Criteria
|
70%-100%
|
60-69%
|
50-59%
|
0 to 49% Fail
|
Generic skills: communication and presentation.
|
Comprehensive and correctly structured assessment. Style of writing is very fluent and develops a coherent and logical argument. Excellent referencing. |
Well structured report which follows appropriate format but some aspects of layout and referencing could be improved. Style of writing is fairly fluent. Good referencing. |
Good report in most aspects but suffers from variations in quality and the layout contains some inadequacies. Style of writing is satisfactory. Referencing needs improving. |
Very poor report which is incorrectly structured and contains major errors and omissions. Style of writing lacks coherence and fluency. Poor referencing.
|
Knowledge & Understanding
|
Demonstrates excellent knowledge of theory and provides critical theoretical underpinning. Very good interpretations and summarising of main themes.
|
Wide range of knowledge demonstrated and evidence of good understanding of the topic. Ability to interpret and summarise succinctly. |
Good range of knowledge demonstrated but weaknesses in key areas. Some understanding displayed of the topic. Summary and interpretation are satisfactory. |
Very poor range of knowledge demonstrated and there are major weaknesses evident in interpretation and understanding. No clear interpretation of main themes. |
Analysis
|
Excellent use of theoretical and conceptual models to guide analysis linked with a critical discussion of main themes. Deconstructs the major themes used in the argument. |
Very good use of the theoretical and conceptual models with good critical discussion and application. Good evidence of deconstruction. |
Use of theory and concepts limited but relevant. Application could be improved and there is a tendency towards description. Must provide more evidence of deconstruction. |
Very poor use of theory and very little application of concepts. Very little description with not much evidence of analysis.
|
Synthesis/ Creativity/ Application
|
Logical presentation of themes with appropriate examples being demonstrated. Very good demonstration of synthesis. Models have been clearly applied to the argument. |
Very good account of main themes with sound application. Good attempt at applying models to the argument. .Fairly good attempt at synthesising the salient points. |
Good account of main themes with some attempt at application. Limited evidence of synthesis. |
Very poor account of main themes with little or no application. No links between models and argument. |
Evaluation
|
Shows clear evidence of in-depth critical reflection and evaluation of the argument by providing a robust defence of the opinions presented in the assessment. |
Shows evidence of critical reflection and evaluation and a fairly cohesive defence of the argument |
Shows some evidence of critical reflection but could have been developed. |
Shows little or no evidence of critical reflection and needs to be much more developed. There is no defence of the opinions presented. |