| | KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING | INTELLECTUAL & COGNITIVE SKILLS | Graduate Skills: transferable, employability, practical and academic skills |
| | Factual and conceptual knowledge and understanding; use of class materials; independent reading | Critical thinking; conceptualisation; creativity; synthesis, analysis and evaluation; application; problem solving and research/investigation | Written, oral and presentation skills; interpersonal, group and teamwork skills; leadership skills; numeracy; digital skills; practical, professional and academic skills (including referencing/presentation |
MARKING BAND | CLASSIFICATION | WEIGHTED AT 35% | WEIGHTED AT 40% | WEIGHTED AT 25% |
XXXXXXXXXX% | FIRST (1ST) | Includes all required factual content, accurately and succinctly summarised. | Well developed, persuasive, highly relevant, reasoned introduction and conclusions, demonstrating originality. | Within word count or presentation time. |
| | Includes relevant factual content only. | Clearly and logically structured material, showing excellent understanding of the discipline. | Accurate spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraphing. |
| | Systematic, accurate identification of relevant concepts, theories and/or principles. | Information or data selected from a broad range of highly relevant, current primary and secondary sources, and categorised, analysed or evaluated using relevant, self-determined methods or techniques. | Eloquent, professional writing style, appropriate to the assignment OR professional, engaging, confident, audible and well paced presentation. Sophisticated use of technical vocabulary, where appropriate. |
| | Exceptional, in-depth understanding of factual and conceptual material, including understanding of the limits to knowledge in this area. | Well developed, perceptive, coherent arguments, systematically referencing primary and secondary literature, including competing perspectives, with clear rationale for choices. | Professional, creative visual presentation, including font, spacing, margins, headings, graphics, images and appendices. |
| | Calculations are accurate, clearly set out, with excellent, precise explanations. | Exceptional integration of theory and practice, using appropriate conceptual frameworks. | Correct and systematic use of academic conventions, references and bibliography. |
| | Independent, wide-ranging, highly relevant reading and research, from authoritative primary and secondary sources. | Exceptional application of numerical and statistical methods to defined complex problems. | Exceptional, consistent, flexible delivery of group work obligations. Proactive leadership, accepts responsibility and ameliorates conflict. Undertakes complex tasks. |
| | | Substantiated, highly relevant recommendations generating novel solutions. Excellent awareness of ethical issues. | Exceptional, well articulated reflection on own strengths and weaknesses in relation to defined professional and practical skills. Identifies and follows up required actions. |
70 - 85% | FIRST (1ST) | Includes all required factual content, accurately and succinctly summarised. | Well developed, relevant, reasoned introduction and conclusions, demonstrating some originality. | Within word count or presentation time. |
| | Includes relevant factual content only. | Clearly and logically structured material, showing excellent understanding of the discipline. | Accurate spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraphing. |
| | Systematic, accurate identification of relevant concepts, theories and/or principles. | Information or data selected from a good range of relevant, current primary and secondary sources, and categorised, analysed or evaluated using relevant, self-determined methods or techniques. | Fluent, professional writing style, appropriate to the assignment OR professional, engaging, audible and well paced presentation. Excellent use of technical vocabulary, where appropriate. |
| | Excellent, in-depth understanding of factual and conceptual material, including understanding of the limits of knowledge in this area. | Well developed, coherent arguments, systematically referencing primary and secondary literature, including competing perspectives, with clear rationale for choices. | Professional, creative visual presentation, including font, spacing, margins, headings, graphics, images and appendices. |
| | Calculations are accurate, clearly set out, with excellent explanations. | Excellent integration of theory and practice, using appropriate conceptual frameworks. | Correct and systematic use of academic conventions, references and bibliography. |
| | Independent, wide-ranging, relevant reading and research, from authoritative primary and secondary sources. | Excellent application of numerical and statistical methods to defined complex problems. | Excellent, consistent, flexible delivery of group work obligations. Proactive leadership, accepts responsibility and ameliorates conflict. Undertakes complex tasks. |
| | | Substantiated relevant recommendations generating novel solutions. Very good awareness of ethical issues. | Excellent, well articulated reflection on own strengths and weaknesses in relation to defined professional and practical skills. Identifies and follows up required actions. |
60 - 69% | UPPER SECOND (2:1) | Includes most required factual content, mostly accurately and succinctly summarised. | Relevant and valid introduction and conclusions. | Within word count or presentation time. |
