(30–25.21) 

An articulate and comprehensive summary of the information gathered about the woman at her booking appointment is provided. Confidential information is de-identified. 

(25.2–22.21) 

Insightful and well-developed summary of the information gathered about the woman at her booking appointment is provided. Confidential information is de-identified.  

(22.2–19.21) 

A logical summary of the information gathered about the woman at her booking appointment is provided. Confidential information is de-identified.  

(19.2–14.71) 

A disjointed summary of the information gathered about the woman at her booking appointment is provided. Confidential information is de-identified. 

(14.7–0) 

An inadequate or no summary of the information gathered about the woman at her booking appointment is provided. Confidential information is partially or not de-identified. 

(50–42.5) 

A pregnancy-related topic from the list provided is stated. A comprehensive reflection on the chosen pregnancy-related education topic has been discussed with your CoCE woman. The reflection consistently and comprehensively utilises the description, interpretation and outcome of what was learnt framework.  

(42–37.5) 

A pregnancy-related topic from the list provided is stated. A concise, well-developed reflection on the chosen pregnancy-related education topic has been discussed with your CoCE woman. The reflection consistently utilises the description, interpretation and outcome of what was learnt framework. 

(37–32.5) 

A pregnancy-related topic from the list provided is stated. A broad reflection on the chosen pregnancy-related education topic has been discussed with your CoCE woman. The reflection frequently utilises the description, interpretation and outcome of what was learnt framework. 

(32–25) 

A pregnancy-related topic from the list provided is stated. A reflection on the chosen pregnancy-related education topic has been discussed with your CoCE woman, however, there are gaps in the discussion. The reflection utilises some of the description, interpretation and outcome of what was learnt framework. 

(24.5–0) 

A pregnancy-related topic from the list provided was not stated. Minimal or no reflection on the chosen pregnancy-related education topic has been discussed with your CoCE woman. The reflection omits the description, interpretation and outcome of what was learnt framework. 

(10–8.5) 

Content is clearly related to the topic. The content comprehensively answers the question, and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. Formatting requirements applied without error. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.  

(8.4–7.5) 

Content is frequently clear and relevant to the topic. The content concisely answers the question and is presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. Language of the discipline is frequently used. Formatting requirements are applied with 1 error. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work. 

(7.4–6.5) 

Content is mostly clear and appropriate to the topic. The content appropriately answers the question and is frequently presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. Language of the discipline is mostly used. Formatting requirements are applied with 2 errors. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work. 

(6.4–5) 

Content answers the question, the argument is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion and demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. Language of the discipline is used. Formatting requirements are applied with 3 errors. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work. 

(4.9–0) 

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is rarely, incorrectly or not used. Formatting requirements are applied with ≥4 errors. The assessment deviates +/- 10% of the word limit. Assessment is inconsistently or not written using the student’s own words and/or is not the student’s own work. 

(5–4.25) 

Expertly integrates a minimum of 10 quality, relevant, current and valid references to support and reflect all ideas, and factual information, with all content supported by evidence. 

(4.2–3.8) 

Consistently integrates 9 quality, current, relevant, and valid references to support and reflect ideas, and factual information, with 1 exception. 

(3.75–3.55) 

Frequently integrates 8 quality, relevant, current, and valid references to support and reflect ideas, and factual information, with 2 exceptions. 

(3.50–2.5) 

Occasionally integrates 7 relevant, mostly current, and valid references to support and reflect ideas, and factual information, with 3 exceptions. 

(2.47–0) 

Acknowledges minimal (≤6) or no sources of relevant, current, and valid references to support and reflect ideas, with (≥ 4 exceptions. 

(5–4.25) 

Acknowledges all sources of peer reviewed literature. Has no APA 7th Edition referencing errors, and all references have been cited. Literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Meets APA 7th Edition referencing standards with no errors in-text and the reference list. 

(4.2–3.8) 

Acknowledges majority of sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 1 APA 7th Edition referencing error or references not provided. Literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Meets APA 7th Edition referencing standards with no more than 1 errors in-text and the reference list. 

(3.75–3.55) 

Acknowledges most sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 2 APA 7th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. Most of the literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Meets APA 7th Edition referencing standards with no more than 2 errors in-text and the reference list. 

