has the minimum contain little quantitative significant omissions of results. Figures & for development of work. acceptable knowledge information and conclusions and/or much trivial tables contain frequent Limited use of literature with little 41 - 49 and understanding of may not be supported by detail. Little description errors. Limited links critical analysis. Frequent errors in the project. May findings. Introduction of numeric/statistical between figures/tables & referencing text and reference list. exhibit poor editing and contains a weak literature methods. text, may also be lapses of style. review and/or poor duplication. Poor use of statement of aim. numeric & statistical methods. Pass Sufficient work to minimum acceptable (40) standard Poor report. Poor clarity and coherence. Superficial and many Incomplete and/or Much repetition of results with little evidence of a lack of Significant omissions from mistakes. Difficult to inaccurate description and assessment of them. Few or no Fail understanding and/or summary or introduction. understand how presentation of results. ideas for development of work. application in Introduction is a superficial experiments and Figures and tables absent, Poor use of literature, no critical laboratory. Significant review of literature with analysis of results have incorrect or not linked to analysis and many errors in (20 – errors/ omissions/ vague or no statement of been done. text. Little use of numeric referencing text/reference list. 39) numerous lapses in aim. & statistical methods. house style. Inadequate write-up. Rudimentary attempt. May Unable to repeat Poor description and No serious attempt to discuss the Much evidence of a be no Summary and/or little experiments from the presentation of results. significance of the results. Bad fail lack of understanding evidence in the Introduction information given Figures and tables absent Insufficient use of literature, little or and/or application. of engagement with and/or methods of or totally inadequate. no referencing of text and scant Many errors/ omissions literature. No aim. Badly analysis of the results is Figures may be present reference list with errors. (0 19) – and may not have used written. incomprehensible. with no text. No house style. significant use of numeric/ statistical methods. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL 2 AND 3 PRACTICAL REPORTS
41 - 49 has the minimum acceptable knowledge and understanding of the project. May exhibit poor editing and lapses of style. contain little quantitative information and conclusions may not be supported by findings. Introduction contains a weak literature review and/or poor statement of aim. significant omissions and/or much trivial detail. Little description of numeric/statistical methods. of results. Figures & tables contain frequent errors. Limited links between figures/tables & text, may also be duplication. Poor use of numeric & statistical methods. for development of work. Limited use of literature with little critical analysis. Frequent errors in referencing text and reference list. Pass (40) Sufficient work to minimum acceptable standard Fail (20 – 39) Poor report. evidence of a lack of understanding and/or application in laboratory. Significant errors/ omissions/ numerous lapses in house style. Poor clarity and coherence. Significant omissions from summary or introduction. Introduction is a superficial review of literature with vague or no statement of aim. Superficial and many mistakes. Difficult to understand how experiments and analysis of results have been done. Incomplete and/or inaccurate description and presentation of results. Figures and tables absent, incorrect or not linked to text. Little use of numeric & statistical methods. Much repetition of results with little assessment of them. Few or no ideas for development of work. Poor use of literature, no critical analysis and many errors in referencing text/reference list. Bad fail (0 – 19) Inadequate write-up. Much evidence of a lack of understanding and/or application. Many errors/ omissions and may not have used house style. Rudimentary attempt. May be no Summary and/or little evidence in the Introduction of engagement with literature. No aim. Badly written. Unable to repeat experiments from the information given and/or methods of analysis of the results is incomprehensible. Poor description and presentation of results. Figures and tables absent or totally inadequate. Figures may be present with no text. No significant use of numeric/ statistical methods. No serious attempt to discuss the significance of the results. Insufficient use of literature, little or no referencing of text and scant reference list with errors. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL 2 AND 3 PRACTICAL REPORTS
Copa-FSN2014-15.docx