Criteria |
Pass Grades |
Fail Grades |
High Distinction 85-100% |
Distinction 70-84% |
Merit 60-69% |
Pass 50-59% |
Fail 30-49% |
Low Fail 0-29% |
The work displays: |
The work displays: |
The work displays: |
The work displays: |
The work displays: |
The work displays: |
Knowledge & Understanding (a) Systematic Understanding (b) Emerging Thought |
(a) Strong evidence of a comprehensive and systematic understanding of an extensive range of appropriate issues, concepts, theories and research |
(a) Clear evidence of a comprehensive and systematic understanding of a considerable variety of issues, concepts, theories and research |
(a) Clear evidence of a comprehensive and systematic understanding of all major – and some minor – issues, concepts, theories and research |
(a) Evidence of a systematic understanding, which may contain some gaps, of all major – and some minor – issues, concepts, theories and research |
(a) Evidence of an understanding of an appropriate range of issues, concepts, theories and research but has significant gaps or misunderstandings. |
(a) Evidence of a limited understanding of issues, concepts, theories and research either major and/or minor. |
(b) Sustained excellence in the application of thoughts and practices at the forefront of the discipline |
(b) Precise and well-judged application of thoughts and practices at the forefront of the discipline |
(b) Some clear evidence of the application of thoughts and practices at the forefront of the discipline |
(b) Clear evidence of an understanding of thoughts and practices at the forefront of the discipline. |
(b) Unclear or imprecise understanding of thoughts and practices at the forefront of the discipline. |
(b) Significant gaps in the understanding of the debates at the forefront of the discipline. |
Argument (a) Analysis, Synthesis & Evaluation (b) Numerical Analysis (c) Argumentation (d) Independent Research |
(a) Consistently precise, accurate and reasoned analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation; addressing issues with insight or originality |
(a) Consistently precise, accurate and reasoned analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation addressing all issues, some with creativity |
(a) Precision, accuracy and clear reasoning throughout the analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation addressing all issues appropriately |
(a) Broad levels of precision, accuracy and reasoning in analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation, and addresses all key issues |
(a) Errors which affect the consistency of the analysis, synthesis or evaluation and/or key gaps in the issues addressed |
(a) A lack of precision, accuracy or reasoning in analysis, synthesis or evaluation with significant gaps in the issues addressed |
(b) Numeric analysis that is complete and free from errors with application of methods that may be insightful or original |
(b) Numeric analysis that is complete and mostly free from errors with fluent and appropriate application of methods. |
(b) Numeric analysis that is complete and mostly free from errors with relevant and effective application of methods. |
(b) Numeric analysis that is mostly complete and free from significant or critical errors with appropriate application of methods. |
(b) Numeric analysis that is mostly complete but contains errors with significant effect, or methods that are applied inappropriately |
(b) Numeric analysis that is incomplete or contains errors which have critical effect, or methods that are applied inappropriately |
(c) Extremely strong and consistent argument making a convincing whole with evidence of originality. Impressive dexterity in the |
(c) Extremely strong and consistent argument that convincingly addresses issues including uncertainties and conflicts. Excellent use of information gathered which to |
(c) Evidence of an argument that is generally convincing with a good internal consistency and addresses most issues. Very good use |
(c) Evidence of an overall convincing argument but may have weaknesses, gaps or inconsistencies. Clear use of information gathered but may |
(c) Evidence of a consistent argument but may have weaknesses, significant gaps or be unconvincing. Clear use of information |
(c) Lack of consistency or structure in the argument. Serious weaknesses in the integration of evidence and/or no awareness of the |