How the presentation is marked
Two rubrics, thirty marks in total: the seminar presentation carries 20% of the course and the PowerPoint document 10%. Both are reproduced here exactly as issued by the Faculty of Law.
Two bands in the PowerPoint rubric carry no mark
Both criteria run 2 for Exemplary, 1 for Proficient and 0 for Unsatisfactory, leaving Partially Proficient without a value. Since Proficient is already 1 and Unsatisfactory is 0, any mark for this band would have to fall between them. The marking tool will not choose one: selecting this band records the criterion as unmarked and no total is produced until the rubric is corrected.
They appear below as [FILL]. Nothing on this site invents a value for them.
Seminar Presentation
20% · 20 marks
| Element | Exemplary | Proficient | Partially Proficient | Unsatisfactory |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisation5 marks | Logical, interesting sequence the audience can follow.5 | Logical sequence the audience can follow.4 | Audience has difficulty following; the student jumps around.2.5 | No sequence of information; the audience cannot understand.0 |
| Subject Knowledge10 marks | Full knowledge, more than required, answering all class questions with explanation and elaboration.10 | At ease with expected answers to all questions but fails to elaborate.8 | Uncomfortable with the information; answers only rudimentary questions.5 | No grasp of the information; cannot answer questions.0 |
| Elocution5 marks | Clear voice and correct, precise pronunciation of terms; all can hear.5 | Voice mostly clear; most words pronounced correctly; most can hear.4 | Mumbles, mispronounces terms, too quiet for the back of the class.2.5 | As above, throughout.0 |
PowerPoint Document
10% · 10 marks
| Element | Exemplary | Proficient | Partially Proficient | Unsatisfactory |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content3 marks | Clear and concise, logical progression of ideas with supporting information.3 | Clear and somewhat concise with logical progression.2–1(marker chooses) | Vague.1 | No clear point of view or logical sequence.0 |
| Text2 marks | Fonts easy to read, point size varies appropriately; italics, bold and indentation aid readability.2 | Readability difficult: lengthy paragraphs, too many fonts, or a dark or busy background.1 | Extremely difficult to read: long blocks of text, small point size.[FILL] — the rubric defines no mark for this band | —0 |
| Layout2 marks | Visually pleasing, contributes to the message, appropriate headings and white space.2 | Some structure but cluttered, busy or distracting.1 | Cluttered and confusing; no use of spacing or headings.[FILL] — the rubric defines no mark for this band | —0 |
| Citations3 marks | Sources properly cited; credibility determinable; all sources clearly identified.3 | Most sources use proper citation format and are documented.2–1(marker chooses) | Copyright guidance sometimes not followed; some sources lack proper citation format.1 | No way to check validity of information.0 |
Notes on the rubric as issued
- Content and Citations overlap at 1 mark between Proficient and Partially Proficient.
- Proficient is given as the range "2–1" while Partially Proficient is given as exactly 1, so a mark of 1 satisfies both bands and two markers may record the same work differently. The marking tool asks the marker to choose 1 or 2 explicitly when Proficient is selected, and records which band was chosen alongside the number.
- The Proficient descriptor for Text describes poor work.
- "Readability difficult: lengthy paragraphs, too many fonts, or a dark or busy background" reads as a criticism, yet it sits in the second-highest band and carries 1 of 2 marks. This is reproduced exactly as given and has not been altered; it is flagged only because the descriptors for this criterion appear to have shifted by one band. Not one of the two defects raised in the brief.
Questions about marking go to the Lecturer, Mr. Suraj Sakal, or the Tutor, Ms. Leah Hector.