Mentorship Oral Presentation
Mentorship Oral Presentation
Appendix IV – Marking Criteria for Mentorship Oral Presentation
| Student’s name and number | Tutorial Group | ||
| Marker’s name and signature | Date |
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
| Criteria | 0 marks | 1-4 marks | 5-6 marks | 7-8 marks | 9-10 marks | Marks | ||||
| o Introduces selected clinical mentoro Brief narrative of event
o Mentorship style described and critiqued o Benefit to professional and/or personal development |
Not provided
|
Inadequate discussion on selected clinical mentor and/or event narrative and/or mentorship style and/or link to professional and/or personal developmentand/or discussion based on personal opinion with no reference to supporting literature. | Introduced selected clinical mentor however discussion related to event narrative and/or mentorship style and/or link to professional and/or personal development was superficial and required more depth (marker to identify). | Good discussion on all elements required. 1-2 points of relevance were not considered (marker to identify). | Exemplary discussion on all elements required. Excellent use of literature to support discussion. | |||||
| Three positive mentorship attributes discussed and how they influenced your motivation, sense of belonging, and clinical performanceo Attribute 1
___________________ o Attribute 2 ___________________ o Attribute 3 ___________________ |
Not provided | Inadequate description of mentorship attributes and/or less than 3 presented and/or inadequate discussion on influence on motivation, sense of belonging, and clinical performanceand/or discussion based on personal opinion with no reference to supporting literature. | Mentorship attributes described however superficial discussion on influence on motivation, sense of belonging, and clinical performance. Mentorship Oral Presentation | Mentorship attributes described with good discussion on influence on motivation, sense of belonging, and clinical performance. 1-2 points of relevance were not considered (marker to identify). | Mentorship attributes described with excellent discussion on influence on motivation, sense of belonging, and clinical performance with excellent support of relevant research. | |||||
| Identify and reflect on two key learning points that working with this person has taught you about your own mentorship styleo Key point 1
___________________________ ___________________________ o Key point 2 ___________________________ ___________________________ |
Not provided
|
Inadequate reflection of learning and/or less than 2 points presented. Mentorship Oral Presentation. | 2 points identified but reflection is superficial and/or not related/ applied directly to own mentorship style | Good discussion of 2 learning points and linked to own mentorship style. Reflection is clear, logical and well considered and analyses what was learnt about mentorship and why this is relevant to future practice. | Exemplary discussion of 2 learning points which is linked to own mentorship style. Reflection is clear and insightful and critiques what has been learned about own mentorship style and why this is relevant to future practice. | |||||
| Outline two areas you need to develop in personally and what actions (strategies) you need to take in order to incorporate these into your future practice as an emerging mentoro Area 1
______________________ o Area 2
______________________ |
Not provided
|
Less than 2 strategies presented and/or strategies are unrealistic or unachievable or unclear | 2 strategies presented, however discussion on actions are superficial and required more depth (marker to identify). Mentorship Oral Presentation. | 2 strategies presented with good discussion on how they will be incorporated into future practice. 1-2 actions/strategies were not considered (marker to identify). | 2 strategies presented with exemplary discussion on how they will be incorporated into future practice and were well supported by evidence. | |||||
| Criteria | 0-2 marks | 3 marks | 4-5 marks | Marks | ||||||
| NMBA standards for practice | There is no evidence of a response or an incorrect standard or association is described. | There is some evidence of insight into the link between this assessment item and the corresponding standard/s for practice. | There is a clear and articulate link that demonstrates a high level of insight between this assessment item and the corresponding standard/s for practice. | |||||||
| Structure & cohesion of the presentation (ten minutes) | Goes under or over time by 2 minutes or poor structure and/or cohesion | Structure and cohesion of presentation is sound | Exemplary structure, clarity and cohesion | |||||||
| Sub-total | /50 | |||||||||
| Total (weighted percentage)Note: This is calculated as a percentage of the sub-total, whereby your score out of 50 is expressed as a percentage of the course weighting for the assessment item (For example: 28/50 x 30 = 16.8 Using normal rounding convention, the grade would be 17/30) |
/30 |
|||||||||
|