| | Includes relevant factual content only. | Clearly structured material, with some gaps in logic, but showing good understanding of the discipline. | Mostly accurate spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraphing. |
| | Mostly systematic and accurate identification of relevant concepts, theories and/or principles. | Information or data selected from mainly relevant primary and secondary sources, and categorised, analysed or evaluated using relevant methods or techniques but with minor gaps or misunderstandings. | Mainly fluent, professional writing style, appropriate to the assignment OR mainly professional, engaging, audible and well paced presentation. Good use of technical vocabulary, where appropriate. |
| | Very good understanding of factual and conceptual material, showing some appreciation of the limits of knowledge in this area. | Mostly coherent arguments, with some perceptive points, mostly systematically referencing well selected primary and secondary literature. | Mostly professional, creative visual presentation, including font, spacing, margins, headings, graphics, images and appendices. |
| | Calculations are mainly accurate, clearly set out, with good explanations. | Good integration of theory and practice, using appropriate conceptual frameworks. | Mostly correct use of academic conventions, references and bibliography. |
| | Independent reading and research from a range of mostly authoritative primary and secondary sources. | Mainly good application of numerical and statistical methods to defined complex problems, with some gaps, errors or misunderstandings. | Consistent delivery of group work obligations. Some leadership and ability to accept responsibility and modify responses. Undertakes non-routine tasks. |
| | | Some relevant recommendations generating some novel solutions. Satisfactory awareness of ethical issues, where relevant. | Clear reflection on own strengths and weaknesses in relation to defined professional and practical skills. Partial identification of required actions. |
50 - 59% | LOWER SECOND (2:2) | Includes most required factual content, but with some gaps or misunderstandings. | Satisfactory introduction and conclusions. | Within 10% of word count or presentation time. |
| | Includes some irrelevant factual content. | Mostly clearly structured material, with some gaps in logic, demonstrates an understanding of the discipline. | Some mistakes in spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraphing. |
| | Adequate identification of relevant concepts, theories and/or principles. | Information or data selected from mainly secondary sources, and categorised, analysed or evaluated using mostly relevant methods or techniques but with gaps or misunderstandings. | Writing style is appropriate but not always fluent or professional OR a presentation that is not always professional, engaging, audible or well paced. Some use of technical vocabulary, where appropriate. |
| | Satisfactory understanding of factual and conceptual material, but not in-depth. Limited appreciation of the limits of knowledge in this area. | Satisfactory arguments, referencing mostly secondary literature and including some personal opinion | Appropriate visual presentation, including font, spacing, margins, headings, graphics, images and appendices. |
| | Calculations may have some inaccuracies, or issues relating to set out and explanation. | An adequate attempt to relate theory to practice, using appropriate conceptual frameworks. | Inconsistent use of academic conventions, references and bibliography. |
| | Adequate independent reading and research from mostly secondary sources. | Adequate application of numerical and statistical methods to defined complex problems, with some gaps or errors. | Inconsistent delivery of group work obligations. Some awareness of responsibility and options. Undertakes mostly routine tasks. |
| | | Basic recommendations, which do not generate novel solutions. Satisfactory awareness of ethical issues, where relevant. | Some evaluation of own strengths and weaknesses in relation to defined professional and practical skills. Limited identification of required actions. |
40 - 49% | THIRD (3RD) | Includes limited required factual content, with many gaps or inaccuracies. | Basic introduction and conclusions. | Within 10% of word count or presentation time. |
| | Includes considerable irrelevant factual content. | Unevenly structured material, with many gaps in logic and limited understanding of the discipline. | Frequent mistakes in spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraphing. |
| | Some identification of relevant concepts, theories and/or principles. | Information or data selected from secondary sources, and poorly categorised, analysed or evaluated using inappropriate methods or techniques. | Awkward or inappropriate writing style OR a presentation that is not engaging, audible or well paced. Little use of technical vocabulary, where appropriate. |
| | Basic understanding of factual and conceptual material. Minimal appreciation of the limits of knowledge in this area. | Sense of emerging argument, but mainly descriptive or personal opinion, with limited and superficial reference to literature. Negligible use of primary literature. | Inappropriate visual presentation, including font, spacing, margins, headings, graphics, images and appendices. |
| | Calculations are often inaccurate, with many issues relating to set out and explanation. | Limited attempt to relate theory to practice, using appropriate conceptual frameworks. | Inconsistent or incomplete use of academic conventions, references and bibliography. |