(3.50–2.5) 

Acknowledges some sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 3 APA 7th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. Some of the literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Meets APA 7th Edition referencing standards with no more than 3 errors in-text and the reference list. 

(2.45–0) 

Acknowledges minimal or no sources peer reviewed literature. Has ≥4 or more APA 7th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. The majority of literature cited is published ≥7 years. Has ≥4 or more APA 7th Edition referencing errors in-text and the reference list. 

(20–16.81) 

An articulate, succinct, and comprehensive explanation of the rationale for the provision of the pregnancy-related health promotional education topic. 

(16.8–14.81) 

A well-developed explanation of the rationale for the provision of the pregnancy-related health promotional education topic.  

(14.8–12.81) 

A logical explanation of the rationale for the provision of the pregnancy-related health promotional education topic.  

(12.8–9.9) 

A disjointed and limited explanation of the rationale for the provision of the pregnancy-related health promotional education topic.  

(9.8–0) 

An inadequate or no explanation of the rationale for the provision of the pregnancy-related health promotional education topic. 

(20–16.81) 

A comprehensive and insightful exploration of the evidence-based recommendations for the pregnancy-related education topic. 

(16.8–14.81) 

A well-developed and thoughtful exploration of the evidence-based recommendations for the pregnancy-related education topic.  

(14.8–12.81) 

A broad exploration of the evidence-based recommendations for the pregnancy-related education topic.  

(12.8–9.9) 

A minimal and/or limited exploration of the evidence-based recommendations for the pregnancy-related education topic.  

(9.8–0) 

An inadequate or no exploration of the evidence-based recommendations for the pregnancy-related education topic. Understanding of the topic is limited. 

(20–16.81) 

A comprehensive and concise outline of the expected benefits of the recommendations for the pregnancy-related education topic. 

(16.8–14.81) 

A clear and relevant outline of the expected benefits of the recommendations for the pregnancy-related education topic.  

(14.8–12.81) 

A logical outline of the expected benefits of the recommendations for the pregnancy-related education topic.  

(12.8–9.9) 

Satisfactory but limited outline of the expected benefits of the recommendations for the pregnancy-related education topic.  

(9.8–0) 

An inadequate or no outline of the expected benefits of the recommendations for the pregnancy-related education topic. Understanding of the topic is limited. 

(20–16.81) 

Content is very well organised, highly engaging, and aesthetically appealing and holds the audience’s attention. The slides are free of unnecessary detail, succinct and readable. The slides contain an extremely appealing array of script and graphics. Images are of high quality and highly relevant to the content. Language is appropriate for the target audience (pregnant women). 

(16.8–14.81) 

Content is well organised, engaging and aesthetically appealing and holds the audience’s attention The slides are free of unnecessary detail, succinct, and readable. The slides contain an appealing array of appropriate script and graphics. 

Images are of high quality and are relevant to the content. 

Language is appropriate for the target audience (pregnant women). 

(14.8–12.81) 

Content is mostly adequately organised, engaging and aesthetically appealing and holds the audience’s attention. The slides are mostly free of unnecessary detail, succinct, and readable. The slides contain mostly appropriate script and graphics. mages are of good quality and are relevant to the content. 

Language is generally appropriate for the target audience (pregnant women). 

(12.8–9.9) 

Content is somewhat organised, engaging and aesthetically appropriate. The slides contain some unnecessary detail but are readable. The slides contain some appropriate script and graphics. Images are of good quality and are somewhat relevant to the content. Language is at times inappropriate for the target audience (pregnant women). 

(9.8–0) 

Organisation of content is limited and in parts is unengaging, and/or not aesthetically appealing and/or does not hold the audience’s attention. 

The slides contain unnecessary detail, are cluttered, and/or are not readable. The slides do not contain appropriate script and graphics.  

Images in some areas are of limited quality and/or not relevant to the content. Language is partially inappropriate for the target audience (pregnant women). 

(10–8.5) 

Content is clearly related to the topic. The content comprehensively answers the question, and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. Formatting requirements applied without error. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.  

(8.4–7.5) 

Content is frequently clear and relevant to the topic. The content concisely answers the question and is presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. Language of the discipline is frequently used. Formatting requirements are applied with 1 error. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work. 

