In pairs, you are required to deliver a presentation (10min per student), that describes the structure, function and movement of the musculoskeletal system for a specific movement.

Assessment

Weighting

Type of Assessment (e.g. Essay)

Assessment length

Format of submission (e.g. Word)

Submission Deadline

1

40%

Presentation

10 minutes per student

Power Point

2

60%

Written Report

2000 words

Word

Fail (0-19%)

F

Inadequate (20-

39%)

F

Satisfactory (40-

49%)

3rd

Good (50-59%)

2:2

Very Good (60-69%)

2:1

Excellent (70-100%)

1st

Understandin g of module/task

(WHAT and WHY)

You have failed to demonstrate an understanding.

A large proportion of the work is incorrect and/or has a large number of significant omissions.

You have demonstrated an inadequate understanding (e.g., description, explanation, analysis, and discussion) of the empirical and theoretical underpinnings of this module/ task.

Terminology has been used incorrectly, core content areas are not discussed and there are some significant errors and/or omissions.

You have demonstrated a satisfactory understanding (e.g., description, explanation, analysis, and discussion) of the empirical and theoretical underpinnings of this module/ task. However, terminology may be used incorrectly, core content areas are only discussed briefly and there are some significant areas that could be expanded upon, clarified, or corrected.

You have demonstrated a good understanding (e.g., description, explanation, analysis, and discussion) of the empirical and theoretical underpinnings of this module/task.

Terminology is generally used correctly, and core content areas are largely discussed coherently.

However, there are some notable areas that could be expanded upon,

clarified or corrected.

You have demonstrated a very good understanding (e.g., description, explanation, analysis, and discussion) of the empirical and theoretical underpinnings of this module/task. Terminology is used correctly. Core content areas are discussed coherently and concisely, in parts, potentially beyond the scope of the core content. There are some areas that could be further expanded

upon, clarified, or corrected.

You have demonstrated an excellent understanding (e.g., description, explanation, analysis, and discussion). Your work demonstrates excellent empirical and theoretical underpinnings of this module/task. Terminology is correctly defined throughout. Core content is consistently discussed and expanded upon, potentially beyond the scope of the core content delivered.

Application of knowledge

(WHO, HOW & WHY)

You have failed to demonstrate an application of knowledge. You have made minimal or incoherent links to applied practice. No or extremely vague considerations of how theory translates to practice. There are no connections to specific contextual differences.

You have not shown any examples of critical insight where

You have demonstrated an inadequate application of knowledge. You have made inadequate or generally unclear links to applied practice.

Inadequate and unsecure considerations of how theory translates to practice. There are very limited connections made to specific contextual differences.

You have shown inadequate examples of

You have demonstrated a satisfactory application of knowledge. You have made satisfactory links to applied practice.

Satisfactory considerations of how theory translates to practice. There are occasional connections to specific contextual differences.

You have shown satisfactory examples of critical insight where you have compared different

You have demonstrated a good application of knowledge. You have made good links to applied practice. Good considerations of how theory translates to practice. There are some connections to specific contextual differences and approaches to practice.

You have shown good examples of critical insight where you have compared different

You have demonstrated a very good application of knowledge. You have made very good links to applied practice. Very good considerations of how theory translates to practice are made. There are several connections made to specific contextual differences and approaches to practice.

You have shown very good examples of critical insight where you have compared different approaches that

You have demonstrated an excellent application of knowledge. You have made excellent and explicit links to applied practice.

Excellent considerations of how theory translates to practice are made. There are excellent, frequent, and well considered connections made to specific contextual differences and approaches to practice.

You have shown excellent examples of critical insight where you have compared

you have compared different approaches that could be adopted.

critical insight where you have not compared different approaches that could be adopted.

approaches that could be adopted. However, there are very limited (if any) considerations made for methodological considerations and/or gaps in the knowledge base.

approaches that could be adopted. However, there are limited considerations made for methodological considerations and/or gaps in the knowledge base.

could be adopted. You have offered a very good critique of the evidence base on which your judgments are made, including some methodological considerations as well as some gaps in the knowledge base.

different approaches. You have offered an excellent critique of the evidence base on which your judgments are made including methodological considerations as well as gaps in the knowledge base.

