|
BIOSCIENCE – ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND FEEDBACK FOR COURSEWORK LITERATURE-BASED REPORTS (L = Level; W = % Weighting of each element)
|
|
Assessment Category
|
Presentation, structure and style
Logical development of the argument; fluency; logical structure; appropriate academic style; ‘ease of reading’; spelling; grammar; use of appropriate figures and tables.
|
Referencing
Use of recommended system; referencing within the text; accuracy of citations in the text and reference list.
|
Use of literature
Relevance of literature; appropriate depth/breadth and integration of literature.
|
Content/knowledge
Relevance; accuracy; addressed to the topic; appropriate depth/breadth; evidence of understanding
|
Synthesis, discussion and/or reflection
Critical analysis; integration of evidence; drawing of conclusions.
|
|
L
|
4 5 6
|
4 5 6
|
4 5 6
|
4 5 6
|
4 5 6
|
|
W %
|
10 10 10
|
5 5 5
|
10 10 10
|
50 40 30
|
25 35 45
|
|
First Outstanding
90-100%
|
Professional report/journal standard. Outstanding communication skills demonstrating a logical and fluent style, above the level expected. Polished grammar with no errors in presentation or spelling. Suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).
|
Recommended system used, fully conforms and accurately used.
|
Outstanding breadth and depth of literature used with exceptional integration of literature into work. Suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).
|
Professional journal standard.
Complete and precise coverage of the topic, well-articulated, engages the reader and communicates a full understanding. No omissions or errors evident. Work that is commensurate with use as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).
|
Professional report/journal standard. An outstanding level of critical discussion which is stimulating/intellectually challenging. Suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).
|
|
First
Excellent
80-89%
|
A logical, fluent, well-organised style which clearly leads the reader through the material facilitating a challenging argument; excellent grammar and no spelling errors: tables and figures used as integral parts of the argument. Suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).
|
Recommended system used, fully conforms and accurately used.
|
Excellent breadth and depth of literature used and very well integrated such that the product may be suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).
|
Excellent coverage of the topic. Provides a very clear argument, demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and engages the reader. Work that is commensurate with use as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).
|
An excellent level of critical discussion and evaluation. Suitable as a student resource for the relevant level (4/5/6).
|
|
First
Very good
70-79%
|
A logical, fluent, well-organised style which clearly leads the reader through the material facilitating a well-developed argument; very good grammar and spelling; tables and figures used as integral parts of the argument.
|
Recommended system used and almost completely conforms.
|
Highly developed critical approach to literature resulting in a fully substantiated argument with very good integration of the literature into the work.
|
Very good coverage of the topic, focussing precisely on the set question; articulated such that the author’s understanding is transparent and contributes to the reader’s understanding.
|
Evidence of a very good evaluative approach throughout the report through which the reader is guided to conclusions and propositions.
|
|
Upper second
Good
60-69%
|
A logical, well-organised style; fluent and easy to read with reinforcement rather than repetition; good grammar and spelling; tables and figures clearly used to enhance communication; good academic style that requires little correction.
|
Recommended system used with very few accuracies and inconsistencies.
|
A range of literature skilfully used to enhance the argument; literature appropriate to the depth/breadth and level of the assignment and interpreted accordingly.
|
An argument which clearly addresses the question throughout the answer; shows good understanding of the material with coverage at the appropriate level; some aspects may not be covered but this would be compensated by the overall quality.
|
A strong theme of analysis and synthesis resulting in in-depth discussion and strong conclusions; not all conclusions fully substantiated and some aspects not fully developed.
|
|
Lower second
Clear Pass
50-59%
|
A basically logical structure which can be easily followed but some disjointed material or lack of focus; grammar and spelling generally good; tables and figures used to support the text; recognisable academic style.
|
Recommended system used with some inaccuracies and inconsistencies but generally conforms.
|
Clear evidence of the use of a range of sources at appropriate depth/breadth.
|
An answer which is directed at the question using mostly relevant material; there may be gaps or parts of the argument not developed at the appropriate level.
|
Some analysis of evidence resulting in synthesis and the drawing of substantiated conclusions.
|
|
Third
Marginal Pass
40-49%
|
An acceptable attempt at a logical structure but flawed in places; perhaps repetitive or poorly focussed; careless grammar and spelling; little use of tables or figures; difficult to follow in parts or a poor flow of ideas.
|
An attempt to use the recommended system but frequent inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
|
Descriptive use of relevant literature and presented with little or no comment; inappropriate breadth and/or depth of sources.
|
Basic coverage for the required level but shows an attempt to address the subject; significant gaps and errors but includes >40% of the expected factual content.
|
Predominantly descriptive but with an attempt to draw conclusions.
|
|
Marginal fail
30-39%
|
Limited or poorly conceived structure; frequent grammatical and spelling errors; little or no attempt to use tables or figures; an immature approach but an attempt to engage with an academic style.
|
An attempt to use the recommended system but error-strewn and inconsistently applied.
|
Limited use
of relevant literature and, at best, descriptive.
|
Limited coverage for the required level showing superficial understanding; answer may contain a large amount of irrelevant material and/or have significant gaps and errors but approaches 40% of the expected factual content.
|
Predominantly descriptive account with unsupported or weak conclusions
|
|
Clear Fail
20-29%
|
Chaotic structure; little logical development of the argument; many grammatical and spelling errors; poor fluency; difficult to understand; no use of figures and tables; little attempt to engage with an academic style.
|
Little attempt to use either the recommended system or an alternative.
|
Little evidence of the use of literature or irrelevant literature used.
|
Few key points addressed; much irrelevance; many errors; inappropriate level; little evidence of understanding.
|
Little evidence of synthesis, discussion or reflection; incorrect or no conclusions.
|
|
Little or Nothing of merit
0-19%
|
Chaotic structure, no development of the argument; many grammatical and spelling errors; no attempt to engage with an academic style.
|
No attempt to use either the recommended system or an alternative.
|
No evidence of the use of relevant literature.
|
Key points not addressed, many errors and no evidence of understanding.
|
No evidence of synthesis, discussion or reflection; no conclusions.
|
