# Exercise and metabolic disease/assessment overview
## Assessment weighting

| Activity Task | Due | Summative* | Learning Outcomes | Generic Skills |
| Activity 1 | End week 4 (decontextualise) | 15% | 1, 3 (decontextualise) | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (decontextualise) |
| Activity 2 | Start week 9 (decontextualise) | - | 1, 3 (decontextualise) | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 (decontextualise) |
| Activity 3 | End week 12 (decontextualise) | 30% | 1 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 (decontextualise) |
| Reflection Activity | End week 14 (decontextualise) | 25% | 1, 2, 3 (decontextualise) | 1, 3, 6, 9, 10 (decontextualise) |
| Exam | | 30% | | |

## Assessment marking rubric
### Activity 1

| Criteria and Qualities | Weight | <50% | 65-75% | >85% |
| Clarity | 25 | Annotations are unclear and confusing throughout | Language generally provides the reader with an understanding of the paper and the points raised in the annotations. Use of annotations are not always clear | The language is clear and expressive. All parts (structured sentence or dot points) provide the reader with a clear understanding of the main points |
| Relevance | 25 | Few, if any, references are related to the topic. There is inadequate primary/original references or scientifically supported literature | The references cover the topic but the relationship to your topic is not always clear. There is adequate use of original, scientific research | Your references clearly relate to your topic and provide mainly original scientific references. |
| Analysis | 50 | All annotations are lacking in completeness, thought, and/or critique | Annotations are generally well written but some are lacking in completeness, thought, and /or critique | All annotations are thoughtful, complete, and well critiqued |

### Activity 2 and 3

| Criteria and Qualities | Weight | <50% | 65-75% | >85% |
| Clarity | 10 | Intention of resource unclear. Convoluted expression. Numerous mechanical errors (punctuation, grammar, spelling, web-based errors) | Few mechanical errors. Resource is ambiguous in few sections | Resource is crisp, clear and succinct. No or very few mechanical errors |
| Clarity - Flow | 10 | No apparent direction to review, subtopics appear disjointed | Structure has general direction but does not always flow to specific conclusions. Relevance to problem is sometimes clear | Structure is intuitive and general ideas flow to specific conclusions. Relevance to the problem is always clear |
| Clarity - Presentation | 10 | Text is unclear with inappropriate use of text or images and other media. No or little aesthetic appeal | Use of text, images and other media is predominately clear with some minor issues present. Aesthetics are mostly good | Clear and appropriate use of text and images. Innovative and effective use of other media (e.g. use of multi-media and/or social media). Aesthetically appealing |
| Relevance | 30 | Few relevant studies included, inappropriate content and argument | Not all major parts of literature are included with some redundancy. Sources are mostly cited where specific statements are made. Significance of subject is not always clear. Issues with critiquing of literature are present | Coverage is in depth without redundancy. References are cited when specific statements are made. Significant to the subject is clear. Appropriate critique of literature thorough and clear. Any alternative views acknowledged |
| Synthesis and Application | 35 | There is no indication that information was synthesize to provide conclusions. No relevance to real world application | Conclusions/recommendations are good but lack insight and not expressed in a succinct manner. Application to the real world are limited and not completely supported by the review | Succinct and precise conclusions and recommendations made. Insights into the problem and gaps in the literature are appropriate. Conclusions and application to the real world are strongly supported in the review |
| Referencing | 15 | Referencing inconsistent or no referencing. Reader not provided with opportunities to follow up further information | Few omissions or inconsistencies in references. Opportunities to provide further information are lacking | Referencing complete and consistent. Reader provided with many links for further readings and information |

## Reflection Activity

| Criteria and Qualities | Weight | <50% | 65-75% | >85% |
| Clarity | 20 | Language is unclear and confusing throughout. Concepts are either not discussed or are presented inaccurately | A number of lapses in clarity and accuracy | The language is clear and expressive. The reader can create a mental picture of the situation being described. Abstract concepts are explained accurately. Explanation of concepts makes sense to an uninformed reader |
| Relevance | 25 | Most of the reflection is irrelevant to student and/or purposes of the activity/reflection questions | Student makes attempts to demonstrate relevance, but the relevance is not always clear to the reader | The learning experience being reflected upon is relevant and meaningful to student and course learning goals |
| Analysis | 25 | Reflection does not move beyond description of the learning experience(s) | Student makes attempts at applying the learning experience to understanding of self, others, and/or course concepts but lacks depth of analysis | The reflection moves beyond simple description of the experience to an analysis of how the experience contributed to student understanding of self, others, and/or course concepts |
| Interconnections | 30 | No attempt to demonstrate connections to previous learning, external literature or experience | There is little to no attempt to demonstrate connections between the learning experience and previous other personal and/or learning experiences | The reflection demonstrates connections between the experience and material from other courses; past experience; and/or personal goals |