Professional Communicati on

(e.g., Writing Style, References and Presentation)

A lack of professional communication individually and/or as a group. Work has been poorly formatted and is not digestible to the end user. The work has been poorly communicated individually and/or as a group, in a style that is unable to communicate key points. There are significant punctuation, spelling or grammar errors present. If relevant, the body language is distracting or unengaging throughout the presentation, individually and/or as a group. Overall, work has been poorly presented individually and/or as a group.

An inadequate level of professional communication used individually and/or as a group. Work has been poorly formatted and is not attractive and is hard to digest by the end user. The work has been inadequately communicated individually and/or as a group in a style that is unable to communicate key points. There are numerous punctuation, spelling or grammar errors present. If relevant, the body language is largely distracting or unengaging throughout the presentation, individually and/or as a group. Overall, work has been presented with inadequate clarity individually and/or as a group.

A satisfactory level of professional communication individually and/or as a group. Work has been formatted in a satisfactory manner and is somewhat digestible to the end user. The work has been satisfactorily communicated individually and/or as a group in a somewhat clear style, with considerable reliance on notes, individually and/or as a group. There are frequent punctuation, spelling or grammar errors, and if applicable, there has been satisfactory use of tone of voice alongside satisfactory vocabulary and terminology use, individually and/or as a group. If relevant, the body language individually and/or as a group, throughout the presentation somewhat maintains the audience`s attention, or on key

A good level of professional communication individually and/or as a group. Work has been formatted and is somewhat attractive and digestible to the end user. The work has been communicated individually and/or as a group in a style that is somewhat able to synthesise key points explicitly and coherently, with some reliance on notes, individually and/or as a group. There are some punctuation, spelling or grammar errors, and if applicable, there has been good use of tone of voice alongside good vocabulary and terminology use, individually and/or as a group. If relevant, the body language throughout the presentation individually and/or as a group is

A very good level of professional communication individually and/or as a group. Work has been formatted and is mostly attractive and digestible to the end user. The work has been communicated individually and/or as a group in a style that is (in parts) able to synthesise key points explicitly and coherently, with minor to limited reliance on notes, individually and/or as a group. There are minor punctuation, spelling or grammar errors, and if applicable, there has been very good use of tone of voice alongside a very good vocabulary and terminology use, individually and/or as a group. If relevant, the body language throughout the presentation, individually and/or as a group is very good, ensuring the audience`s attention is focussed on the speaker, or on key messages associated within the text. Overall, work

An excellent level of professional communication individually and/or as a group. Work has been formatted excellently and is attractive and digestible to the end user. The work has been excellently communicated individually and/or as a group, in a style that is able to synthesise key points explicitly and coherently, with little to no reliance on notes, individually and/or as a group. There are no obvious punctuation, spelling or grammar errors, and if applicable, there has been an excellent use of tone of voice alongside an excellent vocabulary and terminology use, individually and/or as a group. If relevant, the body language throughout the presentation, individually and/or as a group is excellent, ensuring the audience`s attention is positively focussed on the speaker, or on key

messages associated. Overall, work has been presented with satisfactory clarity individually and/or as a group.

good, ensuring the audience`s attention is mostly focussed on the speaker, or on key messages. Overall, work has been presented with good clarity individually and/or as a group.

has been presented with very good clarity individually and/or as a group.

messages associated within the text. Overall, work has been presented with excellent clarity individually and/or as a group.

Evidence of Process

No apparent engagement in the module, evidenced by no participation in formative assessment or feedback opportunities or team work, or other.

There is no submission support by drafts and/or other documents.

Inadequate engagement in the module evidenced by: infrequent participation in formative assessment or feedback opportunities, or team work, or other.

There is very limited support of the submission by drafts and/or other documents.

Satisfactory engagement in the module which is evidenced by: occasional participation in formative assessment or feedback opportunities, or team work, or other.

There is limited support of the submission by drafts and/or other documents.

