Assessment Criteria (Learning objectives covered - all) Level 5 reflects the continuing development in knowledge, understanding and skills from Level 4. At Level 5, students are not expected to be fully autonomous but are able to take responsibility for their own learning with appropriate guidance and direction. Students are expected to further develop their theoretical knowledge within a more intellectual context

and to demonstrate this through more complex forms of expression which move beyond the descriptive or imitative domain. Students are expected to demonstrate skills of

analysis in both problem-solving and resolution.

Grade

Mark

Bands

Generic Assessment Criteria

First

(1)

80%+

An exceptional information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and any associated ethical considerations. There is sophisticated use and management

of learning resources and a high degree of autonomy is demonstrated. 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 be considered for internal publication.

70-79%

An excellent knowledge base within which the discipline is explored and analysed. There is a good degree of originality in the approach. The work demonstrates

confidence and autonomy and extends to consider ethical issues. Learning resources have been managed confidently. 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.

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 evidence of growing confidence and self-direction. 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 begins to analyse the subject and apply some underpinning theory. 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 though. Professional skills are satisfactory (where appropriate). The work lacks original thought but academic and intellectual

skills are moving into the critical domain. The work is referenced throughout.

Third

(3)

40-49%

Basic level of performance in which there are some omissions in understanding 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.

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.