| Criteria |
. |
VHA |
HA |
SA |
LA |
VLA |
| Understanding
of task requirements. |
a |
All
questions have been answered thoroughly. Ideas presented with excellent
detail. |
Questions
have been answered to in detail. |
Questions
have been answered to some extent. |
Some
questions have been answered. |
Questions
were not attempted |
| Spelling and punctuation. |
a |
No
spelling mistakes with clearly set out work. Excellent
use of terminology. |
Occasional
spelling mistakes, with clearly set out document. High level of terminology
use. |
Some
spelling mistakes apparent. Appropriate use of terminology. |
Many
spelling mistakes. Inappropriate use of terminology. |
Many
spelling mistakes. Minimal use of terminology. |
| Synthesis
of given client information. |
b |
Client
profile is sequenced and well detailed, including assumed (but not listed)
information about job description and wage limit. |
Client
profile is sequenced, including all given information, and sufficient assumed
description. |
Client
profile includes given information and some assumed information. |
Client
profile includes given information with limited assumed information. |
Client
profile contains no assumed information. |
| Use
of catalogues and online resources. |
b |
Extensive
search, listing products in detail. Total price realistic for the
wage limit listed in client profile. Selection of components meets
every client need. Justification is convincing and appropriate. |
Extensive
search, listing product details. Generally price of components under
price range of client. Component selection meets client needs well.
Justification generally convincing. |
General
search, listing product names. Total price is generally realistic
for client needs. Component selection is appropriate. Justification
is credible. |
Limited
search, listing various product names. Price of components unrealistic
for client needs. Justification not appropriate. |
Little
evidence of search. Unorganised listings. Client needs not met.
Justification not present. |
| Communication of
client advice. |
b |
Persuasive,
logical advice given to client on computer system well developed.
Vocabulary shows extensive understanding of task. |
Persuasive
advice showing good understanding of task. Wide use of vocabulary. |
Good
advice using appropriate vocabulary. Generally convincing. |
Insufficient
advice to client needs. Poor use of vocabulary. Unconvincing. |
Poor
advice given to clients. Inappropriate use of vocabulary. Unconvincing. |
| Criteria |
. |
HA |
HA |
AS |
LA |
LA |
| Understanding
of task requirements. |
a |
All
tasks were completed in time given. Questions were answered fully
and in detail. |
Tasks
were completed. Questions answered fully. |
Most
tasks were completed on time. Most questions were answered. |
Some
tasks were completed. |
Few
tasks were completed. |
| Spelling
and Punctuation |
a |
No
spelling mistakes with clearly set out work. Excellent
use of terminology. |
Occasional
spelling mistakes, with clearly set out document. High level of terminology
use. |
Some
spelling mistakes apparent. Appropriate use of terminology. |
Many
spelling mistakes. Inappropriate use of terminology. |
Many
spelling mistakes. Minimal use of terminology. |
| Recall
and comprehension of terminology |
a |
Excellent
ability to explain terminology when creating own QUIA game. Consistently
maintaining excellent quality of work. |
Ability
to explain terminology well. Consistent proficient quality of work. |
Able
to explain terminology adequately. Satisfactory quality of work. |
Ability
to explain some terminology. Unsatisfactory level of work. |
Inability
to explain terminology, with unsatisfactory levels of work. |
| Content
and selection of student created game. |
b |
Evidence
of thoughtful planning. Excellent selection and sequence of terminology
definitions. |
Evidence
of planning. Good selection and sequence of terminology definitions. |
Some
planning evident. Satisfactory level of terminology use. |
Insufficient
planning. Poor selection of terminology. |
Little
or no planning. Deficient use of terminology. |
| Evaluation
of games. |
b |
Persuasive
argument about the effectiveness of online games. Excellent communication
skills in presenting arguments. |
Well
reasoned arguments, with accomplished communication skills. |
Reasonable
arguments. Good communication skills. |
Unconvincing
arguments. Adequate communication skills. |
Lack
of arguments. Poor communication skills. |