Ist

2:1

2:2

3^rd

Fail

Bad fail

Discussion of Theory

Highly accurate work. Shows strong understanding of the usefulness of the models

Occasional stylistic or technical errors but a good grasp of relevant models.

Technical errors and some shortcomings of relevant models.

Contains notable errors of fact or interpretation.

Selects wrong theory or fails to provide convincing discussion of mechanics

For the most part confused and poorly expressed or absent

Investigation of Issues/ Cases

Demonstrates outstanding research

Provides a comprehensive picture of the subtleties of the case

Provides a reasonably comprehensive picture of the cases but misses subtleties

Provides a limited portrayal of the cases at hand. Some basic errors.

Highly dependent on limited and unreliable sources irrelevant to the module.

Little investigative work. Erroneous in matters of fact and interpretation.

Applying theory to practice

Theory is applied in an original and sophisticated way

Strong grasp of how the theory is appropriate as well as where it fails to reflect the world

Reasonable application, but errors are made, and limitations are not explored

Weak application. Little reference is made to theory with the case at hand

There is a dislocation between theory and case. Possibly irrelevant material to the module.

No theory to speak of applied to the case. Irrelevant material to the module used

Overall structure of answer / sophistication of analysis

Very strong answer with a convincing style

Solid well ordered case put forward but with some limitations in knowledge, depth, precision, clarity, or style

Limitations in knowledge, depth, precision, clarity, or style

Relevant but generally superficial answer

Some evidence of structure, but it is likely to be muddled or unclear.

Haphazard

Use of Diagrams

Generates or adapts diagrams in an original way

Good use supporting the case

Relevant but generic diagrams, some explanation

Copies and pastes diagrams with little or no explanation

Misunderstands diagrams or they provide no insight to the case at hand

Absent or incorrect/irrelevant to the discussion

Bibliography/Referencing

Clearly used sources of a highly sophisticated nature in an appropriate way

Wide ranging readings relevant to the module.

Thorough in-text citations and comprehensive reference list in Harvard format

Solid reading list but some omissions

Over-reliance on sources, with little demonstration of understanding

In-text citations patchy, reference list not in Harvard format

Highly dependent on limited and unreliable sources – not related to the module

In-text citations absent, reference list incomplete

Not credible. Include many not touched

Overall presentation

Professional, flawless presentation

Clearly laid out, consistent formatting, minimal typos

Some minor formatting inconsistencies, typographical errors

Lacks attention to presentation

Poor paragraphing, font consistency etc. Much copying and pasting

Rushed and haphazard

Summary

Demonstrates the capacity to pursue independent lines of enquiry.

Shows a clear awareness of the salient points, integrates theory and examples well

Covers the main points but omits subtleties and shows limited insight

A partial response to the question. Shows perfunctory understanding

Failure to address the question set in a way that is relevant to the module.

Shows no engagement with the question set or use of relevant material to the module