APPENDIX III SCHOOL OF LIFE SCIENCES ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND FEEDBACK FOR COURSEWORK LITERATURE-BASED REPORTS (L = LEVEL ; W = % WEIGHTING

G OF EACH ELEMENT)
Assessment Category
L W
Fail
Borderline fail
Third
Lower Second
Upper Second
First
%
< 35%
35 39%
40 49%
50 59%
60 69%
70% and above
Presentation, structure
Chaotic structure; little
Limited or poorly
An acceptable attempt at
Basically logical structure A logical, well-organised
A logical, fluent, welland style
4 1
logical development of
conceived structure ;
a logical structure but
which can be easily
style; fluent and easy to
organised style which clearly
Logical development of the
0
the argument; many
frequent grammatical and
flawed in places; perhaps
followed but some
read with reinforcement
leads the reader through the
argument; fluency; logical
5
grammatical and spelling
spelling errors; little or no
repetitive or poorly
disjointed material or lack rather than repetition; very
material facilitating a
structure; appropriate
1
errors; poor fluency;
attempt to use tables or
focussed; careless
of focus; grammar and
good grammar and
challenging argument;
academic style; ease of
6 0
difficult to understand; no figures; an immature
grammar and spelling;
spelling generally good;
spelling; tables and figures
polished grammar and
reading; spelling; grammar;
use of figures and tables; approach but an attempt
little use of tables or
tables and figures used
clearly used to enhance
accurate spelling; tables and
use of appropriate figures
1
little attempt to engage
to engage with an
figures; difficult to follow
to support the text;
communication; good
figures used as integral parts
and tables.
0
with an academic style.
academic style.
in parts or a poor flow of
recognisable academic
academic style that
of the argument; suitable as
ideas.
style
requires little correction.
a student resource for the
relevant level (4,5 or 6)
Referencing
4 5
No or little attempt to use An attempt to use the
An attempt to use the
Recommended system
Recommended system
Recommended system used,
Use of recommended
either the recommended
recommended system but recommended system
used and generally
used and almost
fully conforms and accurately
system; referencing within
5 5
system or an alternative.
error-strewn and
but frequent inaccuracies
conforms.
completely conforms.
used.
the text; accuracy of
inconsistently applied.
and inconsistencies.
citations in the text and
6 5
reference list.
Use of literature
Little or no evidence of
Limited use
Descriptive use of
Clear evidence of the
A range of literature skilfully Highly developed critical
Relevance of literature;
4 1
the use of literature or
of relevant literature and,
relevant literature and
use of a range of sources used to enhance the
approach to literature
appropriate depth/breadth
0
irrelevant literature used.
at best, descriptive.
presented with little or no
at appropriate
argument; literature
resulting in a fully
and integration of literature.
5
comment; inappropriate
depth/breadth.
appropriate to the
substantiated argument;
1
breadth and/or depth of
depth/breadth and level of
literature used such that the
6 0
sources.
the assignment and
product may be suitable as a
interpreted accordingly.
student resource for the
1
relevant level (1,2 or 3)
0
Content/knowledge
Few key points
Very basic coverage for
Basic coverage for the
An answer which is
An argument which clearly
Complete coverage of the
Relevance; accuracy;
4 5
addressed; much
the required level
required level but shows
directed at the question
addresses the question
topic, focussing precisely on
addressed to the topic;
0
irrelevance; many errors;
showing superficial
an attempt to address the
using mostly relevant
throughout the answer;
the set question; articulated
appropriate depth/breadth;
inappropriate level; no or
understanding; answer
subject; significant gaps
material; there may be
shows strong
such that the authors
evidence of understanding
5
little evidence of
may contain a large
and errors but includes
gaps or parts of the
understanding of the
understanding is transparent
4
understanding.
amount of irrelevant
>40% of the expected
argument not developed
material with coverage at
and contributes to the
0
material and/or have
factual content.
at the appropriate level.
the appropriate level; some
readers understanding;
6
significant gaps and
aspects may not be
content coverage
errors but approaches
covered but this would be
commensurate with use as a
3
40% of the expected
compensated by the overall student resource for the
0
factual content.
quality.
relevant level (1,2 or 3)
Synthesis, discussion,
No or little evidence of
Predominantly descriptive
Predominantly descriptive
Some analysis of
A strong theme of analysis
Evidence of an evaluative
and/or reflection
4 2
synthesis, discussion or
account with unsupported
but with an attempt to
evidence resulting in
and synthesis resulting in
approach throughout the
Critical analysis; integration
5
reflection; incorrect or no
or weak conclusions
draw conclusions.
synthesis and the
in-depth discussion and
report through which the
of evidence; drawing of
5
conclusions.
drawing of substantiated
strong conclusions; not all
reader is guided to
conclusions.
3
conclusions.
conclusions fully
conclusions and
6 5
substantiated and some
propositions; suitable as a
aspects not fully
student resource for the
4
developed.
relevant level (1,2 or 3).
5