|
GENERIC DESCRIPTORS
|
Command of the Subject
|
Subject Specific Skills & Practices
|
Scholarly and Professional Skills & Attributes
|
|
90-100%
|
Demonstrates a breadth and depth of substantive knowledge that is excellent and informed by the highest level of scholarship.
Excellent integration of the full range of appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques goes beyond the material displaying exceptional flair in tackling issues identified.
|
Exceptional application of theoretical and technical knowledge to achieve learning outcomes.
Exceptional professional presentation using an appropriate range of resources and reflecting professional norms.
|
Work that influences how academics and students think about their discipline through: being original within the discipline; achieving the highest level of compelling, coherent and concise argument attainable within the level of study; using a full range of high-quality sources to inform but not dominate the argument.
|
|
80-89%
|
Demonstrates a breadth and depth of substantive knowledge that is comprehensive, accurate, relevant and informed by advanced scholarship.
Excellent integration of the full range of appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques goes beyond the material with excellent conceptualization which is original, innovative and/or insightful.
|
Excellent and original application of theoretical and technical knowledge to achieve the learning outcomes.
Excellent professional presentation using an appropriate range of resources and reflecting professional norms.
|
Work that has real potential to influence how academics and students may think about the discipline through: being original on the basis of its excellence in the context of the level of study; a compelling, coherent and concise argument; drawing on a full range of high-quality sources.
|
|
70-79%
|
Informed by a breadth and depth of substantive knowledge that is comprehensive, accurate, relevant with awareness of advanced scholarship
Very good integration of a full range of appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques goes beyond the material with very good conceptualization, which is often original, innovative and/or insightful.
|
Constantly applies theoretical and technical knowledge to achieve learning outcomes with some originality.
Very good professional presentation using an appropriate range of resources and reflecting professional norms.
|
Work that has some potential to influence how academics and students may think about the discipline through: some originality on the basis of its excellence in the context of the level of study; arguments which are coherent, concise, and frequently compelling; drawing on a wide range of high-quality sources.
|
|
60-69%
|
Demonstrates a breadth and depth of substantive knowledge that is comprehensive and accurate.
Good integration of a range of appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques
Some good insight into the material.
|
Clear evidence of the application of theoretical and technical knowledge to achieve learning outcomes with few obvious flaws.
Professional presentation using a good range of resources and reflecting professional norms.
|
Work that critically engages with current thinking in the discipline through: clear differentiation between the quality and appropriateness of the sources used; arguments which are coherent and concise and offer robust conclusions; the development of a good analytical model.
|
|
50-59%
|
Demonstrates an adequate breadth and depth of substantive knowledge but with only a few errors or omissions.
Demonstrates an adequate understanding of a range of appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques shows some ability to critically engage with the material.
|
Adequate application of theoretical and technical knowledge to achieve learning outcomes although with some obvious flaws.
Presentation which adequately reflects relevant professional norms.
|
Work that accurately reports on current thinking in the discipline through: the repetition of, rather critical engagement with, limited sources; adequate differentiation between the quality and appropriateness of sources used; drawing adequate conclusions which do not always fully reflect the complexity of the subject matter; an adequate if unsophisticated analytical model.
|
|
40-49%
|
Incomplete breadth and depth of substantive knowledge with some errors or omissions.
|
Demonstrates limited ability to put theory into practice.
Demonstrates an awareness of appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques.
Limited and underdeveloped critical engagement with the material
|
Work that offers a limited understanding of thinking in the discipline through: limited attention.
Demonstrates limited technical ability but lacking theoretical and reflective insights.
Presentation which reflects professional practice in a limited manner
|
|
30-39%
|
Little relevant knowledge which is minimal in its breadth and depth with major errors or omissions.
Minimal awareness of the appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques.
Fails to demonstrate sufficient critical engagement with the material.
|
Demonstrates a minimal ability to meet learning outcomes in the grasp of both theory and technical knowledge.
Presentation which displays little more than cursory attention to professional norms.
|
Work that often misrepresents or misunderstands thinking in the discipline through: minimal attention paid to the quality, range and appropriateness of sources used; poorly informed opinion led work with a minimal evidence base; no real underlying structure of argument; work that is frequently confused and incoherent.
|
|
20-29%
|
Does not demonstrate even a basic understanding of the subject matter.
Insufficient awareness of appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques.
Little evidence of critical engagement with the material
|
Lacks any real application of skills to meet learning outcomes.
Fails to demonstrate any substantive meeting of learning outcomes.
No real attention to the disciplinary norms of presentation.
|
Work that fundamentally misrepresents or misunderstands thinking in the discipline through: a lack of attention to the quality, range and appropriateness of sources used; poorly informed opinion-led work rather than evidence-based argument; no real underlying structure of argument
|
|
10-19%
|
Demonstrates confusion over the subject matter.
Little awareness of appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques.
No evidence of critical engagement with the material.
|
Fails to demonstrate the use of skills to meet learning outcomes.
Fails to demonstrate any substantive meeting of learning outcomes.
No real attention to the disciplinary norms of presentation.
|
Work that completely misrepresents or misunderstands thinking in the discipline through: inadequacy of sources used; unsubstantial assertion with no evidence base; failure to structure the argument being presented.
|
|
0-9%
|
Demonstrates mainly ignorance of the subject matter by presenting information of minimal relevance.
Little or no awareness of appropriate principles, theories, evidence and techniques
|
Learning outcomes are not met.
No real attention to any norms of presentation.
|
Work that completely misrepresents or misunderstands thinking in the discipline through: absence or misuse of sources; work that is confused and incoherent.
|
