Key Criteria

High Distinction

84.5–100%

Distinction

74.50–84.49%

Credit

64.50–74.49%

Pass

49.50–64.49%

Fail

<49.5%

Low Fail

39.50–0%

Introduction and conclusion

(10%)

(10–8.5)

The written assessment has a clear and succinct introduction and conclusion and is the student’s own work. The introduction provides excellent background information and outlines the direction of the assessment, and the conclusion succinctly summarises the key points.

(8.4–7.5)

The written assessment has a clear introduction and conclusion and is the student’s own work. The introduction provides good background information and outlines the direction of the assessment, and the conclusion summarises most key points.

(7.4–6.5)

The written assessment has an adequate introduction and conclusion and is the student’s own work. The introduction provides some background information and outlines the direction of the assessment, and the conclusion summarises some key points.

(6.4–5)

An introduction and conclusion have been attempted and are the student’s own work. The introduction provides limited background information and an outline of the assessment’s direction, and the conclusion has a few key points.

(4.9–4)

The introduction has significant errors or omissions of aims and direction of content or the introduction is not provided and/or is not the student’s own work. The logical direction of the assessment is unclear. The conclusion does not summarise the assessment or is omitted.

(3.5–0)

The introduction has extensive errors or omissions of aims and direction of content or the introduction is not provided and/or is not the student’s own work. The logical direction of the assessment is unclear. The conclusion does not summarise the assessment or is omitted.

Constructs logical arguments

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Content is clearly relevant to the topic; the approach comprehensively answers the question in relation to current midwifery practice and the discourse proceeds logically and is within the set word limit.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is relevant to the topic; the approach clearly answers the question in relation to current midwifery practice and the discourse proceeds logically. Word count is within the set word limit.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is appropriate and answers the question in relation to current midwifery practice and the discourse for the most part proceeds logically.  Word count is within the set word limit.

(6.4–5)

Content answers the question in relation to current midwifery practice, but the discourse is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion.  Word count is within the set word limit.

(4.9–4)

Content is frequently off topic and only partially answers the questions in relation to current midwifery practice. The discourse frequently lacks cohesion.  The word limit has not been adhered to and is marginally over or under the 10% allowance.

(3.5–0)

Content is irrelevant and or does not answer the question in relation to current midwifery practice. The discourse lacks cohesion.  The word limit has not been adhered to, the word limit is well over or under the 10% allowance.

Advanced knowledge – Discusses potential impacts of perinatal mental health on women and their families

(25%)

(25–21.25)

An articulate and comprehensive description of the potential impacts of perinatal mental illness on women and their families.

(21.2–18.75)

A well-developed description of the potential impacts of perinatal mental illness on women and their families.

(18.7–16.25)

A logical description of the potential impacts of perinatal mental illness on women and their families.

(16.2–12.5)

A disjointed description of the potential impacts of perinatal mental illness on women and their families.

(12.4–11.3)

An inadequate description of the potential impacts of perinatal mental illness on women and their families.

(11.25–0)

No description of the potential impacts of perinatal mental illness on women and their families.

Advanced knowledge – Discusses barriers and enablers of perinatal care in rural and remote Australian contexts

(15%)

(15–12.75)

Comprehensive and insightful analysis of the barriers and enablers to perinatal mental health care outside Australian urban regions

(12.7–11.25)

Clear and detailed analysis of the barriers and enablers to perinatal mental health care outside Australian urban regions.

(11.2–9.75)

Logical and appropriate analysis of the barriers and enablers to perinatal mental health care outside Australian urban regions.

(9.7–7.5)

Disjointed and limited analysis of the barriers and enablers to perinatal mental health care outside Australian urban regions.

(7.4–6.8)

Inadequate analysis of the barriers and enablers to perinatal mental health care outside Australian urban regions.

(6.75–0)

No analysis of the barriers and enablers to perinatal mental health care outside Australian urban regions.

Analysis of the role of the midwife in perinatal mental healthcare across the childbearing continuum

(20%)

(20–17)

Clear and comprehensive analysis of the role of the midwife in perinatal mental health care across the childbearing continuum.

