|
Criteria
|
90-100
1st
|
80-89
1st
|
70-79
1st
|
60-69
2:1
|
50-59
2:2
|
40-49
3rd
|
30-39
Fail
|
20-29
Fail
|
0-19
Fail
|
|
Knowledge and Understanding (30 %)
|
The work demonstrates engagement in a focused academic argument which presents a range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied and totally justified. The work demonstrates a high level of originality. There is evidence of a high level of synthesis of theoretical exemplar, underpinning principles, and practical interpretation.
No obvious mistakes in referencing or grammar.
|
The work shows engagement in an academic debate which provides clear evidence of a considered understanding of the professional issues studied, the method adopted, and the position adopted. The work enhances present theory and/or practice. There is evidence of a clear synthesis of theoretical issues and practice. A critical analysis of practical applications and/or theoretical models has resulted in a distinct level of originality. Very few errors in referencing or grammar.
|
There is evidence of analysis and critique of ideas, rival theories, and significant arguments together with evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the context and the other external factors; it takes cognisance of different viewpoints and interpretations and recognises issues. Concepts are presented in a concise way and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows the ability to critique the underlying assumptions upon which existing views are based and to challenge perceived opinion.
A few errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The work demonstrates a capacity to shows views based on sound argument and strong evidence in a concise and articulate way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgement of theories and concerns. There is evidence of effective engagement relating to professional practice. Some small, repeated errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is clear evidence of engagement with relevant issues. Key authors are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses concerns but is not strong on presenting, synthesis or evaluations.
Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar.
|
Whilst some of the attributes of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not deal with each of the results for the defined assessment task. There might be little evidence of, and ability to apply the principles of the module to a broader context. The work is a detailed account showing only very little analysis, and minimal analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered.
There is proof of sufficient grasp of the module`s learning outcomes. Some errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The work has failed to address the outcomes of the module. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of relevant theory.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the student will be able to retrieve the assignment without retaking the module.
Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
This work shows little or no understanding of the relevant theory. Overall, the work is descriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the relevant issues. Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
This work is poor and not coherent. There is evidence of severe faults in referencing and grammar as appropriate. A clear evidence of unstructured and badly presented. The work lacks any attempt at analysis to address assignment brief or learning outcomes. Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
|
Critical Analysis, Evaluation and Application of Theory (30%)
|
The work demonstrates engagement in a focused academic argument which presents a range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied and totally justified. The work demonstrates a high level of originality. There is evidence of a high level of synthesis of theoretical exemplar, underpinning principles, and practical interpretation.
No obvious mistakes in referencing or grammar.
|
The work shows engagement in an academic debate which provides clear evidence of a considered understanding of the professional issues studied, the method adopted, and the position adopted. The work enhances present theory and/or practice. There is evidence of a clear synthesis of theoretical issues and practice. A critical analysis of practical applications and/or theoretical models has resulted in a distinct level of originality. Very few errors in referencing or grammar.
|
There is evidence of analysis and critique of ideas, rival theories, and significant arguments together with evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the context and the other external factors; it takes cognisance of different viewpoints and interpretations and recognises issues. Concepts are presented in a concise way and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows the ability to critique the underlying assumptions upon which existing views are based and to challenge perceived opinion.
A few errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The work demonstrates a capacity to shows views based on sound argument and strong evidence in a concise and articulate way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgement of theories and concerns. There is evidence of effective engagement relating to professional practice. Some small, repeated errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is clear evidence of engagement with relevant issues. Key authors are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses concerns but is not strong on presenting, synthesis or evaluations.
Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar.
|
Whilst some of the attributes of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not deal with each of the results for the defined assessment task. There might be little evidence of, and ability to apply the principles of the module to a broader context. The work is a detailed account showing only very little analysis, and minimal analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered.
There is proof of sufficient grasp of the module`s learning outcomes. Some errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The work has failed to address the outcomes of the module. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of relevant theory.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the student will be able to retrieve the assignment without retaking the module.
Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
This work shows little or no understanding of the relevant theory. Overall, the work is descriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the relevant issues. Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
This work is poor and not coherent. There is evidence of severe faults in referencing and grammar as appropriate. A clear evidence of unstructured and badly presented. The work lacks any attempt at analysis to address assignment brief or learning outcomes. Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
|
Quality of Research (20%)
|
The work demonstrates engagement in a focused academic argument which presents a range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied and totally justified. The work demonstrates a high level of originality. There is evidence of a high level of synthesis of theoretical exemplar, underpinning principles, and practical interpretation.
