|
Assignment
Task (LOs Covered)
|
Fail (<50%)
|
Pass (50–5G%)
|
Merit (60–6G%)
|
Distinction
(≥70%)
|
|
Background C Context
|
Background information unclear or unrelated; minimal understanding of research topic; lacks connection to
dissertation aims.
|
Some relevant background provided; shows limited understanding of topic or research context; partial alignment with dissertation aims.
|
Clear and relevant background; demonstrates good understanding of the research context and rationale; logical alignment with aims.
|
Comprehensive and well-contextualized background; excellent understanding of the research significance; strong justification of topic relevance and
originality.
|
|
Progress C Preliminary Work
|
No or minimal evidence of progress; lacks discussion of completed activities; unclear what has been achieved.
|
Some progress described but lacks depth or critical reflection; partial completion of planned tasks; vague discussion of outcomes.
|
Substantial progress evident; key activities (e.g., literature review, methodology design) discussed clearly; appropriate reflection on
outcomes.
|
Excellent evidence of progress and achievement; clear linkage between proposal and current work; demonstrates initiative and insight in
problem-solving.
|
|
Preliminary Literature Review
|
Minimal or no engagement with literature; descriptive with no analysis; referencing missing or inaccurate.
|
Some engagement with relevant literature; limited critical evaluation; referencing mostly consistent.
|
Good range of relevant and recent sources; emerging critical synthesis; accurate referencing throughout.
|
Extensive, current, and well-synthesized literature; excellent critical insight; highly relevant scholarly engagement; impeccable
referencing.
|
|
Methodology C Research Design
|
Methodology unclear, inappropriate, or missing; limited understanding of research process.
|
Some aspects of methodology described; partially appropriate or underdeveloped; lacks detail.
|
Clear and coherent methodology; appropriate research design; methods justified with sound reasoning.
|
Rigorous, innovative methodology; strong justification and reflection on choices; demonstrates critical awareness of limitations and
alternatives.
|
|
Project Plan / Gantt Chart
|
No project plan or timeline; unrealistic or missing milestones; lacks feasibility.
|
Basic project plan provided; limited structure or realism; partial feasibility.
|
Logical and well- organized plan; feasible timescales and milestones; clear linkage to methodology.
|
Detailed, professional schedule (e.g., Gantt chart) with insightful adjustments; highly feasible and well- integrated with
dissertation objectives.
|
|
Presentation C Communication
|
Poorly structured; unclear delivery; frequent errors in slides or speech; low engagement; referencing absent.
|
Adequate structure and delivery; some clarity but limited confidence or style; referencing attempted.
|
Clear and confident delivery; well- structured slides; appropriate academic tone; referencing accurate.
|
Highly professional and engaging presentation; excellent clarity, flow, and timing; confident delivery; impeccable referencing and visual
quality.
|
|
Use of AI Tools (Declaration)
|
No declaration or evidence of inappropriate use; lacks transparency about AI assistance.
|
Minimal declaration provided; unclear or incomplete justification of AI use.
|
Transparent and appropriate declaration of limited AI use for planning; conforms to
guidance.
|
Fully transparent and reflective AI declaration; demonstrates responsible and ethical use consistent with
university policy.
|
