%
|
Descriptor
|
|
|
Assessment criteria/ weighting
Grading level
|
Demonstrate research and use of relevant data (25%)
|
Understanding, analysis and argument
(40%)
|
Quality of concluding observations
(25%)
|
Organisation, presentation and writing including referencing
(10%)
|
80+
|
PASS
Exceptional
|
Exceptionally thorough and rigorous research. Exceptional choices in which data to use and how. Exceptional insight and understanding of quantitative and qualitative data.
|
Exceptional analysis and original critical evaluation of the relevant issues and excellent grasp of their wider significance. Exceptionally robust synthesis of arguments. Exceptional use of relevant concepts, tools and techniques.
|
Clear and appropriate observations are provided and thoroughly justified. Exceptional originality of thoughtand a critical approach to develop observations.
|
Highest standards of literacy and professional presentation, following the structure specified in the brief.Exceptional use of external sources, referencing that conforms precisely to UWE Harvard requirements.
|
70-79
|
PASS
Excellent
|
Excellent and rigorous research. Excellent choices in which data to use and how. Excellent insight and understanding of quantitative and qualitative data.
|
Excellent analysis and evaluationof the relevant issues and very good grasp of their wider significance. Excellent synthesis of arguments. Excellent use of relevant concepts, tools and techniques.
|
Clear and appropriate observationsare provided and well justified. Excellent originality of though and a critical approach to develop observations.
|
Excellent standards of literacy and professional presentation, following the structure specified in the brief.Excellent use of external sources, referencing that conforms precisely to UWE Harvard requirements.
|
60-69
|
PASS
65-69%:
Very good
60-64%:
Good
|
Very good/good and systematic research. Very good/good choices in which data to use and how. Very good/good insight and understanding of quantitative and qualitative data.
|
Very good/goodanalysis and evaluation of the relevant issues and good grasp of their wider significance. Very good/good synthesis of arguments. Very good/good use of relevant concepts, tools and techniques.
|
Clear and appropriate observations are provided and justified. Very good/ good originality of thought to develop observations.
|
Very good/good standards of literacy and professional presentation, following the structure specified in the brief.Very good/good use of external sources, referencing that conforms well to UWE Harvard requirements.
|
50-59
|
PASS
55-59% Competent
50-54% Adequate
|
Adequate/ competent research. Adequate choices in which data to use and how. Basic insight and understanding of quantitative and qualitative data.
|
Adequate/ competent analysis and evaluation of the relevant issues and adequate grasp of their wider significance. Adequate/ competent synthesis of arguments. Adequate/ competent use of relevant concepts, tools and techniques.
|
An adequate/ competent set of observationsis provided and some justification given. Broadly relevant but little rationale to develop observations.
|
Adequate/competent standards of literacy and presentation, following the structure specified in the brief.Adequate/competent use of external sources, referencing that conforms largely to UWE Harvard requirements.
|
40-49
|
PASS
Weak
|
Weak research. Weak choices in which data to use and how. Lacking some insights and understanding of quantitative and qualitative data.
|
Weak analysis and evaluation of the relevant issues and weak grasp of their wider significance. Weak synthesis of arguments. Weak use of relevant concepts, tools and techniques.
|
A limited set of observations is provided, with limited justification. Broadly relevant but with very little rationale to develop observations.
|
Weak standards of literacy and presentation, following the structure specified in the brief.Weak use of external sources, referencing that conforms largely to UWE Harvard requirements.
|
35-39
|
FAIL
Poor
|
A generally limited and superficial research. Poor choices in which data to use and how. Poor insights and understanding of quantitative and qualitative data.
|
Very weak analysis and evaluation of the relevant issues and limited grasp of their wider significance. Poor synthesis of arguments. Very weak use of relevant concepts, tools and techniques.
|
Superficial or inappropriate and unjustified observationsare made that are poorly supported by the analysis.
|
Poor standards of literacy, presentation, and structure.
Poor use of external sources, referencing that does not conform to UWE Harvard requirements.
|
Below 30
|
FAIL
Very poor
|
Very little or no research. Very little or no understanding of quantitative and qualitative data.
|
Very little or no analysis and evaluation of the relevant issues and very little or no grasp of their wider significance.
Very poor synthesis of arguments often unsupported by evidence. Very little or no use of relevant concepts, tools and techniques.
|
Little attempt if any to present or justifyobservations. Observations are poorly or not supported by the analysis.
|
Very poor standards of literacy, presentation, and no clear structure.
Poor use of external sources, referencing failing to conform to UWE Harvard requirements.
|