ACTL3141/ACTL5104 Assignment Rubric, T1 2025

TASK/CRITERION Below Expectation (F) Meets Expectation (PS-CR) Exceeds Expectation (DN - HD)

Descriptive analysis of hospitalised

patients [15 Marks]

- Does not apply appropriate methods, or

applies them incorrectly.

- Provides little or no meaningful description of

patient characteristics.

- Makes general or unsupported claims without

linking to data.

- Applies some appropriate descriptive

techniques to summarise the data.

- Provides a basic description of the profile

of hospitalised patients with some

connection to the analysis.

- Attempts to compare influenza and

COVID-19 patients, though this may be

superficial or loosely supported by data.

- Applies appropriate and well-executed

descriptive methods to explore key patient

characteristics.

- Provides a clear, accurate, and well-supported

description of the profiles of hospitalised

patients.

- Delivers a thoughtful and insightful comparison

of influenza and COVID-19 patients, clearly

grounded in the descriptive analysis results.

Survival Analysis of Influenza

Patients [30 Marks]

- Fails to apply survival analysis methods

correctly, or omits key modelling steps.

- Does not provide a clear summary or

interpretation of results.

- Makes inaccurate or unsupported claims

about covariate effects.

- Applies at least one appropriate survival

analysis method (e.g. Kaplan-Meier, Cox

model), though may have some errors or

omissions.

- Provides a basic summary and discussion

of results.

- Identifies the impact of some covariates

on mortality, with partial justification from

the model outputs.

- Demonstrates some logical reasoning but

may lack depth or clarity.

- Applies appropriate survival methods accurately

(e.g. KM curves, Cox models), with well-justified

modelling choices.

- Provides a clear and insightful interpretation of

model results, including hazard ratios and

covariate effects.

- Demonstrates strong critical reasoning and

contextual understanding of mortality risk and

model assumptions.

- Clearly connects modelling outputs to actuarial

implications.

Comparison of mortality risk

between COVID-19 and influenza

(20 Marks) - Fails to apply appropriate statistical methods

to compare the two diseases.

- Provides no or incorrect interpretation of

results.

- Makes unsupported or vague claims about

differences in risk.

- Does not consider covariates or key

assumptions.

- Applies some appropriate statistical

methods to compare mortality risk.

- Summarises results and provides basic

interpretation.

- Identifies some key differences in risk,

with limited discussion of covariates or

assumptions.

- Reasoning is present but may lack clarity

or rigour.

- Applies appropriate and well-justified statistical

methods to compare mortality risk (e.g.

accounting for key covariates).

- Provides a thorough and insightful discussion of

model outputs, assumptions, and implications.

- Draws clear, evidence-based conclusions on

the differences in mortality risk between the two

diseases.

- Demonstrates strong critical reasoning and links

findings to broader actuarial or public health

context.

Ethical analysis and stakeholder

impact [10 Marks]

- Does not identify relevant ethical frameworks

or principles.

- Fails to identify key stakeholders or explain

how they are affected.

- Makes vague or unsupported ethical claims.

- Identifies appropriate ethical principles or

frameworks and applies them with some

clarity.

- Recognises relevant stakeholders and

discusses potential impacts of decisions,

though the analysis may be superficial.

- Applies relevant ethical frameworks with insight

and critical depth.

- Clearly identifies key stakeholders and provides

a thoughtful analysis of the implications of

insurance decisions on each.

ACTL3141/ACTL5104 Assignment Rubric, T1 2025

Recommendations and justification

[10 marks]

- Fails to propose feasible or relevant

recommendations.

- Provides no or poor justification.

- Proposes reasonable recommendations

to address the identified issues.

- Provides basic justification based on

analysis or frameworks.

- Provides thoughtful and practical

recommendations directly addressing identified

ethical concerns.

- Justifies choices using strong analysis and

ethical reasoning.

- Considers alternative options or trade-offs

where appropriate.

COMMUNICATION CRITERIA

Below Expectation (F) Meets Expectation (PS-CR) Exceeds Expectation (DN - HD)

Communicates clearly and

concisely

[5 Marks]

- Frequently unclear or imprecise in language

use.

- Meaning is often difficult to understand due to

poor grammar or vocabulary.

- Technical content is not well explained.

- Generally communicates ideas clearly

and appropriately for the intended

audience.

- Minor grammatical or expression issues

may occasionally affect clarity.

- Technical content is mostly

understandable.

- Communicates ideas, arguments, and technical

content clearly, precisely, and concisely.

- Language is fluent, appropriate, and free of

significant errors.

- Complex concepts are explained effectively and

accessibly.

Structures text logically and

coherently

[5 Marks]

- Poor organisation of ideas or sections.

- Inappropriate or missing structure (e.g.,

unclear introduction, no logical flow).

- Misuse of the appendix or lack of cross- referencing.

- Mostly logical and coherent structure.

- Adequate use of introduction, body, and

conclusion.

- Reasonable organisation between main

body and appendix, with some

referencing.

- Clear and well-organised structure throughout.

- Ideas are developed logically and transitions

are smooth.

- Excellent use of appendix to support the main

body, with effective cross-referencing.

Presents text professionally

[5 Marks]

- Poor formatting, frequent spelling or

punctuation errors.

- Style is inappropriate for an

academic/business context.

- Required components (e.g., appendix, AI

usage note) may be missing.

- Figures/tables missing, unlabelled, or not

referenced in the text.

- Mostly professional formatting and tone.

- Some minor language or formatting

errors.

- Includes the required components (e.g.,

AI usage appendix).

- Figures/tables are labelled and

referenced but may lack consistency or

clarity.

- Professionally presented throughout.

- Free of distracting errors in formatting, spelling,

or grammar.

- Appropriate tone and layout for

academic/business context.

- All required components included and well

integrated.

- Figures and tables are clearly labelled, well- formatted, and consistently referenced in the

main text to support arguments.

51作业君版权所有