(7.4–6.5) 

Content is mostly clear and appropriate to the topic. The content appropriately answers the question and is frequently presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. Language of the discipline is mostly used. Formatting requirements are applied with 2 errors. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work. 

(6.4–5) 

Content answers the question, the argument is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion and demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. Language of the discipline is used. Formatting requirements are applied with 3 errors. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work. 

(4.9–0) 

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is rarely, incorrectly or not used. Formatting requirements are applied with ≥4 errors. The assessment deviates +/- 10% of the word limit. Assessment is inconsistently or not written using the student’s own words and/or is not the student’s own work. 

(5–4.25) 

Expertly integrates a minimum of 10 quality, relevant, current and valid references to support and reflect all ideas, and factual information, with all content supported by evidence. 

(4.2–3.8) 

Consistently integrates 9 quality, current, relevant, and valid references to support and reflect ideas, and factual information, with 1 exception. 

(3.75–3.55) 

Frequently integrates 8 quality, relevant, current, and valid references to support and reflect ideas, and factual information, with 2 exceptions. 

(3.50–2.5) 

Occasionally integrates 7 relevant, mostly current, and valid references to support and reflect ideas, and factual information, with 3 exceptions. 

(2.47–0) 

Acknowledges minimal (≤6) or no sources of relevant, current, and valid references to support and reflect ideas, with (≥ 4 exceptions. 

(5–4.25) 

Acknowledges all sources of peer reviewed literature. Has no APA 7th Edition referencing errors, and all references have been cited. Literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Meets APA 7th Edition referencing standards with no errors in-text and the reference list. 

(4.2–3.8) 

Acknowledges majority of sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 1 APA 7th Edition referencing error or references not provided. Literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Meets APA 7th Edition referencing standards with no more than 1 errors in-text and the reference list. 

(3.75–3.55) 

Acknowledges most sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 2 APA 7th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. Most of the literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Meets APA 7th Edition referencing standards with no more than 2 errors in-text and the reference list. 

(3.50–2.5) 

Acknowledges some sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 3 APA 7th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. Some of the literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Meets APA 7th Edition referencing standards with no more than 3 errors in-text and the reference list. 

(2.45–0) 

Acknowledges minimal or no sources peer reviewed literature. Has ≥4 or more APA 7th Edition referencing errors or references not provided. The majority of literature cited is published ≥7 years. Has ≥4 or more APA 7th Edition referencing errors in-text and the reference list. 

(50–42.5) 

Content is clear, accurate and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. Formatting requirements applied without error. Literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.  

(42–37.5) 

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. Language of the discipline is frequently used. Formatting requirements are applied with 1 error. Majority of literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.  

(37–32.5) 

Content is mostly clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. Language of the discipline is mostly used. Formatting requirements are applied with 2 errors. Most literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work.  

(32–25) 

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. Language of the discipline is used. Formatting requirements are applied with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 7 years. Assessment is written using the student’s own words and is the student’s own work. 

(25–0) 

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is rarely, incorrectly or not used. Formatting requirements are applied with ≥4 errors. Majority of literature cited is published ≥7 years or not cited. Assessment is inconsistently or not written using the student’s own words and/or is not the student’s own work. 

(50–42.5) 

The explanation insightfully extends upon the information presented on the poster. The poster is referred to when explaining the topic.  

(42–37.5) 

The explanation extends to the information presented on the poster. The poster is referred to when explaining the topic.  

(37–32.5) 

The explanation somewhat extends to the information presented on the poster. The poster is referred to when explaining the topic.  

(32–25) 

The explanation pertains only to the information presented on the poster. The poster is inconsistently referred to when explaining the topic. 

(25–0) 

The explanation is limited when discussing the information presented on the poster or is not presented. The poster is rarely referred to when explaining the topic. 

(20–17) 

At least three separate journals submitted, each containing antenatal care reflection +/- an intrapartum reflection. 

Each journal entry comprehensively provides: 

-A description 

-An interpretation 

-An outcome 

(16.8–15) 

At least three separate journals submitted, each containing an antenatal care reflection +/- an intrapartum reflection. 

Each journal entry provides: 

-A description 

-An interpretation 

-An outcome 

(14.8–13) 

At least three separate journals submitted, each containing an antenatal care reflection +/- an intrapartum reflection. 

