Aims of the evaluation are clearly specified
[ad_1]
| Excellent 100% | Proficient 80% | Satisfactory 60% | Unsatisfactory 40% | |
| Introduction Introduction and Context 25% |
Aims of the evaluation are clearly specified, are appropriate and succinct. Evaluand (i.e. the program to be evaluated) is described in detail. Objectives of the evaluation proposal are clearly specified, are practical and achievable. Significance of the evaluation is clearly specified and described in detail. All relevant evaluation audience and stakeholders are clearly defined. |
Aims of the evaluation are clearly specified but not succinct. Evaluand is well defined i.e. the program to be evaluated. Objectives of the evaluation proposal are clearly specified, but are not practical and achievable. Significance of the evaluation is clearly specified but not described in detail. Some evaluation audience and stakeholders are defined. |
Aims of the evaluation are not clear and succinct. Evaluand partially defined. Objectives of the evaluation proposal are not practical or achievable. Significance of the evaluation is not clearly specified nor described in detail. Very few evaluation audience and stakeholders are defined. |
Aims of evaluation are not specified. Evaluand not defined at all. Objectives of the evaluation proposal are not defined at all. Significance of the evaluation is not identified. Evaluation audience and stakeholders are not defined. |
| Background Background / literature review 25% |
Strong, well developed and detailed background information is provided to explain the context. |
Some background information is provided to explain the context. | Limited background information is provided to explain the context. |
Fails to provide a background to explain the context. |
| Methodology 25% |
Key evaluation questions are clearly specified, well defined, appropriate and succinct. Evaluation design clearly specified and appropriate for evaluation question and context. Methods of sample selection clearly specified and are appropriate for the evaluation design. The techniques for the collection of data are specified, with variables / items to be collected clearly described and are appropriate for design. Data analysis clearly specified and is appropriate for design/methods. Project methodology is described in detail, is feasible/realistic for context. Project methodology addresses all ethical concerns/issues. |
Key evaluation questions are clearly specified, well defined but are not appropriate nor succinct. Evaluation design clearly specified but not appropriate for evaluation question and context. Methods of sample selection clearly specified but are not appropriate for the evaluation design. The techniques for the collection of data are specified, with variables / items to be collected clearly described but not appropriate for design. Data analysis clearly specified but is not appropriate for design/methods. Project methodology is not described in detail but is feasible/realistic for context. Project methodology addresses some ethical concerns/issues. |
Key evaluation questions not well defined. Evaluation design not clearly specified nor appropriate for evaluation question and context. Methods of sample selection are not clearly specified nor appropriate for the evaluation design. The techniques for the collection of data are not well specified, nor appropriate for the evaluation design. Data analysis is not clearly specified nor appropriate for the evaluation design and methods. Project methodology is not feasible/realistic for context. Project methodology addresses limited ethical concerns/issues. |
No key evaluation questions included. Evaluation design not included. Methods of sample selection not included. The techniques for the collection of data are not specified at all. Data analysis is not included. Project methodology is not described at all. Project methodology doesn’t include ethical concerns/issues. |
| Admin issues Administrative issues 5% |
Timeline is well described and gantt chart included with all activities included. Budget is well specified, appropriate items included and costs estimated. Data storage and handling described in detail. Dissemination strategy clearly stated and includes all stakeholders and audience. |
Timeline is defined but gantt chart is not detailed. Budget is specified and items included but costs not well estimated. Data storage and handling described but not in detail. Dissemination strategy clearly stated and includes some stakeholders and audience. |
Timeline is defined but not using a gantt chart. Budget is specified but item costs not estimated. Data storage and handling not well described. Dissemination strategy stated but missing most stakeholders. |
Timeline not included at all. Budget is not specified at all. Data storage and handling not included. Dissemination strategy not included. |
| Presentation of work 5% |
Layout (font, spacing etc.) appropriate. Consistent formatting. | Layout (font, spacing etc.) appropriate. Consistent formatting with minor errors. |
Layout (font, spacing etc.) is inappropriate. Inconsistent formatting. |
Layout (font, spacing etc.) is inappropriate. Very poor formatting. |
| Referencing 5% | In-text citations and reference list according to a consistent style correct. Tables and figures adequately referenced. Detailed number of references and referencing is consistent with an accepted style. All references are peer reviewed. |
In-text citations and reference list according to a consistent style correct. Tables and figures adequately referenced. Moderate number of references and referencing is consistent with an accepted style. Nearly all references are peer reviewed. |
In-text citations and reference list are not consistent. Tables and figures are not adequately referenced. Limited number of references and referencing is not consistent with an accepted style. Very few references are peer reviewed. |
In-text citations and reference list are not included. Tables and figures not included. Very few references and referencing is not consistent with an accepted style. Not references or mainly from Wikipedia. |
| Grammar Grammar and spelling 5% |
Proofed, consistent, concise and accurate with fluent use of English language. |
Proofed, consistent, correct, concise and clear | Spell-checked, but with minor mistakes in word choice, inconsistent punctuation, etc. |
Many errors in spelling and grammar; grammar and spell check not used. |
| Other 5% | Program logic well defined with needs/situation, inputs, outputs, outcomes, assumptions, external factors, indicators included. |
Program logic well defined but missing a few components. | Program logic defined but missing most components. | No program logic included. |
Rubric Assessment 3 2020
[Button id=”1″]
[ad_2]
Source link
"96% of our customers have reported a 90% and above score. You might want to place an order with us."
