CriteriaRatingsPts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation Content Analysis (30%) 20 to >15.9 pts HD Content was presented in a coherent and clever manner. Content and materials were highly relevant to topic. Live cases, IB theories/concepts/data and multimedia were skilfully used to support the argument. 15.9 to >13.9 pts DI Content was presented in a coherent and clever manner. Content and materials were highly relevant to topic with very good use of live cases, IB theories/concepts/data and multimedia. 13.9 to >11.9 pts CR Content was presented in a coherent manner without repetition of written summary. Content and materials were relevant to topic with good use of live cases, IB theories/concepts/data and multimedia. 11.9 to >9.9 pts PA Content was mostly presented in a coherent manner but repeats much of the written summary. Content and materials lack relevance to topic, IB IB theories/concepts/data or reference to live cases. Multimedia usage was satisfactory. 9.9 to >0 pts NN Content was not presented in a coherent manner and/or was repeated in the written summary format. Content and materials lacked relevance to topic or reference to live cases and IB theories/concepts/data. Poor multimedia usage. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation Content Recommendations (30%) 20 to >15.9 pts HD Gave excellent recommendations which were creative, original, feasible, clear and realistic. Recommendations were excellently backed up by IB references and drawn from data analysis. 15.9 to >13.9 pts DI Gave very good recommendations which were feasible and clear. Recommendations were well backed up by IB references and drawn from data analysis. 13.9 to >11.9 pts CR Gave appropriate recommendations, which were feasible and mostly realistic. Recommendations were backed up by IB references and drawn from data analysis. 11.9 to >9.9 pts PA Irrelevant recommendations. Unfeasible and mostly unrealistic. Recommendations were not backed up well by IB references and drawn from data analysis. 9.9 to >0 pts NN Irrelevant recommendations. Unfeasible and mostly unrealistic. Recommendations were not backed up by IB references and drawn from data analysis. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation performance Organization and structure (20%) 10 to >7.9 pts HD 7.9 to >6.9 pts DI 6.9 to >5.9 pts CR 5.9 to >4.9 pts PA 4.9 to >0 pts NN The report follows a clear structure with headings that identify the key messages of each section. Arguments are well-developed with coherent and concise discussion. The report is professionally formatted. The report follows a clear structure with headings consistent with the content. Arguments are well-developed with some minor issues with coherence and concise. The report is well-formatted The report follows a clear structure with some mistakes in arguments and discussion. There is minor mistakes in formatting Ideas are organized, following a looselyconnected sections due to weak transitions of ideas. Ideas are disorganized with mixed-up arguments. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation performance Submission requirement (10%) 20 to >15.9 pts HD The submission was made with highly professional effort. 15.9 to >13.9 pts DI Meet all the requirements with considerable professional efforts 13.9 to >11.9 pts CR Meet all the requirements regarding time, references, format, cover page and word count. 11.9 to >9.9 pts PA Attempts to meet all the requirements with acceptable violations of the requirements 9.9 to >0 pts NN Presentation failed to meet all the requirement or submitted late more than 5 days 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePresentation performance References (10%) 10 to >7.9 pts HD Arguments are based from a wide range of reliable and scholarly sources, no mistakes in referencing 10 pts 7.9 to >6.9 pts DI Arguments are based from multiple sources, some minor mistakes in references 6.9 to >5.9 pts CR References are sourced from limited sources, there are systemic errors in referencing 5.9 to >4.9 pts PA Meet references requirements, but there are mistakes in referencing 4.9 to >0 pts NN Does not meet the requirements for number of references.
