|
|
|
%
|
Relevance
|
Knowledge
|
Argument/Analysis
|
Structure
|
Presentation
|
Written English
|
Research/Referencing
|
|
DISTINCTION
|
Exceptional Quality
|
85-100%
|
Almost all parts of the report are directly relevant to title/brief.
The assumptions of the title and/or the requirement of the brief is expertly addressed in an exemplary manner.
|
Exemplary knowledge
of concepts, theory and practice is clearly demonstrated is all areas.
The interpretation of appropriate concepts and theoretical models with insight is visible.
There is exemplary display creativity in conceptual original thinking.
|
Work produced is exceptional in analysing essential research materials. An exemplary level of evaluation is made based on an excellent theoretical understanding of work discussed and clear evidence of independent, informed judgement is made.
|
An exemplary level of coherence and structure in framed the analysis. Work is articulated and logically structured and has shown complete compliant with recommended format.
|
Exemplary presentational style and format commensurate with the nature of work. Excellent use of figures, tables, and plates (where required).
|
Exceptional level of language is used with no grammatical errors, excellent punctuation and usage of appropriate formal academic and industry language and terminology.
|
Harvard referencing has been applied correctly with no errors throughout the work for in text and end of text referencing. A large variety of current, varied, and suitable sources have been used. Recognition of different perspectives is acknowledged and applied.
|
|
Excellent Quality
|
70-84%
|
Most parts of the report are directly relevant to title/brief.
The assumptions of the title and/or the requirement of the brief is excellently addressed
|
Excellent knowledge
of concepts, theory and practice is clearly demonstrated is all areas.
The interpretation of appropriate concepts and theoretical models with insight is visible.
There is excellent display of creativity in conceptual original thinking.
|
Work produced is excellent in analysing essential research materials. An excellent level of evaluation is made based on an excellent theoretical understanding of work discussed and clear evidence of independent, informed judgement being given.
|
An excellent level of coherence and structure in framing the analysis. Work is articulated and logically structured and has shown excellent level of compliant with recommended format.
|
Excellent presentational style and format, commensurate with the nature of work. Excellent use of figures, tables, and plates (where required).
|
Excellent level of English language is used with no grammatical errors. Excellent punctuation, usage of appropriate formal academic and industry language and terminology.
|
Harvard referencing has been applied correctly with no errors throughout the essay for in text and end of text referencing. A large variety of current, varied, and suitable sources have been used. Recognition of different perspectives is acknowledged and applied.
|
|
MERIT
|
Good Quality
|
60-69%
|
Major parts of the work produced is directly relevant to title/brief.
The assumptions of the title and/or the requirement of the brief is addressed very well.
|
There is very good understanding of theory and practice at this level.
Explanation of relevant conceptual material shows very good grasp of the themes, questions, and issues therein.
|
Presents a coherent analysis of significant research materials that leads to distinct and original conclusions.
Work produced is very good and able to contributes to the expansion of subject-area knowledge and understanding.
|
Major parts of the work is coherently articulated and logically constructed.
A very good level of compliant with suggested format can be seen.
|
Very good presentational style & layout, appropriate to the type of assignment.
Very good use of figures, tables, and plates with good levels of explanations
|
Well written, with standard spelling and grammar, in a readable style and acceptable format
|
Good level of appraisal of up-to-date and/or appropriate literature. Recognition of different perspectives. Knowledgeable use of source material. Uses a range of sources. Harvard referenced with minor mistakes.
|
|
PASS
|
Satisfactory Quality
|
50-59%
|
Substantial amount of work produced generally addresses the assumptions of the title and/or the requirements of the brief. Work may contain some minor irrelevances in places.
|
Demonstrates a good and adequate knowledge of theory and practice for this level.
Good attempt in interpreting some appropriate concepts and theoretical models.
Shows good level of originality in explaining concepts
|
Some analytical treatment, but may be prone to description, or to narrative, which lacks clear analytical purpose.
Some attempt to construct a coherent argument, but may suffer loss of focus and consistency, with issues at stake stated only vaguely, or theoretical mode(s) couched in simplistic terms.
|
Adequate attempt at articulation and logical structure.
A good level of compliant with acceptable format is present.
|
The presentational style & layout is largely correct for the type of assignment.
Substantial use tables, figures and plates but may lack required explanation
|
Written, with only minor lapses from standard grammar, with acceptable format
|
Uses a variety of literature which includes some recent texts and/or appropriate literature, though not necessarily including a substantive amount beyond library texts. Competent use of source material. Used Harvard referencing in most places with majority cited correctly
|
|
FAIL
|
Borderline Fail
|
45-49%
|
Basic understanding of the subject and addressing a limited range of materials.
Contains a lot of irrelevant materials.
|
There are certain gaps in knowledge of theory and practice at this level.
Inadequate knowledge of relevant concepts and theoretical models.
In areas, demonstrates only some conceptual grasp.
|
Largely descriptive or narrative, with little evidence of analysis and evaluation.
A basic argument is evident, but mainly supported by assertion.
|
There may be a lack of clarity and coherence and limited attempt at articulation and problems with structure.
Some formatting errors are also visible.
|
Some weaknesses in the presentational style & layout. Only limited sections are presented logically.
Some inappropriate use of figures, tables and plates, and most are largely irrelevant.
|
A simple basic style but with significant deficiencies in expression or format that may pose obstacles for the reader
|
Limited number of contemporary and relevant sources cited. Work is dominated by material supplied by tutor. Attempted to use Harvard referencing but majority are wrongly cited.
|
|
Fail
|
30-44%
|
Materials have little or no relevance to the title and/or brief.
Issues are addressed at a superficial level and in unchallenging terms.
|
Heavy dependence on description, and/or on paraphrase, is common.
Lacks development and may be repetitive or thin Limited understanding and application of concepts.
|
Little evidence of coherent argument. Almost wholly derivative: the writer’s contribution rarely goes beyond simplifying paraphrase.
Mostly devoid of originality and creativity.
Clear conclusions are not stated.
|
Very poorly structured work. Lack of articulation and coherence in concepts and context.
Format deficiency is clear
|
Work is wholly lacking the presentational style &/or layout required.
Figures, tables, and plates are ignored in text or not used where clearly needed.
|
Numerous deficiencies in expression the writer may achieve clarity (if at all) only by using a simplistic or repetitious style
|
Barely adequate use of literature. Over reliance on basic material provided by the tutor. Little or no attempt to Harvard reference.
|
|
<30%
|
Relevance to the title and/or brief is intermittent or completely missing.
The topic is reduced to its vaguest and least challenging terms.
|
Clearly shows a lack of basic knowledge of either theory or practice for this level. There is very little or no evidence of conceptual understanding.
|
Severely limited arguments. Descriptive or narrative in style with no evidence of critique and originality or creativity.
Conclusions are sparse or not in line with context.
|
Wholly lacking structured.
No visible attempt to articulate or coherently provide concepts and context.
Format deficiency is clear.
|
Work is completely devoid of the presentational style &/or layout.
Figures, tables, and plates are ignored in text or not used where clearly needed.
|
Poorly written with numerous deficiencies in grammar, spelling, expression, and style.
|
Very limited evidence of required reading and no attempt at Harvard referencing. Clear absence of academic sources.
|