No obvious mistakes in referencing or grammar.
|
The work shows engagement in an academic debate which provides clear evidence of a considered understanding of the professional issues studied, the method adopted, and the position adopted. The work enhances present theory and/or practice. There is evidence of a clear synthesis of theoretical issues and practice. A critical analysis of practical applications and/or theoretical models has resulted in a distinct level of originality. Very few errors in referencing or grammar.
|
There is evidence of analysis and critique of ideas, rival theories, and significant arguments together with evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the context and the other external factors; it takes cognisance of different viewpoints and interpretations and recognises issues. Concepts are presented in a concise way and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows the ability to critique the underlying assumptions upon which existing views are based and to challenge perceived opinion.
A few errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The work demonstrates a capacity to shows views based on sound argument and strong evidence in a concise and articulate way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgement of theories and concerns. There is evidence of effective engagement relating to professional practice. Some small, repeated errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is clear evidence of engagement with relevant issues. Key authors are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses concerns but is not strong on presenting, synthesis or evaluations.
Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar.
|
Whilst some of the attributes of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not deal with each of the results for the defined assessment task. There might be little evidence of, and ability to apply the principles of the module to a broader context. The work is a detailed account showing only very little analysis, and minimal analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered.
There is proof of sufficient grasp of the module`s learning outcomes. Some errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The work has failed to address the outcomes of the module. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of relevant theory.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the student will be able to retrieve the assignment without retaking the module.
Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
This work shows little or no understanding of the relevant theory. Overall, the work is descriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the relevant issues. Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
This work is poor and not coherent. There is evidence of severe faults in referencing and grammar as appropriate. A clear evidence of unstructured and badly presented. The work lacks any attempt at analysis to address assignment brief or learning outcomes. Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
|
Academic Writing (20%)
|
The work demonstrates engagement in a focused academic argument which presents a range of evidence underpinning a deep understanding of all the issues studied and totally justified. The work demonstrates a high level of originality. There is evidence of a high level of synthesis of theoretical exemplar, underpinning principles, and practical interpretation.
No obvious mistakes in referencing or grammar.
|
The work shows engagement in an academic debate which provides clear evidence of a considered understanding of the professional issues studied, the method adopted, and the position adopted. The work enhances present theory and/or practice. There is evidence of a clear synthesis of theoretical issues and practice. A critical analysis of practical applications and/or theoretical models has resulted in a distinct level of originality. Very few errors in referencing or grammar.
|
There is evidence of analysis and critique of ideas, rival theories, and significant arguments together with evidence of synthesis. The work fully considers the context and the other external factors; it takes cognisance of different viewpoints and interpretations and recognises issues. Concepts are presented in a concise way and conclusions are well reasoned. The work shows the ability to critique the underlying assumptions upon which existing views are based and to challenge perceived opinion.
A few errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The work demonstrates a capacity to shows views based on sound argument and strong evidence in a concise and articulate way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgement of theories and concerns. There is evidence of effective engagement relating to professional practice. Some small, repeated errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is clear evidence of engagement with relevant issues. Key authors are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses concerns but is not strong on presenting, synthesis or evaluations.
Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar.
|
Whilst some of the attributes of a pass have been demonstrated, the work does not deal with each of the results for the defined assessment task. There might be little evidence of, and ability to apply the principles of the module to a broader context. The work is a detailed account showing only very little analysis, and minimal analysis, synthesis, or evaluation. No counterarguments or alternative frames of reference are generated or considered.
There is proof of sufficient grasp of the module`s learning outcomes. Some errors in referencing or grammar.
|
The work has failed to address the outcomes of the module. The work is mainly descriptive and shows little or no understanding of relevant theory.
There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the student will be able to retrieve the assignment without retaking the module.
Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
This work shows little or no understanding of the relevant theory. Overall, the work is descriptive and presents only a superficial grasp of the relevant issues. Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
This work is poor and not coherent. There is evidence of severe faults in referencing and grammar as appropriate. A clear evidence of unstructured and badly presented. The work lacks any attempt at analysis to address assignment brief or learning outcomes. Poor academic referencing or grammar.
|
|
Criteria
|
90-100
1st
|
80-89
1st
|
70-79
1st
|
60-69
2:1
|
50-59
2:2
|
40-49
3rd
|
30-39
Fail
|
20-29
Fail
|
0-19
Fail
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
