Grading

Assessors for assignment and project reports will usually be chosen from among the scenario group facilitators, according to expertise. Assignments and projects will be marked anonymously. Each assessor will give grades and feedback on the focus capabilities, and on the communication, reflection, and self-directed learning/critical evaluation aspects of a project (using the ‘generic’ criteria supplied below). An overall grade will also be awarded.

Also see: Grading System


Criteria for grades for assignments and projects

Focus capabilities

Projects and assignments will focus on one or two of the eight capabilities, depending on the topic. The phase 1 indicators for the capabilities will be used as criteria for assessment of the focus capabilities, unless specific criteria are specified in the assignment or project requirements.

Criteria for the generic capabilities for all project and assignment reports

The following criteria will be used for the assessment of the generic capabilities in assignment and project reports. The four grades F , P- , P and P+ will be used to report results for these capabilities:

Capability Criteria
Effective communication For a Report:
  • Clarity (clear, simple, grammatical language, terms explained)
  • Logical structure.
  • Appropriate language, length, style and format for the intended audience.
  • Appropriate use of media (visuals, graphs, video/DVD, etc).

For an oral Presentation:

  • Explanation of project - Project aim, methods and findings were clearly explained; findings are based on the evidence available; methodology is appropriate and adequate for the task.
  • Presentation - Oral presentation was clear, well structured and easily understood; Timing was controlled so that most aspects were covered; Audio visual aids or handouts were clear, well structured and easy to read.
  • Understanding - Project team appeared to have a good understanding of the topic; able to answer audience questions.
  • Stimulating learning - Presentation was interesting; significant issues and unanswered questions were highlighted; the audience should be able to learn a lot from this presentation and be stimulated to find out more about the topic.
Self directed learning and critical evaluation
  • Sources (range, citation standards, quality, relevance, search strategy, people consulted)
  • Scope (addresses all requirements of the assignment or project)
  • Critical thinking (evidence of awareness of bias in sources, others’ viewpoints, own views, logical argument)

Negotiated projects will be marked on the following additional criteria:

  • Quality of the learning plan, including the assessment criteria.
  • Time management, including reporting, drafts, deadlines.
  • Search strategy.
Development as a reflective practitioner (applicable to assignments)
  • Provides a credible self-assessment of the quality of the assignment report in terms of its strengths and weaknesses in meeting the assessment criteria for the focus and generic capabilities.
  • Identifies strengths and weaknesses of the research process used and articulates credible plans to improve research skills.
  • Reflects on the assignment topic, the research process and draws implications for wider learning and future practice.
Teamwork (applicable to projects)
  • Provides evidence of team meetings by appending to the project report documents such as: agendas; minutes; summaries of discussions; or lists of decisions made.
  • Provides evidence of the evaluation of the group process using tools provided, focusing on at least one of the following: group roles and responsibilities; communication between group members; resolution of conflicts; behaviour in group meetings (task, support, non-productive).
  • Identifies teamwork issues (e.g. discussion of the contributions of team members as required) that facilitated or impeded the group process and outlines plans to address these in future group work.

 

Back to Top