Criteria
|
100-70%
|
69-60%
|
59-50%
|
49-40%
|
39-20%
|
20-0%
|
Planning, coherence, and organisation of work
|
Detailed self-directed planning evident in coherent and well- organised work which meets timescales.
|
Logical, well-planned, and coherent work which meets timescales.
|
Evidence of effective planning. Work demonstrates some coherence and is organised
and meets timescales.
|
Evidence of some planning and work has basic coherence and organisation and meets
timescales.
|
Poor organisation and little coherence.
Inefficient planning and tasks incomplete.
|
Disorganised and incoherent. Little evidence of planning.
|
Context and application of knowledge
|
Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of subject context demonstrated and used
effectively.
|
Good knowledge and understanding of defined subject context shown and
used appropriately.
|
Sound knowledge and understanding of defined subject context shown and
used.
|
Basic knowledge and understanding of defined subject context
demonstrated.
|
Limited knowledge and understanding of subject shown.
|
Very limited or no understanding of subject shown.
|
Presentation
|
Confident selection, organisation and communication of ideas using appropriate and resources and with clear focus on intended
audience.
|
Confident selection, organisation, and communication of ideas appropriate to the intended
audience.
|
Competent communication of ideas with clarity and an appropriate structure.
|
Competent and appropriate communication of ideas although some lack of
clarity evident.
|
Ineffective communication and presentation of ideas and lack of clarity in
structure.
|
No coherent communication of ideas.
|
Written Communication, (including accuracy, spelling, grammar,
punctuation)
|
Fluent and accurate writing style which utilises appropriate conventions and is appropriate to the assignment. Mostly
correct grammar and spelling.
|
Fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment. Academic conventions are used, and grammar and
spelling are generally accurate.
|
Writing style serviceable and appropriate with awareness of academic discipline.
|
Basic writing style using appropriate format but containing some errors in expression.
|
Ineffective writing style with little attention to academic or grammatical
conventions.
|
Inappropriate and incoherent.
Communication.
|
Communication (oral)
|
Engaging and confident presentation of well- structured ideas. Pace is appropriate for subject matter and audience,
|
Clearly communicated ideas which are well structured, and pace is appropriate. Attempts are made to engage the audience,
|
Sound structure and pace is evident in appropriate communication of ideas.
Some effective audience engagement,
|
Basic structure and competent communication evident although limited appropriateness or engagement with
audience.
|
Presentation of ideas lacks coherence and fluency. Very little attempt to engage with audience at an
appropriate level.
|
Ineffective communication and presentation of ideas, lacking clarity in structure. Minimal engagement with audience.
|
Evaluation and Reflection
|
Excellent use of evaluation and reflection throughout.
Confidently reflects on own strengths and weaknesses and translates this to effective action
planning.
|
Consistent and appropriate use of reflection, evaluation, and action planning.
|
Adequate use of reflection, evaluation, and action planning with evidence of reasoned decision making.
|
Limited use of reflection, evaluation, and action planning.
|
Insufficient evidence of reflection or evaluation informing very limited action planning.
|
No evidence of reflection or evaluation.
|
Analysis and criticality
|
Makes very good use of analysis by comparing and contrasting alternate positions using critical insight.
|
Makes effective use of established techniques of analysis and shows awareness of alternate theories and
analytic approaches.
|
Makes conventional use of analysis, including some criticality. Is aware of current debates.
|
Makes basic use of analysis and there is evidence of some critical insight and reference to
debates.
|
Little analysis of or justification for ideas.
|
No evidence of analysis or criticality in presentation of ideas.
|