Two journal entries provide: 

-A description 

-An interpretation 

-An outcome 

(12.8–10) 

At least three separate journals submitted, each containing an antenatal care reflection +/- an intrapartum reflection. 

One journal entry provide: 

-A description 

-An interpretation 

-An outcome 

(9.8–0) 

Less than three journals submitted, with some/all journal entries missing. Many journal entries do not provide: 

-A description 

-An interpretation 

-An outcome 

(60-51) 

Comprehensive critical and analytical reflective journals that explore and identify gaps in knowledge. 

(50.4-45) 

Insightful and well-developed reflective journals that explore and identify gaps in knowledge. 

(44.4-39) 

Provides logical and broadly reflective journals that explore and identify gaps in knowledge. 

(38.4-30) 

Disjointed reflective journals that explore and identify some gaps in knowledge. 

(29.4-0) 

Inadequate reflective journals that do not explore or identify gaps in knowledge. 

(10–8.5) 

Content is clear, accurate and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Reflective journals are set out as per the assessment guidelines. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. Formatting requirements applied without error. Assessment is written using the student’s own words, is the student’s own work, and has not been submitted previously. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. 

(8.4–7.5) 

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. Reflective journals are set out as per the assessment guidelines. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. Language of the discipline is frequently used. Formatting requirements are applied with 1 error. Assessment is written using the student’s own words, is the student’s own work, and has not been submitted previously. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. 

(7.4–6.5) 

Content is mostly clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. Reflective journals are set out as per the assessment guidelines. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. Language of the discipline is mostly used. Formatting requirements are applied with 2 errors. Assessment is written using the student’s own words, is the student’s own work and has not been submitted previously. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. 

(6.4–5) 

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. Reflective journals are set out as per the assessment guidelines. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. Language of the discipline is used. Formatting requirements are applied with 3 errors. Assessment is written using the student’s own words, is the student’s own work and has not been submitted previously. The assessment is within +/- 10% of the word limit. 

(4.9–0) 

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. Reflective journals are not set out as per the assessment guidelines. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is rarely, incorrectly or not used. Formatting requirements are applied with ≥4 errors. Assessment is inconsistently or not written using the student’s own words and/or is not the student’s own work. Assessment has been submitted previously. The assessment deviates +/- 10% of the word limit. 

(5–4.25) 

Consistently accurate intext citations with no errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style to support and reflect all ideas, information, and quotations. 

(4.2–3.8) 

One consistent in-text citation error in APA 7th Edition referencing style identified. Intext citations support and reflect most ideas, information, and quotations. 

(3.75–3.55) 

Two consistent in-text citation errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style identified. Intext citations support and reflect many ideas, information, and quotations. 

(3.50–2.5) 

Three consistent in-text citation errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style identified. Intext citations support and reflect some ideas, information, and quotations. 

(2.45–2) 

Four or more consistent in-text citations errors in APA 7th Edition referencing style. Limited intext citations used to support ideas, information, and quotations. 

(5–4.25) 

Acknowledges all sources and meets APA (7th Edition) referencing standards with no errors. Three peer reviewed references provided per journal entry. All references have been cited. Literature cited is published in the last 7 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library. 

(4.2–3.8) 

Acknowledges majority of sources and/or meets APA (7th Edition) referencing standards with 1 error. Three peer reviewed references provided for most journal entries. All references have been cited. The majority of literature cited is published in the last 7 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library. 

(3.75–3.55) 

Acknowledges most sources and/or meets APA (7th Edition) referencing standards with 2 errors. Three peer reviewed referenced provided for some journal entries. All references have been cited. Most literature cited has been published in the last 7 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library. 

(3.50–2.5) 

Acknowledges some sources and/or meets APA (7th Edition) referencing standards with 3 errors. Less than three peer reviewed references provided for most journal entries. All references have been cited. Some literature cited is published in the last 7 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library. 

(2.4–0) 

Multiple sources not acknowledged and/or ≥4 APA (7th Edition) referencing errors and/or references not provided. 

Less than three peer reviewed references provided for all journal entries. All references have not been cited. Some literature cited is published ≥7 years and/or not sourced from the CQUniversity library.