Good engagement in the module which is evidenced by: some participation in formative assessment or feedback opportunities or team work, or other. There is some support of the submission by drafts and/or other documents.

Very good engagement in the module which is evidenced by: participation in formative assessment or feedback opportunities. This is supported, in parts, by the submission of drafts and/or other documents.

Excellent engagement in the module which is evidenced by: consistent participation in formative assessment or feedback opportunities, or team work, or other. This is supported by the submission of drafts and/or other documents.

Fail (0-19%)

F

Inadequate (20-

39%)

F

Satisfactory (40-

49%)

3rd

Good (50-59%)

2:2

Very Good (60-69%)

2:1

Excellent (70-100%)

1st

Understandin g of module/task

You have failed to demonstrate an understanding.

You have demonstrated an inadequate understanding (e.g., description, explanation,

You have demonstrated a satisfactory understanding (e.g., description, explanation, analysis, and

You have demonstrated a good understanding (e.g., description, explanation, analysis,

You have demonstrated a very good understanding (e.g., description, explanation, analysis, and

You have demonstrated an excellent understanding (e.g., description, explanation, analysis, and

(WHAT and WHY)

A large proportion of the work is incorrect and/or has a large number of significant omissions.

analysis, and discussion) of the empirical and theoretical underpinnings of this module/ task.

Terminology has been used incorrectly, core content areas are not discussed and there are significant errors and/or omissions.

discussion) of the empirical and theoretical underpinnings of this module/ task. However, terminology may be used incorrectly, core content areas are only discussed briefly and there are significant areas that could be expanded upon, clarified, or corrected.

and discussion) of the empirical and theoretical underpinnings of this module/task.

Terminology is generally used correctly, and core content areas are largely discussed coherently.

However, there are some notable areas that could be expanded upon, clarified, or corrected

discussion) of the empirical and theoretical underpinnings of this module/task. Terminology is used correctly. Core content areas are discussed coherently and concisely, in parts, potentially beyond the scope of the core content delivered. There are some areas that could be further expanded upon, clarified, or corrected.

discussion). Your work demonstrates excellent empirical and theoretical underpinnings of this module/task. Terminology is correctly defined throughout. Core content is consistently discussed and expanded upon, potentially beyond the scope of the core content delivered.

Application of knowledge

(WHO, HOW & WHY)

You have failed to demonstrate an application of knowledge. You have made minimal or incoherent links to applied practice. No or extremely vague considerations of how theory translates to practice. There are no connections to specific contextual differences.

You have not shown any examples of critical insight where you have compared different approaches that could be adopted.

You have demonstrated an inadequate application of knowledge. You have made inadequate or generally unclear links to applied practice.

Inadequate and unsecure considerations of how theory translates to practice. There are very limited connections made to specific contextual differences.

You have shown inadequate examples of critical insight where you have compared different approaches that could be adopted.

You have demonstrated a satisfactory application of knowledge. You have made satisfactory links to applied practice.

Satisfactory considerations of how theory translates to practice. There are occasional connections to specific contextual differences.

You have shown satisfactory examples of critical insight where you have compared different approaches that could be adopted.

You have demonstrated a good application of knowledge. You have made good links to applied practice. Good considerations of how theory translates to practice. There are some connections to specific contextual differences and approaches to practice.

You have shown good examples of critical insight where you have compared different approaches that could be adopted.

You have demonstrated a very good application of knowledge. You have made very good links to applied practice. Very good considerations of how theory translates to practice.

There are several connections made to specific contextual differences and approaches to practice.

You have shown very good examples of critical insight where you have compared different approaches that could be adopted. You have offered a very good critique of the evidence base on which your judgments are made.

You have demonstrated an excellent application of knowledge. You have made excellent and explicit links to applied practice.

Excellent considerations of how theory translates to practice are made. There are excellent, frequent, and well considered connections made to specific contextual differences and approaches to practice.

You have shown excellent examples of critical insight where you have compared different approaches. You have offered an excellent critique of the evidence base on which your judgments are made including methodological considerations as well as gaps in the knowledge base.