PT 678
Selected Topics in Rehabilitation Practice
Course Presentation, Paper and Participation Grading Criteria
Spring 2001
[Presentation] [Paper] [Class Participation] [MRH Note]
Presentation Grading Criteria and Feedback Sheet
|
Grading Criteria |
Points |
Score |
|
|
1. |
The presentation was organized. |
5 |
|
|
2. |
The presenter was effective in communicating ideas. |
5 |
|
|
3. |
The presentation style or methods were effective as a means of communicating information. |
5 |
|
|
4. |
The patient problem identified by the presenter were appropriate given the video of the client’s clinical presentation and the evidence from the physical examination. |
5 |
|
|
5. |
Based on the video and the evidence from the physical examination, the presenter accurately summarized the relationships between the problems that are responsible for the specific functional limitation identified. |
5 |
|
|
6. |
The presenter provided evidence of content mastery of the course material in articulating the rationale for the patient’s clinical presentation using dynamical systems theory and/or principles of motor control and motor learning. |
5 |
|
|
7. |
The presenter consider the full range of possible impairments that could contribute to the clients functional limitations. | 5 | |
|
8. |
The presenter provided evidence of content mastery of the course material in articulating the theoretical rationale for the interventions used with the patient. |
10 |
|
|
9. |
The presenter was effective in critically appraising the interventions used by the therapist to treat the problem identified. |
10 |
|
|
10. |
The presenter had sufficient knowledge and understanding of the patients clinical presentation to be able to engage in an effective dialogue with the audience. |
10 |
|
|
11. |
The presenter had sufficient knowledge and understanding of the theory being applied to the clinical case to be able to engage in an effective dialogue with the audience. |
10 |
|
|
12. |
The overall presentation provided evidence of the presenter’s depth of understanding of the theory that was being applied to clinical practice. |
10 |
|
|
13. |
The presenter was professional in all interactions with the audience. |
5 |
|
|
14. |
The presentation occurred within the time frame allotted. |
5 |
|
|
15. |
The presentation was completed according to the instructions provided in the syllabus. HPI, PMH, problem list, describing the relationship between the problems, discusses applications of the theory underlying the treatment strategy and clinical presentation. |
5 |
|
|
Total |
100 |
||
Course Paper Grading and Feedback Sheet
| Grading Criteria | Point Value |
Score |
|
|
1. |
|
5 |
|
|
2. |
|
5 |
|
|
3. |
In listing the patient’s problems, the author appropriately and accurately applied the disablement model. |
5 |
|
|
4. |
The description of the patient’s clinical presentation (impairment, functional limitation, and disability) was of sufficient depth to allow the reader to have clear understanding of the person’s clinical status. |
5 |
|
|
5. |
The author discussed and accurately summarized the relationships between the problems in formulating the evaluation of the patient’s clinical presentation. |
10 |
|
|
6. |
Given the information presented in the problem list, the author’s summary of the relationship between the problems and any conclusions about the person’s clinical presentation were logical and consistent. |
10 |
|
|
7. |
The author was effective in applying dynamical systems theory and motor control and motor learning principles to explain the patient’s clinical presentation for the selected patient problem. |
10 |
|
|
8. |
The author was effective in applying dynamical systems theory to summarize or explain the relationships between the patient’s problems at the level of impairment and to explain the patient’s clinical presentation. |
10 |
|
|
9. |
The author used the scientific literature effectively and appropriately to support statements and conclusion contained within the paper. |
10 |
|
|
10. |
The paper was organized in a manner that facilitated the communication of ideas. |
10 |
|
|
11. |
The writing style was coherent and organized and grammatical structure and spelling did not distract from the paper’s readability. |
10 |
|
|
12. |
The assignment was completed according to the stated criteria including reference style and meeting the deadlines outlined in the syllabus. |
10 |
|
|
Total Score |
100 |
||
Attendance and Class Participation Evaluation Sheet
The following scale is to be used to grade the course participants based on weekly attendance at class meeting times both within and external to the University. The expectation is a 3 in each domain which when totaled and averaged for the raters over the course of the semester will be equivalent to a 90 for the final grading. In the event that a class is missed no class participation points can be earned for the session.
|
Value |
Criteria |
|
0 |
The participant did not meet the expectations for course participation in the domain. |
|
1 |
The participant’s performance or contribution was somewhat less that expected in domain. |
|
2 |
The participant meet the minimal expectations for performance for the domain. |
|
3 |
The participant consistently met the performance expectations for the domain. |
|
4 |
The participant exceed the expected performance for the domain. |
|
N/A |
Not applicable. |
|
Criteria |
Available Points |
Score |
|
|
|
|
2. The participant contributed to the class discussion by either asking questions or providing feedback on ideas presented by others. |
4 |
|
|
3. The participant was professional when interacting with other course participants. |
3 |
|
|
4. The participant was professional when interacting with the course instructors. |
3 |
|
|
5. The participant demonstrates willingness to recognize other points of view. |
4 |
|
| 6. The quality of the participation evidences an effective understanding of the course material |
4 |
|
|
7. The participant seemed prepared for class. |
4 |
|
|
Total |
25 |