(16.9–15)

A clear and detailed analysis of the role of the midwife in perinatal mental health care across the childbearing continuum.

(14.9–13)

A broad analysis of the role of the midwife in perinatal mental health care across the childbearing continuum.

(12.9–10)

A disjointed analysis of the role of the midwife in perinatal mental health care across the childbearing continuum.

(9.9–9)

Limited analysis of the role of the midwife in perinatal mental health care across the childbearing continuum.

(8.9–0)

No analysis of the role of the midwife in perinatal mental health care across the childbearing continuum.

Professional writing and presentation

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Content is students own work, consistently clear, accurate, and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The language of the discipline is comprehensively used. Formatting requirements applied without error. Adheres to the word count.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is students own work, frequently clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. The language of the discipline is frequently used. Formatting requirements applied with 1 error. Adheres to the word count.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is students own work, mostly clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. The language of the discipline is mostly used. Formatting requirements applied with 2 errors. Adheres to the word count.

(6.4–5)

Content is students own work, sometimes clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. The language of the discipline is used. Formatting requirements applied with 3 errors. Adheres to the word count.

(4.9–4)

Content is not students own work, consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. The language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. Formatting requirements applied with ≥4 errors. Deviates +/- 10% of the word count.

(3.9–0)

Content is not students own work. Little to no meaningful writing. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. The language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. Formatting requirements applied with ≥4 errors. Deviates +/- 10% of the word count.

Intext citations

(5%) 

(5–4.25)

Consistently accurate intext citations with no errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style to support and reflect all ideas, information, and quotations.

(4.2–3.8)

One consistent in-text citation error in APA 7th Edition referencing style identified. Intext citations support and reflect most ideas, information, and quotations.

(3.75–3.55)

Two consistent in-text citation errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style identified. Intext citations support and reflect many ideas, information, and quotations.

(3.50–2.5)

Three consistent in-text citation errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style identified. Intext citations support and reflect some ideas, information, and quotations.

(2.45–2)

Four or more consistent in-text citations errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style. Limited intext citations used to support ideas, information, and quotations.

(2.45–2)

No intext references provided.

Reference List

(5%)

(5–4.25)

Acknowledges all sources and meets APA (7th Edition) referencing standards with no errors. Fifteen peer reviewed references provided. Literature cited is published in the last 7 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(4.2–3.8)

Acknowledges majority of sources and/or meets APA (7th Edition) referencing standards with 1 error. Fourteen peer reviewed references provided. The majority of literature cited is published in the last 7 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(3.75–3.55)

Acknowledges most sources and/or meets APA (7th Edition) referencing standards with 2 errors. Thirteen peer reviewed references provided. Most literature cited has been published in the last 7 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(3.50–2.5)

Acknowledges some sources and/or meets APA (7th Edition) referencing standards with 3 errors. Twelve peer reviewed references provided. Some literature cited is published in the last 7 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(2.4–0)

Multiple sources not acknowledged and/or ≥4 APA (7th Edition) referencing errors and/or references not provided. Eleven peer reviewed references provided. Some literature cited is published ≥7 years and/or not sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(0)

Multiple sources not acknowledged and/or ≥4 APA (7th Edition) referencing errors and/or references not provided. Eleven peer reviewed references provided. Some literature cited is published ≥7 years and/or not sourced from the CQUniversity library.

Key Criteria

High Distinction

84.5–100%

Distinction

74.50–84.49%

Credit

64.50–74.49%

Pass

49.50–64.49%

Fail

<49.5%

Verbal and non-verbal communication

(30%)

(30–25.5)

Uses an extensive and rich vocabulary appropriate to topic.

Speaks clearly with a natural speaking pace

Strongly and positively engaged in topic during discussion

Consistently holds attention of panel/questioner with the use of direct eye contact

(25.4–22.5)

Uses a wide and appropriate vocabulary appropriate to topic

Speaks clearly with minimal pauses or hesitation

Demonstrates good and mostly positive engagement with topic during discussion

Mostly consistent use of direct eye contact with panel/questioner

(22.4–19.5)

Uses acceptable vocabulary which is appropriate to topic.

