Assessment 2: Self-reflection essay Criterion HD D C P F Essay structured with title page showing author’s name as shown in Moodle, student number, campus, introduction, body of essay, conclusion containing no new information, reference list (4 marks) A highly professional essay presented with all elements included. A professional essay presented with more than 6 elements included. A professional essay presented but with only between 5 and 6 elements included. An essay with only half of the necessary elements included, leaving room for greater improvement in the future. An essay with less than half of the necessary elements which needs to be rectified in the future. Introduction (attention-getting statement,thesis, main points to be covered, diagnostic tools to be used and applied, transition to the body of the presentation) (3 marks) Superior articulation of the six elements of an introduction. Above average articulation of the five elements of an introduction. Clearly articulated less than four of the elements of an introduction. Poor articulation of less than three of the elements of an introduction. Introduction contained less than two of the elements of an introduction. Diagnosis and Reflection Relevant diagnostic tools were used as the basis for analysis (6 marks) 5 diagnostic tools used were relevant to the study and the basis for their inclusion was clear Less than5 of the diagnostic tools used were relevant to the study and the basis for their inclusion was mostly clear Less than 4 diagnostic tools used were relevant to the study and the basis for their inclusion was clear. However a few diagnostic tools required more explanation. Less than 3 diagnostic tools used were relevant to the study and the basis for their inclusion was mostly clear.However mostdiagnostic tools required more explanation for their inclusion. Less than 2 diagnostic tools were usedand were relevant to the study and the basis for their inclusion was mostly clear. Most diagnostic tools were irrelevant to the topic and most tools required more explanation. Discussion of results of relevant diagnostic tools showing an understanding of the results and being able to apply each to their personal situation(6 marks) All results discussed were relevant to the student and in-depth analysis occurred at a very high standard. All results discussed were relevant to the student and analysis occurred at a high standard. Most results discussed were relevant to the student and some in-depth analysis occurred at satisfactory standard. Some results discussed were relevant to the student but in-depth analysis was missing. Few results discussed were relevant to the student and there was no in-depth analysis. Identification of 2 key communication areas that require improvement (2 marks) 2 key areas identified and relevant reasons given 2 key areas identified but reasons were not always relevant 1 key area identified and reasons were relevant 1 key area identified and reasons were not relevant No key areas identified 2 recent professional interactions identified and analysed based on key areas requiring development which support the need for further personal communication development (4 marks) 2 recent professional interactions were identified and analysed in-depth based of key areas requiring development 2 recent professional interactions were identified but not analysed in-depth based of key areas requiring development 1 recent professional interaction was identified and analysed in-depth based of key areas requiring development 1 recent professional interactions was identified but not analysed in-depth based of key areas requiring development No recent professional interactions were identified Literature review Identify 2 key issues from your diagnosis and reflection (2 marks) 2 key issues were clearly identified based on diagnosis and reflection 2 key issues were identified but there was no basis for including both based on diagnosis and reflection Only 1 key issue was clearly identified based on diagnosis and reflection More than 1 key issue was identified but there was no basis for including both based on diagnosis and reflection No key issues were clearly identified Identification and issues arising from diagnosis and reflection (6 marks) Both issues were defined, concepts and key models were clearly identified. Both issues were defined, concepts and key models were identified. Both issues were defined, however, concepts and key models were hard to identify. One issue was defined, concepts and key models were identified. No issues were defined, concepts and key models were not identified Identification and issues arising from diagnosis and reflection (8 marks) Theoretical and behavioural skills were clearly identified. Theoretical and behavioural skills were identified but lacking depth. Theoretical and behavioural skills were not clearly identified. Theoretical and behavioural skills were identified. Theoretical and behavioural skills were not identified. Action plan for next 6 months (5 marks) Detailed 6 month action plan with timeline and success measure included. 6 month action plan lacking details with timeline and some success measure included. 6 month action plan lacking details with timeline and success measure not included. Less than 6 month action plan included but lacking a timeline and success measure. No detailed 6 month action plan with timeline and success measure included. Breadth and quality of research reflected in number and reference style of cited source material (2 marks) 12 academic sources were used. Sources are all credible. The sources were correctly referenced using APA. Between 5 and 12 academic sources. Sources are all credible. The sources were referenced using APA. Between 5 and 12 academic sources were used. Sources are not all credible/used in a way that was relevant. The sources were mostly referenced using APA. Less than five academic sources were used. The sources were not all credible. The sources were referenced sometimes using APA. Less than four academic sources were used. The sources were not all credible. The sources were referenced but the style was not using APA. Standard of written Communication(2 marks) Superior written communication. Above average written communication. Average written communication. Poorly written communication. The written communication was very difficult to understand. Total mark = /50 Grade = Late submission -2.5 marks for every day/part thereof late = New mark for late submission =