understanding of the topic. areas with which the limited, or basic, or some major i.e. Lacks clarity. text and diagrams. Could not be May have omitted some basic presentation subject is sources which are central to the presented at a conference 41 - 49 Pace and volume of concepts/ areas or included concerned, though explanations subject may have been omitted. without large scale changes. verbal delivery are are not always clear. unimportant areas. Is not Supports some points in the unsuitable for the always relevant presentation with examples from environment. reading/experience but these may be badly chosen. Very limited ability to summarise Pass Sufficient work to reach minimum acceptable standard (40) Has not addressed the Shows little understanding of The presenter shows minimal Extremely poor use Very poor visual impact. Missing subject matter of the basic concepts, and attempts to evidence of background reading. of voice. sections, missing diagrams. Fail presentation in any describe them are unclear or Points made in the presentation Could not be presented at a i.e. Clarity and pace substantial way. Strays off erroneous. are unsupported, and appear to conference in any form. are totally the subject very frequently. be based entirely on personal inappropriate. (39 20) – experience and opinion. The presentation contains much irrelevance. May be errors of fact. No attempt to present Little or no understanding of No evidence of background No attempt to No attempt to produce a poster material related to the concepts. Contains many reading. Material is often deliver an oral of the required standard. Bad fail subject. factual errors. incorrect. presentation of the required standard. (0 – 19) Annex 2 QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL 5 COURSEWORK ESSAYS AND LITERATURE PROJECT DISSERTATIONS CONTENT INTERPRETATION PRESENTATION
41 - 49 understanding of the topic. May have omitted some basic concepts/ areas or included unimportant areas. Is not always relevant areas with which the presentation subject is concerned, though explanations are not always clear. limited, or basic, or some major sources which are central to the subject may have been omitted. Supports some points in the presentation with examples from reading/experience but these may be badly chosen. Very limited ability to summarise i.e. Lacks clarity. Pace and volume of verbal delivery are unsuitable for the environment. text and diagrams. Could not be presented at a conference without large scale changes. Pass (40) Sufficient work to reach minimum acceptable standard Fail (39 – 20) Has not addressed the subject matter of the presentation in any substantial way. Strays off the subject very frequently. The presentation contains much irrelevance. Shows little understanding of basic concepts, and attempts to describe them are unclear or erroneous. The presenter shows minimal evidence of background reading. Points made in the presentation are unsupported, and appear to be based entirely on personal experience and opinion. May be errors of fact. Extremely poor use of voice. i.e. Clarity and pace are totally inappropriate. Very poor visual impact. Missing sections, missing diagrams. Could not be presented at a conference in any form. Bad fail (0 – 19) No attempt to present material related to the subject. Little or no understanding of concepts. Contains many factual errors. No evidence of background reading. Material is often incorrect. No attempt to deliver an oral presentation of the required standard. No attempt to produce a poster of the required standard. Annex 2 QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL 5 COURSEWORK ESSAYS AND LITERATURE PROJECT DISSERTATIONS CONTENT INTERPRETATION PRESENTATION