| | Basic independent reading and research from secondary sources. | Weak application of numerical and statistical methods to defined complex problems, with many gaps or errors. | Unreliable delivery of group work obligations. Limited awareness of options. Undertakes only routine tasks. |
| | | Confused recommendations. Little awareness of ethical issues, where relevant. | Limited reflection on own strengths and weaknesses in relation to defined professional and practical skills. |
30 - 39% | FAIL. POSSIBLE COMPENSATION. | Includes insufficient required factual content, with significant gaps or inaccuracies. | Mostly incoherent or irrelevant introduction and conclusions. | More than 10% outside word count or presentation time. |
| | Includes substantial irrelevant factual content. | Incoherently structured material. | Serious mistakes in spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraphing. |
| | Limited identification of relevant concepts, theories and/or principles. | Limited selection of information or data, and little attempt at collation, categorisation, analysis or evaluation. | Poor writing style OR a presentation that is not engaging, audible or well paced. Does not use technical vocabulary, where appropriate. |
| | Limited understanding of factual and conceptual material. No appreciation of the limits of knowledge in this area. | Little or no argument, entirely descriptive or personal opinion, with no reference to literature. | Poor visual presentation, including font, spacing, margins, headings, graphics, images and appendices. |
| | Calculations are mostly inaccurate, or incorrectly set out or explained. | Very weak attempt to relate theory to practice, using appropriate conceptual frameworks. | Inaccurate or incomplete use of academic conventions, references and bibliography. |
| | Minimal independent reading and research. | Very weak application of numerical and statistical methods to defined complex problems, with significant errors. | Poor delivery of group work obligations. No awareness of options. Undertakes a few routine tasks. |
| | | Irrelevant or no recommendations. Little or no awareness of ethical issues, where relevant. | Very limited reflection on own strengths and weaknesses in relation to defined professional and practical skills. |
16 - 29% | FAIL. NO COMPENSATION. | Includes almost no required factual content, and with very significant inaccuracies. | Incoherent or no introduction and conclusions. | More than 10% outside word count or presentation time. |
| | Includes mainly irrelevant factual content. | Very incoherently structured material. | Serious and extensive mistakes in spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraphing. |
| | Minimal or inaccurate identification of relevant concepts, theories and/or principles. | No evidence of the selection, categorisation, analysis or evaluation of information or data. | Incoherent writing style OR an inaudible, poorly paced and unengaging presentation. Does not use technical vocabulary, where appropriate. |
| | Limited understanding of factual and conceptual material. No appreciation of the limits of knowledge in this area. | No argument, entirely descriptive or personal opinion, with no reference to literature. | Very poor visual presentation, including font, spacing, margins, headings, graphics, images and appendices. |
| | Calculations are inaccurate, with no explanations. | Theory not related to practice. | Very inaccurate or no use of academic conventions, references and bibliography. |
| | No independent reading and research. | Minimal application of numerical and statistical methods and techniques to defined complex problems, with significant errors. | Very poor delivery of group work obligations. Does not undertake even routine tasks. |
| | | No recommendations. No awareness of ethical issues, where relevant. | Minimal or no evaluation of own strengths and weaknesses in relation to defined professional and practical skills. |
0 - 15% | FAIL. NO COMPENSATION. | Does not include required factual content. | No introduction and conclusions. | More than 10% outside word count or presentation time. |
| | Includes entirely irrelevant factual content. | Very incoherently structured material. | Serious and extensive mistakes in spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraphing. |
| | No identification of relevant concepts, theories and/or principles. | No evidence of the selection, categorisation, analysis or evaluation of information or data. | Incoherent writing style OR an inaudible, poorly paced and unengaging presentation. Does not use technical vocabulary, where appropriate. |
| | No understanding of factual and conceptual material. No appreciation of the limits of knowledge in this area. | No argument, entirely personal opinion, with no reference to literature. | Exceptionally poor visual presentation, including font, spacing, margins, headings, graphics, images and appendices. |
| | Calculations are missing, with no explanations. | Theory not related to practice. | No use of academic conventions, references and bibliography. |
| | No independent reading and research. | No application of numerical and statistical methods to defined complex problems. | No delivery of group work obligations. |
| | | No recommendations. No awareness of ethical issues, where relevant. | No evaluation of own strengths and weaknesses in relation to defined professional and practical skills. |