MPU3202 INTEGRITY AND ANTI-CORRUPTION

ASSESSMENTS RUBRICS

A – GROUP PROJECT [40%]

NO. CRITERIA MARKS

PART 1: WRITTEN PROJECT PROPOSAL (20%)
1. Relevance (5 points):
 How well does the proposal align with the theme or focus
of the seminar?
 Does it address current or important issues in the ield?
 Are the proposed topics and objectives clear and
pertinent?
2. Content and Originality (5 points):
 Is the content innovative, fresh, or original?
 Does it offer new insights or perspectives?
 Is the proposed content likely to engage the audience?
3. Clarity and Organization (5 points):
 Is the proposal well-structured and logically organized?
 Are the main points or objectives clearly articulated?
 Is the proposal easy to follow, with a clear beginning,
middle, and end?
4. Feasibility (5 points):
 Does the proposal demonstrate that it can be realistically
executed within the seminar's constraints?
 Are the necessary resources, materials, or technology
mentioned?
 Is the proposed timeframe and scope reasonable?
TOTAL MARKS /20
 MPU3202 INTEGRITY AND ANTI-CORRUPTION
ASSESSMENTS RUBRICS

A – GROUP PROJECT [40%]

NO. CRITERIA MARKS

PART 2: CONDUCTING SEMINAR ON CORRUPTIONS (20%)
1. Audience Engagement (5 points):
 Does the proposal describe interactive elements or
activities to engage the audience?
 Are there opportunities for questions, discussions, or
participation?
 Does it consider the needs and interests of the target
audience?
2. Presenter's Quali ications (5 points):
 Does the presenter have relevant expertise or experience
in the topic?
 Are their credentials mentioned, and do they enhance the
proposal's credibility?
 Have they presented at similar events or conferences
before?
3. Innovation and Impact (5 points):
 Does the proposal suggest innovative ideas, methods, or
outcomes?
 Is there a potential for the seminar to have a signi icant
impact or in luence on the ield?
 Does it contribute to the advancement of knowledge or
practice?
4. Collaboration, Communication & Engagement (5 points):
 How effectively does the individual communicate and
collaborate with group members?
 Does the individual actively support group cohesion,
organization, and a positive working environment?
 How well does the individual ful ill their assigned roles
and responsibilities within the group?
TOTAL MARKS /20

A – GROUP PROJECT [40%] /40

 MPU3202 INTEGRITY AND ANTI-CORRUPTION
ASSESSMENTS RUBRICS

B – ORAL PRESENTATION [40%]

NO. CRITERIA MARKS

PART 1: PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT (PSA) (20%)
1. Clarity of Message (4 points):
 Is the main message of the PSA clear and easy to
understand?
 Does the PSA effectively communicate its intended
message or call to action?
2. Relevance and Impact (4 points):
 Is the topic of the PSA relevant to the intended audience?
 Does the PSA have the potential to make an impact or raise
awareness about the issue it addresses?
3. Creativity and Engagement (4 points):
 Is the PSA creative and engaging, capturing the audience's
attention?
 Does it use innovative and compelling elements to convey
its message?
4. Production Quality (4 points):
 Are the audio and visual elements of the PSA of high
quality?
 Is the production level suitable for the intended platform
and audience?
5. Call to Action (4 points):
 Does the PSA provide a clear and actionable call to action
for the audience?
 Is it likely to motivate viewers to take the desired steps?
TOTAL MARKS /20
 MPU3202 INTEGRITY AND ANTI-CORRUPTION
ASSESSMENTS RUBRICS

B – ORAL PRESENTATION [40%]

NO. CRITERIA MARKS

PART 2: REPORT ON CASE STUDY (20%)
1. Understanding of the Case (4 points):
 Does the report demonstrate a clear understanding of the
case study topic and its context?
 Is there evidence of comprehensive research and analysis?
2. Analysis and Critical Thinking (4 points):
 Are the key issues or problems thoroughly analyzed and
discussed?
 Does the report demonstrate critical thinking, offering
insights and solutions?
3. Clarity and Organization (4 points):
 Is the report well-structured with a clear introduction,
body, and conclusion?
 Are the main points and indings presented in a logical and
organized manner?
4. Use of Evidence and Data (4 points):
 Is the report supported by appropriate evidence, data, or
examples?
 Are citations and references used effectively to back up
claims?
5. Recommendations and Conclusion (4 points):
 Are practical recommendations or conclusions provided
based on the analysis?
 - Are the recommendations well-founded and relevant to
the case?
TOTAL MARKS /20

B – ORAL PRESENTATION [40%] /40

 MPU3202 INTEGRITY AND ANTI-CORRUPTION
ASSESSMENTS RUBRICS

C – INDIVIDUAL REFLECTIONS [20%]

NO. CRITERIA MARKS

PART 1: REFLECTION OF PSA VIDEOS (FROM OTHER GROUPS) (10%)
1. Understanding and Insight (2 points):
 Did the re lection show a deep understanding of the
subject matter (both PSA videos and the seminar on
corruption)?
 Did it demonstrate valuable insights or critical thinking
about the content?
2. Connection to Course Content (2 points):
 Was there a clear connection between the re lections and
the course material or relevant concepts?
 Did the re lection reveal an integration of knowledge
gained from the course?
3. Clarity and Organization (2 points):
 Was the re lection well-structured and organized, with a
clear introduction and conclusion?
 Were the main points presented logically and coherently?
4. Re lection on Personal Learning (2 points):
 Did the re lection include a thoughtful discussion of how
the subject matter impacted the student's perspective or
learning?
 Did it demonstrate self-awareness and personal growth?
5. Relevance and Engagement (2 points):
 Did the re lection address the relevance of the content to
real-life issues or personal experiences?
 Did it engage the reader and provoke further thought on
the topics discussed?
TOTAL MARKS /10
 MPU3202 INTEGRITY AND ANTI-CORRUPTION
ASSESSMENTS RUBRICS

C – INDIVIDUAL REFLECTIONS [20%]

NO. CRITERIA MARKS

PART 2: REFLECTION OF SEMINAR ON CORRUPTION (10%)
1. Understanding and Insight (2 points):
 Did the re lection demonstrate a clear understanding of
the content presented in the seminar on corruption?
 Did it showcase valuable insights or critical thinking
about the topic?
2. Connection to Course Content (2 points):
 Was there a clear connection between the re lection and
the course content or relevant concepts discussed in the
seminar?
 Did the re lection reveal the integration of knowledge
gained from the course?
3. Clarity and Organization (2 points):
 Was the re lection well-structured and organized, with a
clear introduction and conclusion?
 Were the main points presented logically and coherently?
4. Re lection on Personal Learning (2 points):
 Did the re lection include a thoughtful discussion of how
the seminar on corruption impacted the student's
perspective or learning?
 Did it demonstrate self-awareness and personal growth?
5. Relevance and Engagement (2 points):
 Did the re lection address the relevance of the seminar
topic to real-life issues or personal experiences?
 Did it engage the reader and provoke further thought on
the topic discussed in the seminar?
TOTAL MARKS /10

C – INDIVIDUAL REFLECTIONS [20%] /20