Annexes Annex I APPENDIX I QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR JUDGMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL 1 WRITTEN EXAMINATION ANSWERS MARK COMMENT KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING COVERAGE STYLE/CLARITY (80 - 100) Outstanding answer Almost faultless for this level: totally relevant, high factual accuracy and gives appropriate examples. Shows wide knowledge. May include evidence of reading beyond the lecture materials. Excellent presentation and use of illustrative material. Extremely well written – excellent structure and coherence. (70 – 79) Very good answer Good relevance, factual accuracy and use of examples. Thorough coverage of subject Good presentation and use of illustrative material. Well written – good structure and coherence. (60 - 69) Good answer Generally relevant and factually sound but contains minor errors and/or some omissions. Good coverage of the essential information. Satisfactory presentation with appropriate use of illustrative material. Generally, well structured and logical. (50 - 59) Adequate answer Largely accurate but contains some mistakes and/or key facts or examples are missing. Contains the essential information but little Moderate presentation, expression and clarity. Little or inappropriate use of illustrative material. Mostly logical. (41 - 49) Incomplete answer Sufficient information to indicate the candidate has a knowledge and understanding of the subject. Several omissions and/or errors, poor relevance and/or understanding of concepts.
Pass (40) Minimum acceptable standard A weak answer but just enough information to suggest the student has a rudimentary knowledge and understanding of the subject area. Fail (20 – 39) Deficient answer May contain some isolated pieces of correct information but little relevance and/or a serious lack of knowledge/ understanding. Many omissions, no relevant examples and/or serious errors. Little appreciation of the scope of the subject. Poor expression and/or a low level of structure and clarity. May lack coherence. Bad fail (0 - 19) Totally inadequate No or little accurate factual material or the answer may be totally irrelevant. No significant attempt to write about the subject. Little organisation of text and/or dreadful expression and clarity. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR JUDGMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL 2 WRITTEN EXAMINATION ANSWERS MARK COMMENT KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING COVERAGE STYLE/CLARITY 80 - 100 Outstanding answer Almost faultless for this level: totally relevant, high factual accuracy and gives appropriate examples. Shows wide knowledge. Evidence of reading beyond the lecture materials. Excellent presentation and use of illustrative material. Extremely well written – excellent structure and coherence. 70 – 79 Very good answer Good relevance, factual accuracy and use of examples. Thorough coverage of subject and may include evidence of additional reading. Good presentation and use of illustrative material. Well written – good structure and coherence.
80 - 100 Outstanding answer Almost faultless for this level, totally relevant, a thoughtful answer with integration of concepts. Shows insight and/or originality and, where appropriate, detailed evaluation of experimental work. Outstanding breadth and Extensive supplementary reading which is integrated into the answer. Excellent presentation and use of illustrative material. Extremely well written – excellent structure and coherence. 70 – 79 Very good answer High of factual accuracy, mostly relevant and good evidence of understanding and integration of concepts. Where appropriate, some evaluation of experimental work. Thorough coverage and good Some evidence of supplementary reading. Good presentation and use of illustrative material. Well written – good structure and coherence. 60 - 69 Good answer Factually sound but with some minor errors and/or omissions. Sound understanding of key ideas and generally relevant. Good coverage with depth in some areas. May include evidence of additional reading. Satisfactory presentation with appropriate use of illustrative material. Generally, well structured and logical. 50 - 59 Adequate answer Largely accurate but with some errors and/or key facts missing. Relevant but may lack understanding. Limited to lecture material. Aware of the scope of the topic but superficial treatment of key ideas. Moderate presentation, expression and clarity. Little or inappropriate use of illustrative material. Mostly logical. 41 - 49 Incomplete answer Sufficient information to indicate the candidate has a basic knowledge and understanding of the subject area. Significant omissions and/or errors, poor relevance and/or understanding of concepts. Modest or incomplete coverage of lecture material. Lacks depth. Weak expression, clarity and structure - may be in note form. Pass (40) Minimum acceptable standard A weak answer but there is just enough information to suggest the student has a rudimentary knowledge and understanding of the subject area. Fail (20 – 39 ) Deficient answer May contain some isolated pieces of correct information but little relevance and/or a serious lack of understanding. Many omissions and/or errors. Little appreciation of the scope of the subject. Poor expression and/or a low level of structure and clarity. May lack coherence.