Speech mostly clear but noticeable pauses and/or speaks too fast occasionally

Demonstrates acceptable engagement with topic during discussion

Adequate eye contact made with panel/questioner

(19.4–15)

Uses adequate vocabulary appropriate to topic

Speech is low and/or unclear at times. Multiple pauses and/or speaks too fast on numerous occasions.

Demonstrates adequate engagement with topic during discussion

Minimal eye contact made with panel/questioner

(14.9–0)

Uses limited or inadequate vocabulary which is not appropriate to the topic.

Student mumbles is incoherent and speaks too quietly for panel to hear.

Shows no engagement and/or negativity towards topic during discussion.

No eye contact made with panel/questioner

Overall understanding

(10%)

(10-8.5)

Shows a deep/robust understanding of the scenario with fully accurate information.

Answers all questions with explanation and elaboration.

(8.4-7.5)

Shows an extended understanding of the scenario with accurate information. 

Answers most questions with ease though sometimes requires further elaboration.    

(7.4-6.5)

Shows good understanding of scenario with mostly accurate information.

Ability to answer some questions but answers lack complexity. 

(6.4-5)

Shows satisfactory understanding of scenario with some inaccurate information. 

Is only able to answer rudimentary questions on topic.  

(4.9-0)

Shows limited or no understanding of scenario. Information mostly inaccurate. 

Has no grasp of the information and is unable to answer questions. 

Articulation of knowledge

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Clearly articulates position and thoughts are extensively expressed.

(8.4–7.5)

Articulates position and thoughts expressed clearly.

(7.4–6.5)

Articulates a position that is incomplete or lacks complexity.

Expression of thoughts mostly clear.

(6.4–5)

Articulates a position that is unfocused at times.

Expression of thoughts sometimes unclear and/or ambiguous.

(4.9–0)

Limited or no ability to articulate a position.

Limited ability to express any thoughts, those expressed are unclear.

Uses evidence

(10%)

(10–8.5)

All evidence is highly relevant and specific to the scenario discussion.

(8.4–7.5)

Presents relevant evidence that is accurate to the scenario discussion.

(7.4–6.5)

Presents mostly relevant evidence that links to the scenario discussion. Mostly accurate.

(6.4–5)

Presents evidence that often links to the scenario, but evidence is somewhat inaccurate.

(4.9–0)

Does not present any evidence of relevance to scenario or presents highly inaccurate or evidence.

Implications for practice

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Comprehensive and fully explores the major implications of proposed plan of care.

(8.4–7.5)

Relevant and accurate discussion of the major implications of the proposed plan of care.

(7.4–6.5)

Acceptable and mostly relevant discussion of the major implications of the proposed plan of care.

(6.4–5)

Satisfactory discussion of the major implications of the proposed plan of care.

(4.9–0)

No discussion of any implications for a proposed plan of care.

Structure and organisation

(10%)

(10–8.5)

Presents information/ideas logically.

(8.4–7.5)

Present information in a mostly logical sequence.

(7.4–6.5)

A few areas of disjointedness /lack of logical progression.

(6.4–5)

Ideas are presented in a partly logical way but disjointed and do not always flow logically.

(4.9–0)

Ideas are illogical and very disjointed with no logical flow making.it difficult to follow.

Demonstration of Woman Centred Care

(20%)

(20–17)

Comprehensively considers the needs of the woman and her family in relation to the issue and analyses how they can be best integrated into her plan of care.

(16.9–15)

Sound ability to consider the needs of the woman and her family in relation to the issue and analyses how they can be best integrated into her plan of care.

(14.9–13)

Acceptable ability to consider the needs of the woman and her family in relation to the issue and analyses how they can be best integrated into her plan of care.

(12.9–10)

Consideration of the needs of the woman and her family in relation to the issue are basic. Some ability to form a plan of care but lacks integration and is unclear at times.

(9.9–0)

Limited or no consideration of the needs of the woman and her family in relation to the issue. Little or no evidence of any ability to form a plan of care.