Marginal Fail 30-39% A limited piece of work in which there are clear gaps in understanding the subject, its underpinning theory and ethical considerations. The work shows a limited use of sources and materials. Academic and intellectual skills are weak and there are errors in expression and the work may lack structure overall. There are difficulties in developing professional skills (where appropriate). The work lacks original thought and is largely imitative. 29% and below A poor performance in which there are substantial gaps in knowledge and understanding, underpinning theory and ethical considerations. The work shows little evidence in the use of appropriate sources and materials. Academic writing skills are very weak and there are numerous errors in expression. The work lacks structure overall. Professional skills (where appropriate) are not developed. The work is imitative.

Third (3) 40-49% Basic level of performance in which there are some omissions in the understanding of the subject, its underpinning theory and ethical considerations. There is little evidence of independent thought and the work shows a basic use of sources and materials. Academic and intellectual skills are limited. The work may lack structure overall. There are some difficulties in developing professional skills (where appropriate). There is an attempt to reference the work.

Upper second (2:1) 60-69% A very good knowledge base which explores and analyses the discipline, its theory and any associated ethical issues. There is evidence of some originality and independence of thought. A very good range of learning resources underpin the work and there is clear evidence of self-directed research. The work demonstrates the ability to analyse the subject and apply theory with good academic and intellectual skills. Academic writing skills are good, expression is accurate overall and the work is consistently referenced throughout. Lower second (2:2) 50-59% A satisfactory understanding of the discipline which supports some analysis, evaluation and problem-solving within the discipline. There may be reference to some of the ethical considerations. The work shows a sound level of competence in managing basic sources and materials. Academic writing skills are good and accurate overall and the work is planned and structured with some thought. Professional skills are satisfactory (where appropriate). The work may lack originality but academic and intellectual skills are moving into the critical domain. The work is referenced throughout.

70-79% An excellent information base within which the discipline is explored and analysed. There is considerable originality in the approach and the work demonstrates confidence and autonomy and extends to consider ethical issues. Learning resources have been managed with exceptional confidence and the work exceeds the assessment brief. Writing is exceptionally well structured and accurately referenced throughout. Where appropriate, an excellent level of professional skills are demonstrated and the work demonstrates a high level of intellectual and academic skills.

Grade Mark Bands Generic Assessment Criteria First (1) 80%+ An exceptional knowledge base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and any associated ethical considerations. The work demonstrates extraordinary independence of thought and originality. There is exceptional management of learning resources and a high degree of autonomy is demonstrated which goes above and beyond the brief. The work demonstrates intellectual originality and creativity. Writing is exceptionally well structured and accurately referenced throughout. Where appropriate, outstanding professional skills are demonstrated. The work is original and with some additional effort could considered for internal publication.

Assessment Criteria (Learning objectives covered - all) Level 6 study represents the student’s increasing autonomy and independence in relation to their knowledge, understanding and skills. At Level 6, students are expected to demonstrate problem solving skills in both practical and theoretical contexts. This should be supported by an understanding of appropriate theory, creativity in expression and thought based on independent but informed judgments. Students should demonstrate the ability to seek out, invoke, analyse and evaluate competing theories and claims to knowledge and work in a critically constructive manner. Work at this level is articulate, coherent and skilled.

Assignments submitted late will not be accepted and will be marked as a 0% fail. Your assessment should be submitted as a single Word (MS Word) or PDF file. For more information please see the “Guide to Submitting an Assignment” document available on the module page on iLearn. You must ensure that the submitted assignment is all your own work and that all sources used are correctly attributed. Penalties apply to assignments which show evidence of academic unfair practice. (See the Student Handbook which is on the homepage of your module and also in the Induction Area).

For each module there are two assessment parts: 1) In-class element – this will be assessed in the classroom by your tutor. Your tutor will support your development towards the completion of this task and advise you in-class and online, when this will take place. All in-class tasks will need to be completed by week 6 at the latest. You MUST underpin your analysis and evaluation of the key issues with appropriate and wide ranging academic research and ensure this is referenced using the AU Harvard system. The word count excludes the title page, executive summary, reference list and appendices. Where assessment questions have been reprinted from the assessment brief these will also be excluded from the word count. ALL other printed words ARE included in the word count. Printed words include those contained within charts and tables. See ‘Word Count Policy’ on the homepage of this module for more information.