Bad fail (0 - 19) Totally inadequate No or little accurate factual material or the answer may be totally irrelevant. No significant attempt to write about the subject. Little organisation of text and/or dreadful expression and clarity. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL 1 AND 2 COURSEWORK ESSAYS GRADE CONTENT INTERPRETATION PRESENTATION 80 - 100 Almost faultless at this level with respect to: organisation, clarity of expression, coherence of argument, factual accuracy and selection of material. Excellent use of literature (as appropriate for the level) with attempts at critical analysis, originality or independent thought. Excellent presentation and use of illustrative material (as appropriate for the level). Extremely well written – style, spelling, grammar are almost faultless. Correct length and citation of references. Overall, conforms to School guidelines in their entirety. 70 – 79 Good structure and clarity. Logically presented with well focused arguments and conclusions on evidence. Comprehensive and accurate coverage of subject. Good understanding and integration of concepts. Accurate use of relevant literature (as appropriate for the level). Good presentation and use of illustrative material (as appropriate for the level). Fluent writing style, good grammar and accurate spelling. Correct length and proper citation of references in text and reference list. 60 - 69 Sound structure, clearly written, relevant and mostly accurate. May lack depth and/or breadth of information. Evidence of understanding and integration of concepts. Some attempt to use literature to support arguments (as appropriate for the level). Sound use of language but may contain minor errors of grammar and spelling. Appropriate use of diagrams and/or tables. Correct length but may contain minor errors in citation of references in text and reference list. 50 - 59 Basic framework is sound. Broadly relevant but limited treatment of subject, some factual errors or omissions. Limited understanding and integration of concepts. No use of the literature (as appropriate for the level). Acceptable use of language but may lack fluency and contain occasional errors of grammar and spelling. Adequate use diagrams and figures plus some attempt to place these in context. May not
fully comply with School guidelines in regard to referencing. 41 - 49 Structure is weak. Narrow or misguided selection of material. Some key information wrong or missing but sufficient information and relevance to give cursory coverage of subject. Sufficient understanding to indicate the writer has a basic grasp of the subject. Weak development of arguments. appropriate, numerous inconsistencies or inaccuracies in citation of references in text and reference list. Minimal acceptable standard of grammar and spelling. Diagrams and tables may be missing or poorly presented and unexplained. Pass (40) Enough structure, breadth and depth of material to reach a minimum acceptable standard. Fail (20 – 39) Marred by poor structure, lack of relevance, serious omissions and/or many factual errors. Little evidence of understanding or integration of concepts. Style, grammar and spelling are poor. Diagrams and tables are missing or irrelevant. Inaccurate and/or incomplete bibliography. Bad fail (0 - 19) Deficient in structure, fails to address the question/title, numerous omissions and errors. No evidence of serious reading and profound ignorance of the subject. No evidence of understanding or integration of concepts. Language, grammar and spelling are dreadful. Diagrams and tables are missing or irrelevant. Bibliography is grossly inaccurate and/or incomplete. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL 3 COURSEWORK ESSAYS AND LITERATURE PROJECT DISSERTATIONS GRADE CONTENT INTERPRETATION PRESENTATION 80 - 100 Almost faultless at this with respect to: organisation, clarity of expression, coherence of argument, factual accuracy and selection of material. Excellent critical analysis of literature with evidence of originality or independent thought. Approaches the standard of a published review. Excellent presentation and use of illustrative material. Extremely well written – style, spelling, grammar are almost faultless.
