BUSS2000: Vlog ( /20). Please read this rubric in conjunction with the description on canvas. This assessment is worth 20% of your overall mark.
High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
(30%) Part 1: The IPO model of team functioning
(10%) Description of team
inputs drawing on IPO model –
based on literature from the
Modules
Exceptionally clear description,
drawing on relevant
concepts/literature from the unit
modules – with illustrated
examples that demonstrate
nuanced insight and understanding
Clear description, drawing on
relevant concepts/ literature from
the unit modules ; illustrated with
examples that demonstrate
understanding
General description, drawing
on concepts/literature from
the unit modules; with
adequate examples that
demonstrate general
understanding
Surface level description of team
inputs lacking/ vague reference to
concepts/ literature and examples
to show understanding
No or poor description of
team inputs. No mention of
relevant concepts/literature
to demonstrate understanding
(20%) Evaluation of the effect
of the team input, processes on
outputs/outcomes.
Exceptional nuanced evaluation of
the inputs and processes,
integrating theories/literature in a
clear and insightful way, with
consistent
critique and synthesis to team
output/outcomes
Clear evaluation of the inputs
and processes; integrating
theories/literature to add
insight and supported with
critique and synthesis to team
output/outcomes
General evaluation of inputs
and processes, attempt to
integrate theories/literature,
with adequate critique and
synthesis to team
output/outcomes
Surface level evaluation of inputs;
limited use of theories/literature,
lacks critique and synthesis to
team output/outcomes
No or poor evaluation and /or
theories not applied
(30%) Part 2: Reflection on challenges in the team
(10%) Description of
challenge/s that your team
experienced
Insightful and clear description with
specific examples
Clear description with
specific examples
General description
with adequate examples
Surface level description lacking/
vague examples
No or poor description of the
challenges with no examples
(20%) Identification and
integration of specific team
processes used to strategically
manage this challenge.
Insightful identification and
integration of team processes with
nuanced justification and applying
clear and specific strategies based on
theory/concepts/literature
Clear identification and
description of team processes
and specific strategies are
justified based on
theory/concepts/literature.
General description of team
processes and strategies;
adequate justification based
on some links to
theory/concepts/literature.
Surface level description of team
processes and strategies but not
based on theory/concepts/literature.
No or poor description of the
specific team processes or
strategies used to manage this
challenge
(15) Part 3: Reflection on learning in the team
(15%) Consideration of what
you have learnt as a diverse
team and strategies for
improvement to apply in
future teamwork.
Insightful nuanced reflection on
team learning with well justified,
specific and authentic strategies for
future teamwork, based on the
literature.
Clear reflection on your team
learning with well justified and
specific strategies for future
teamwork improvement based
on the literature.
General reflection on your
team learning with justified
and adequate
strategies for improvement
based on the literature.
Surface level reflection on your
team learning but lacking /vague
strategies for improvement and
lacks justification from literature.
No or Poor reflection on
your team learning or no
strategies for improvement.
(10%) Part 4: Overall communication
structure, presentation + slide deck
requirement
Exceptionally well-polished
reflection, with consistent flow
between sections and speakers
demonstrate a conversational ( no
reading from scripts) and integrated
voice, Persuasive and engaging with
all speakers seen making
regular/constant eye contact,
appropriate body language e.g. using
hand gestures. Follows assessment
instruction -presentation structure uses
the required slides (4).
Logically organised reflection
with careful attention to detail,
clarity of thought and speaking
flow, integrated voice. Generally
engaging presentation with less
reliance on scripts. Good
speaking volume and
intonation, appropriate body
language, e.g. use of hand
gestures, eye contact. Follows
assessment instruction -
presentation structure uses the
required slides (4).
Well organised reflection;
coherent with some flow between
sections and a unified voice, but
some reading of scripts. Engaging
in parts with effective use of body
language, e.g. use of hand
gestures, eye contact. Follows
assessment instruction -presentation
structure uses the required slides (4).
Organised in parts with some flow
between sections, although unbalanced.
Lacks engagement due to mainly reading of scripts
lacking eye contact and engagement. Some
attempt to follow assessment instruction
– but presentation structure uses more than (4)
slides.
Poorly organised, incoherent or
no connection between sections
and speakers; missing team
members, some team members
are heard audibly, but not seen;
Overall lacks engagement; poor
speaking volume, eye contact.
Does not adhere to assessment
instructions.
(5%) Part 5: Team Document;
Appendices (team contract,
logbook and team conflict profiles,
supplementary evidence)
Follows APA guidelines / includes team contract / logbook / team conflict profiles
1 & 2 and relevant supplementary evidence in the team appendices.
Mostly accurate and includes
appendix
Some attempt at referencing, includes
appendix, but missing some
documentation
No referencing and/or no
appendix.