Research and Analysis of the Effectiveness, Efficiency and Equity considerations (2 marks each) Present? Effectiveness issues comprehensively explored Efficiency issues comprehensively explored Equity issues comprehensively explored General resourcing issues The possible influence of technology not yet currently available to the service Comparison with how similar services in Australia and in other countries are facing the issue Recommendations for service improvement (2 marks each) Present? Suggestions on how the service could better prepare for meeting the challenges of Australia’s ageing Measurement tools for assessing the impact for any suggested improvements The type of research that might be useful to better help manage the challenges A concise overarching summary on how well the service is working to be ready for the challenge

Description of the service and characteristics of Australia’s ageing population (2 marks each) Present? The general description of the service The scope of the service’s programs The general characteristics of Australia’s population is presented The different possible impacts of Australia’s ageing population on health service delivery are introduced The risks to the service of not planning now to meet the future needs of that ageing population

Notes pages (1 mark each) Present? Each notes page contains information relevant to the content of the associated slide The notes pages do not leave questions unanswered in relation to the slide’s content There are fewer than two spelling and grammatical errors per notes page References, where necessary, are not only recorded but done so using the Harvard method The word count on each notes page is within 10% of the specified limit

Your slides and notes pages will be marked on the grounds of whether or not the following competencies are present. The sum of the evident competencies will then be divided by the total marks available in order to generate your grade for this assessment. Slides (1 mark each) Present? The flow of one slide to the next reflects a logical order A majority of slides do not contain any spelling and grammatical errors Illustrative methods have been adopted that more-clearly communicate complex information Font size, slide layout, and text density are of a professionally acceptable quality The number of slides is within 10% of the specified limit

Structure Organisation No structure to the assessment. Reader cannot follow sequence. No introduction or conclusion. Apparent that group is not working well together. Group members missing (without valid reason) or not contributing. Ideas not focused. Reader may have difficulty following argument. Main points difficult to identify. No transition between key points. Awkward transition between speakers. Assessment appears to be done by individuals rather than group. Main ideas presented in logical manner. Flow of assessment may be awkward. Group members demonstrate that they have worked on assessment as a whole. All group members take equal share in assessment. Main ideas presented in logical manner. Flow of assessment smooth between speakers. Shows that the group has worked collaboratively Ideas clearly organised so Reader can follow easily. The purpose of the assessment is clear in all stages. Seamless transition between speakers.

Synthesis and conclusion Recommendations Recommendations missing Recommendations very general in nature – client would not be able to implement them without doing further analysis. Recommendations given in a way that they could be implemented but no justification given or benefits explained to the client Recommendations are logical and feasible. Timelines and justifications for these provided. Ties in with the clients brief. Recommendations can easily be implemented. Timelines, responsibilities and costs provided.

Research and evidence Evidence of analysis and 3rd party support No references to any sources. Suggestions/recommendations just seem appear. Steps used in analysis shown but little justification why or how these are used to develop recommendations. Background research and analysis of this is clearly identifiable. Steps used are shown and some rationale for the development of recommendations provided. Evidence of extensive research and analysis: journals, prescribed text, other books, verified websites, primary research. Used references to justify analysis As for level below plus able to use references to back up claims and recommendations made. Recommendations clear come from the analysis of the project.

Introduction / Conclusion Introduction missing or underdeveloped. Reader has no idea what the assessment will be or was about. No conclusion. Assessment just finishes. Limited clarity of purpose / overview. Highlights key issues but interpretation of these. Conclusion weak. Doesn’t tie in with what was introduced. Provides purpose for assessment, highlights and interprets key issues to be addressed but recommendation but not integrated. As for level below plus shows consistency between marketing problem identification and final recommendations well established. Engaging conclusion clearly sums up assessment and relates back to the introduction.

Criteria Fail 0-5 Pass 5-6.5 (grade 4) Credit 6.6 – 7.5 (grade 5) Distinction 7.6-8.5 (grade 6) High Dist’n 8.6-10 (grade 7) Content And understanding Understanding of the project Key points left out. No grasp of issues that faced the client. Over reliance on notes. Includes some issues but analysis glossed over. Team seemed uncomfortable to go beyond key facts. Includes all issues, analysis and recommendations but with little elaboration. Not integrated with theory or are not justified. Builds convincing argument showing how key issues, analysis and recommendations are integrated together. Builds convincing argument showing how all key points are integrated together. Uses examples to elaborate the key points and theory.