41 - 49 has the minimum acceptable knowledge and understanding of the project. May exhibit poor editing and lapses of style. contain little quantitative information and conclusions may not be supported by findings. Introduction contains a weak literature review and/or poor statement of aim. significant omissions and/or much trivial detail. Little description of numeric/statistical methods. of results. Figures & tables contain frequent errors. Limited links between figures/tables & text, may also be duplication. Poor use of numeric & statistical methods. for development of work. Limited use of literature with little critical analysis. Frequent errors in referencing text and reference list. Pass (40) Sufficient work to minimum acceptable standard Fail (20 – 39) Poor report. evidence of a lack of understanding and/or application in laboratory. Significant errors/ omissions/ numerous lapses in house style. Poor clarity and coherence. Significant omissions from summary or introduction. Introduction is a superficial review of literature with vague or no statement of aim. Superficial and many mistakes. Difficult to understand how experiments and analysis of results have been done. Incomplete and/or inaccurate description and presentation of results. Figures and tables absent, incorrect or not linked to text. Little use of numeric & statistical methods. Much repetition of results with little assessment of them. Few or no ideas for development of work. Poor use of literature, no critical analysis and many errors in referencing text/reference list. Bad fail (0 – 19) Inadequate write-up. Much evidence of a lack of understanding and/or application. Many errors/ omissions and may not have used house style. Rudimentary attempt. May be no Summary and/or little evidence in the Introduction of engagement with literature. No aim. Badly written. Unable to repeat experiments from the information given and/or methods of analysis of the results is incomprehensible. Poor description and presentation of results. Figures and tables absent or totally inadequate. Figures may be present with no text. No significant use of numeric/ statistical methods. No serious attempt to discuss the significance of the results. Insufficient use of literature, little or no referencing of text and scant reference list with errors. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LEVEL 2 AND 3 PRACTICAL REPORTS
Good ability to express ideas in own words. 50 – 59 Focuses on the topic Identifies, deals with and demonstrates and understanding of most of the basic concepts/ areas with which the presentation subject is concerned. Occasionally include some minor irrelevancies. Describes, explains, defines, compares and contrasts the basic concepts/ areas with which the presentation subject is concerned. Occasionally description or explanation may not be clear or thorough enough, or there may not be appropriate or sufficient attempts to compare and contrast. Arguments are not all systematically or coherently developed. Shows evidence of some relevant reading. Supports most points with examples from reading and, occasionally, experience Shows ability to summarise though may be rather dependent on language of source material Adequate voice. i.e. Overall though pace of verbal delivery and/or volume may be inappropriate. Audience is engaged by a limited of devices which may include only two or three of the following:- eye contact, reference to shared experiences, written and visual materials, attention to differences in learning styles Limited choice and use of supporting materials and e.g. Video extract, tape recording, OHP, powerpoint, slides etc. Other media may have been more appropriate for the presentation subject matter 41 - 49 Some failure to focus on the topic at times. Shows some understanding of the topic. May have omitted some basic concepts/ areas or included unimportant areas. Is not always relevant Usually adequately describes and explains basic concepts/ areas with which the presentation subject is concerned, though explanations are not always clear. Some attempts to compare and contrast ideas or information but largely descriptive. Shows evidence of limited reading, but sources used may be limited, or basic, or some major sources which are central to the subject may have been omitted. Supports some points in the presentation with examples from reading/experience but may be badly chosen. Very limited ability to summarise Poor use of i.e. Lacks clarity. Pace and volume of verbal delivery are unsuitable for the environment. Limited audience engagement. Almost total reliance on one of the range of devices which might have been included e.g. eye contact, reference to shared experiences, written and visual materials, attention to differences in learning styles. Presentation almost entirely read from a script. Limited choice and inappropriate use of supporting materials and media e.g. Video extract, tape recording, OHP, powerpoint, slides etc.
Pass (40) Sufficient work to reach minimum acceptable standard Fail (39 – 20) Has not addressed the subject matter of the presentation in any substantial way. Strays off the subject very frequently. The presentation contains much irrelevance. Shows little understanding of basic concepts, and attempts to describe them are unclear or erroneous. The presenter shows minimal evidence of background reading. Points made in the presentation are unsupported, and appear to be based entirely on personal experience and opinion. May be major errors of fact. Extremely poor use of voice. i.e. Clarity and pace are totally inappropriate. absence of devices which might have been included to engage the audience. The presentation consists entirely of reading from a script with no reference to audience either directly or in the content Total absence of supporting materials and media e.g. Video extract, tape recording, OHP, powerpoint, slides etc. Bad Fail (0 – 19) No attempt to present material related to the subject. Little or no understanding of basic concepts. Contains many factual errors. No evidence of background reading. Material is incorrect. No attempt to deliver an oral presentation of the required standard. Little or no evidence of audience engagement. No attempt to use supporting material. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF POSTER PRESENTATIONS MARK COVERAGE AND RELEVANCE ANALYSIS SUPPORT VOICE DELIVERY (If appropriate) PRESENTATION 80 - 100 Excellent on topic. Excellent understanding of concepts. Excellent breadth Excellent understanding and explanation of concepts. Critical analysis of information in Clear evidence of extensive extra reading. Excellent examples explained with full scientific language. Excellent and confident use of Excellent visual impact. High quality conference poster.
