structure, narrative and language
Individual Submission

Video presentation of 6-8 minutes in duration

Group Submission (optional)

Video presentation or 10-12 minutes in duration

Assessment Criteria 80% Self + 20% Peer Evaluation

Fill in the Self and Peer Evaluation Form after you have submitted your assignment
Weighting 50%

The Mind Lab by Unitec | Assessment Rubrics | November 2015

Due date Monday 30th November 2015, 5.00pm

DCL 1 - November 2015 Intake

Below Expectations
(Prestructural)
< 50%

Identify and analyse the area

for improvement based on
a critical reflection of
your practice

Area for
improvement not
identified / No
reflection on
practice

Grade range:
Explain and justify what
you hope to achieve by
addressing this issue,
sing supporting evidence
(e.g. research literature,
policies/guidelines, current
practice, quantitative/
qualitative data etc.)
Grade range:

Meets Minimum
Expectations
(Unistructural)
50%-59%
Area for
improvement
discussed and
related to reflection
on practice

0-9

10-11

No explanation of
desired outcome
provided / No
justification
provided / No
evidence produced

Explanation and
justification of
desired outcome
provided and
related to some
supporting evidence

0-14

15-17

Meets or Exceeds
Expectations
(Multistructural)
60% - 74%
Area for
improvement
analyzed and
related to more
than one aspect of
practice
12-14
Desired outcome
and justifications
analyzed and
related to more
than one source of
evidence

18-21

Meets or Exceeds
Expectations
(Relational)

Exceeds Expectations
(Extended Abstract)

Weighting

90% - 100%

Area for improvement

analyzed and
informed by a critique
of relevant aspects of
practice

Area for improvement

evaluated against a
critique of relevant
aspects of practice and
generalizability to
theory / wider practice

20%

15-17

18-20

Relevant evidence
from more than one
source informs the
choice / design and
the justification of the
desired outcome

The desired outcome

and justification is
critiqued, defended and
related to best practice
on the strength of
evidence from wide
variety of relevant
sources

22-26

27-30

75% - 89%

30%

Continues on the next slide

The Mind Lab by Unitec | Assessment Rubrics | November 2015

Propose a plan for a digital and

collaborative innovation and
explain how it addresses the
identified area for improvement
Grade range:

Use and present suitably

referenced source material,
including peer reviewed journals

Grade range:

Deliver and present content

effectively, considering structure,
narrative and language

Grade range:

No plan proposed
/ no explanation
of relevance to
area for
improvement
0-14
Inadequate
referencing,
insufficient
sources and
citation
0-4
Poorly structured
presentation of
disconnected
information

0-4

The Mind Lab by Unitec | Assessment Rubrics | November 2015

A plan is
proposed and is
related to the
area for
improvement

A plan is discussed and

is related to the area
for improvement on
the basis of the
intended outcome

An analysis of the
plan relates
characteristics to
specific requirements
identified in the area
for improvement

A plan is critiqued
against requirements
and alternatives
identified in the area for
improvement

15-17

18-21

22-26

27-30

Adequate
referencing,
sources identified
and cited

Good list of references,

cited and discussed

6-7

Adequate
presentation
quality (telling /
reciting)

Presentation that
describes and
combines themes, with
a narrative structure

6-7

Well integrated and

constructed
references, cited and
debated

8-9
A well argued
presentation with a
narrative structure
that relates themes
together
8-9

Comprehensive
referencing, integrated
in a reflective manner

30%

10%

10
An original and creative
presentation displaying
a reflective narrative
structure

10

10%