Assessment markers can give you feedback and allocate marks to you using a range of methods and tools that are appropriate to the specific module and assessment. The marker may make comments within your script (in bubbles) and may also give you written comments in the long box. They may give you a form of audio or video feedback. When they give you feedback on your assessment, as a minimum, your marker will tell you: • if and how you have met the relevant learning outcomes • the areas within which you did well in this assessment (they will commend you) • the areas you could have improved in this assessment (they will make suggestions) • what activities you can work on to help you in your next studies (you can take these ideas forward with you, and may discuss them with your Personal Tutor. You can also build them into your Action Planning. In this module specifically, they will use the specified Marking schemes for each Coursework assessment as the feedback and marking structure will be specific to each component.

Marking scheme Subject knowledge, understanding and judgment 25% subject matter 25% Critical awareness and analysis 25% synthesis of ideas into a logical, coherent report 15% Presentation (Written) of key concepts / ideas 10% Feedback, marking criteria and grading of your assessment This section tells you how the marker will assess your work fairly. All markers aim for our feedback to be: timely, individual to you, helpful, empowering and manageable. They will also offer you opportunities to discuss the marking criteria they intend to use, and the type of feedback they intend to give you. You should create a shared understanding of this with them and your peers during the course of the module. They may also give you opportunities to assess your own work and the work of your peers. Look out for these opportunities.

35-39% Unsatisfactory Overall marginally unsatisfactory; some sound aspects but some of the following weakness are evident; inadequate critical analysis and evaluation; little evidence of originality; not well researched; standard presentation unacceptable; ideas are unclear and incoherent; some significant errors and misunderstandings. Marginal fail. 21-34% Poor Below the pass standard; a poor critical analysis and evaluation, virtually no evidence of originality; poorly researched; presentation unacceptable and not up to graduate standard; ideas confused and incoherent, some serious misunderstandings and errors. A clear fail, short and pass standard. 1-20% Very Poor Well below the pass standard, with many serious errors. Standard of presentation totally unacceptable, incoherent and may be severely under- length. No evidence of evaluation or application. A very clear fail, well short of the pass standard.

50-59% Good A good standard; a fairly good level of critical analysis and evaluation; some evidence of original thinking or originality; quite well researched; a good standard of presentation; ideas generally clear and coherent, some evidence of misunderstandings; some deficiencies in presentation. 40-49% Satisfactory A sound standard of work; a fair level of critical analysis and evaluation; little evidence of original thinking of originality; adequately researched; a sound standard of presentation; ideas fairly clear and coherent, some significant misunderstandings and errors; some weakness in style or presentation but satisfactory overall.

% mark Grade Descriptors 70-100% Excellent Outstanding; high to very high standard; a high level of critical analysis and evaluation, inclusive original thinking; commendable originality; exceptionally well coherence and logic. Trivial or very minor errors. 60-69% Very Good A very good standard; a very good level of critical analysis and evaluation; significant originality; well researched; a very good standard of presentation; commendable clarity of ideas; thoughtful and effective presentation; very good sense of coherence and logic; minor errors only.