Pass (40) Enough structure, breadth and depth of material to reach a minimum acceptable standard. Fail (20 – 39) Marred by poor structure, lack of relevance, serious omissions and/or many factual errors. Where appropriate, poor use of literature. Little evidence of understanding or integration of concepts. Style, grammar and spelling are poor. Diagrams and tables are missing or irrelevant. Inaccurate and/or incomplete bibliography. Bad fail (0 - 19) Deficient in structure, to address the question/title, numerous omissions and errors. No evidence of serious reading and profound ignorance of the subject. No evidence of understanding or integration of concepts. Language, grammar and spelling are dreadful. Diagrams and tables are missing or irrelevant. Bibliography is grossly inaccurate and/or incomplete. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF ORAL PRESENTATIONS MARK COVERAGE AND RELEVANCE ANALYSIS SUPPORT VOICE DELIVERY AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT Supporting Media/AVA 80 – 100 Excellent on topic. Excellent understanding of concepts. Excellent breadth and integration of Excellent understanding and explanation of concepts. Critical analysis of information in Clear evidence of extensive extra reading. Excellent Excellent and confident use of voice. Clear and maintained audience engagement, Excellent use of supporting material.
50 – 59 understanding of most of the basic concepts/ areas with which the presentation subject is concerned. Occasionally include some minor irrelevancies. presentation subject is concerned. Occasionally description or explanation may not be clear or thorough enough, or there may not be appropriate or sufficient attempts to compare and contrast. Arguments are not all systematically or coherently developed. most points with examples from reading and, occasionally, experience ability to summarise though may be rather dependent on language of source material verbal delivery and/or volume may be inappropriate. two or three of the following:- eye contact, reference to shared experiences, written and visual materials, attention to differences in learning styles extract, tape recording, OHP, powerpoint, slides etc. Other media may have been more appropriate for the presentation subject matter 41 - 49 Some failure to focus on the topic at times. Shows some understanding of the topic. May have omitted some basic concepts/ areas or included unimportant areas. Is not always relevant Usually adequately describes and explains basic concepts/ areas with which the presentation subject is concerned, though explanations are not always clear. Some attempts to compare and contrast ideas or information but largely descriptive. Shows evidence of limited reading, but sources used may be limited, or basic, or some major sources which are central to the subject may have been omitted. Supports some points in the presentation with examples from reading/experience but these may be badly chosen. Very limited ability to summarise Poor use of i.e. Lacks clarity. Pace and volume of verbal delivery are unsuitable for the environment. Limited audience engagement. Almost total reliance on one of the range of devices which might have been included e.g. eye contact, reference to shared experiences, written and visual materials, attention to differences in learning styles. Presentation almost entirely read from a script. Limited choice and inappropriate use of supporting materials and e.g. Video extract, tape recording, OHP, powerpoint, slides etc. Pass (40) Sufficient work to reach minimum acceptable standard Fail Has not addressed the subject matter of the presentation in any little understanding of basic concepts, and attempts to describe them are unclear or erroneous. The presenter shows minimal evidence of background Extremely poor use of voice. absence of devices which might have been included to engage the audience. Total absence of supporting materials and media e.g. Video extract, tape recording,
originality and, where appropriate, detailed evaluation of experimental work. references where appropriate. 70 – 79 Very good answer High level of factual accuracy, mostly relevant. Good evidence of understanding and integration of concepts giving sound argument in the answers. Where appropriate, some evaluation of experimental work. Thorough coverage and good depth. Some evidence of supplementary reading. Good presentation and use of illustrative material. Well written – good structure and coherence. 60 - 69 Good answer Factually sound but with some minor errors and/or omissions. Sound understanding of key ideas and generally relevant. Good coverage with depth in some areas. May include evidence of additional reading. Satisfactory presentation with appropriate use of illustrative material. Generally, well structured and logical. 50 - 59 Adequate answer Largely accurate but with some errors and/or key facts missing. Relevant but may lack understanding. Limited to lecture material. Aware of the scope of the topic but superficial treatment of key ideas. Moderate presentation, expression and clarity. Little or inappropriate use of illustrative material. Mostly logical. 41 - 49 Incomplete answer Sufficient information to indicate the candidate has a knowledge and understanding of the subject area. Significant omissions and/or errors, poor relevance and/or understanding of concepts. Modest or incomplete coverage of lecture material. Lacks depth. Weak expression, clarity and structure - may be in note form. Pass (40) Minimum acceptable standard A weak answer but there is just enough information to suggest the student has a rudimentary knowledge and understanding of the subject area. Fail (20 – 39 ) Deficient answer May contain some isolated pieces of correct information but little relevance and/or a serious lack of understanding. Many omissions and/or errors. Little appreciation of the scope of the subject. Poor expression and/or a low level of structure and clarity. May lack coherence. Bad fail Totally inadequate No or little accurate factual material or the answer may be totally irrelevant. No significant attempt to write about the subject. Little organisation of text and/or dreadful expression and clarity.