fully comply with School guidelines in regard to referencing. Structure is weak. Narrow or misguided Sufficient understanding to indicate the appropriate, numerous inconsistencies or selection of material. Some key writer has a basic grasp of the subject. inaccuracies in citation of references in text and 41 - 49 information wrong or missing but Weak development of arguments. reference list. Minimal acceptable standard of sufficient information and relevance to grammar and spelling. Diagrams and tables may give cursory coverage of subject. be missing or poorly presented and unexplained. Pass Enough structure, breadth and depth of material to reach a minimum acceptable standard. (40) Fail Marred by poor structure, lack of Little evidence of understanding or Style, grammar and spelling are poor. Diagrams relevance, serious omissions and/or integration of concepts. and tables are missing or irrelevant. Inaccurate many factual errors. and/or incomplete bibliography. (20 39) – Deficient in structure, fails to address the No evidence of understanding or Language, grammar and spelling are dreadful. question/title, numerous omissions and integration of concepts. Diagrams and tables are missing or irrelevant. Bad fail errors. No evidence of serious reading Bibliography is grossly inaccurate and/or and profound ignorance of the subject. incomplete. (0 - 19) QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL 3 COURSEWORK ESSAYS AND LITERATURE PROJECT DISSERTATIONS GRADE CONTENT INTERPRETATION PRESENTATION Almost faultless at this with respect Excellent critical analysis of literature Excellent presentation and use of illustrative to: organisation, clarity of expression, with evidence of originality or material. Extremely well written style, – coherence of argument, factual accuracy independent thought. Approaches the spelling, grammar are almost faultless. 80 - 100 and selection of material. standard of a published review.
fully comply with School guidelines in regard to referencing. 41 - 49 Structure is weak. Narrow or misguided selection of material. Some key information wrong or missing but sufficient information and relevance to give cursory coverage of subject. Sufficient understanding to indicate the writer has a basic grasp of the subject. Weak development of arguments. appropriate, numerous inconsistencies or inaccuracies in citation of references in text and reference list. Minimal acceptable standard of grammar and spelling. Diagrams and tables may be missing or poorly presented and unexplained. Pass (40) Enough structure, breadth and depth of material to reach a minimum acceptable standard. Fail (20 – 39) Marred by poor structure, lack of relevance, serious omissions and/or many factual errors. Little evidence of understanding or integration of concepts. Style, grammar and spelling are poor. Diagrams and tables are missing or irrelevant. Inaccurate and/or incomplete bibliography. Bad fail (0 - 19) Deficient in structure, fails to address the question/title, numerous omissions and errors. No evidence of serious reading and profound ignorance of the subject. No evidence of understanding or integration of concepts. Language, grammar and spelling are dreadful. Diagrams and tables are missing or irrelevant. Bibliography is grossly inaccurate and/or incomplete. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL 3 COURSEWORK ESSAYS AND LITERATURE PROJECT DISSERTATIONS GRADE CONTENT INTERPRETATION PRESENTATION 80 - 100 Almost faultless at this with respect to: organisation, clarity of expression, coherence of argument, factual accuracy and selection of material. Excellent critical analysis of literature with evidence of originality or independent thought. Approaches the standard of a published review. Excellent presentation and use of illustrative material. Extremely well written – style, spelling, grammar are almost faultless.
Copa-FSN2014-15.docx