Grading Criteria level 4 LTI draft master
2013
Grading Criteria - Level 4
Grade
Knowledge &
Understanding
Application/problem
solving
Analysis
Outstanding exploration
of topic, showing
excellent depth and
breadth of knowledge and
understanding.
Outstanding application
of content to context.
Highly developed
consideration and
problem solving.
Outstanding ability
to interpret
information and the
interrelationship of
different parts.
Highly developed
skills of analysis.
Excellent depth and
breadth, interrelates well
with other areas of
knowledge and
understanding.
Excellent application to
context. Demonstrates
wide application and
problem solving.
Excellent level of
analysis,
interpretation of
information and
relationship of parts
to each other.
Very good level of
knowledge and
understanding. Covers all
relevant points and issues
correctly. No substantial
errors or omissions.
Very good application
of content to context
Provides some ability to
problem solve.
Very good analysis,
interpretation of
information and
relationship of parts
to each other.
Evaluation
Synthesis
Referencing
Presentation &
structure
Outstanding ability
to synthesise
knowledge,
breaking it down
into parts and
combining different
elements
coherently to
construct new
ideas.
Outstanding and
comprehensive
range of references
Accurate
presentation of
references in text to
list.
Complete and
accurate
presentation of
reference list.
Outstanding
presentation, clarity &
structure Fluent &
highly articulate. No
significant errors of
grammar and spelling.
Excellent
judgements and
evaluation made on
the basis of given
criteria.
Excellent ability to
combine different
elements of
knowledge
demonstrating an
ability to modify and
construct some
new ideas.
Excellent range of
references.
Accurate
presentation of
references in text to
list
Complete and
accurate
presentation of
reference list
Excellent presentation
Logical and wellstructured
Fluent & articulate
Very few errors of
grammar or spelling
Very good
judgements,
assessment and
evaluation
techniques of the
given criteria.
Very good
management of
aspects of
knowledge
demonstrating an
ability to modify and
construct some
new ideas.
Very good range of
references
Accurate
presentation of
references in text to
list
Mostly complete
presentation of
reference list
Very good presentation
Clear & well structured
Mostly fluent & articulate
Very few errors of
grammar or spelling
Weighting
80-100
Outstanding
70-79
Excellent
60-69
Very Good
Outstanding
quality of
judgements.
Correct use of
evaluative
techniques.
1|Page
Grading Criteria level 4 LTI draft master
Grade
50-59
Good
40-49
Satisfactory
30-39*
Knowledge &
Understanding
Application/problem
solving
1 – 19
Little or
Nothing of
merit
Evaluation
Synthesis
Referencing
Presentation &
structure
Good level of knowledge
and understanding
demonstrating a grasp of
the topic and some of its
implications. Minor errors/
omissions.
Good application of
content to context.
Reasonable ability to
problem solve.
Good level of
analysis,
interpretation of
information and
relationship of parts
to each other.
Good attempt to
evaluate the given
criteria to defend
and support the
argument.
Good
understanding of
the different parts
demonstrating
some ability to
summarise and
generate new
ideas.
Good range of
references.
Some minor errors
of presentation
within text to list and
in the reference list
Well presented. Good
structure that on the
whole is logical
Writing is mainly clear &
articulate
Some spelling and
grammar errors
Satisfactory knowledge &
understanding.
Satisfactory grasp of the
topic, but limited
awareness of implications
Some errors / omissions
Satisfactory application
of content to context.
Minimal ability to
problem solve.
Satisfactory level of
analysis, mainly
descriptive.
Information is
interpreted
superficially.
Satisfactory
evaluation of some
of the criteria.
Justification is
superficial and
subjective.
A collection of parts
of knowledge
reconstructed to a
satisfactory level to
generate a few new
ideas.
Satisfactory range
of references.
Some
errors/omissions of
references in text
and/or reference list
Satisfactory presentation
Structure & flow not
always logical. Writing
style acceptable. Some
spelling and grammar
errors
Limited knowledge and
understanding. Many
errors/omissions
Limited application
/problem solving of
content.
Limited level of
analysis,
interpretation of
information is
descriptive.
Limited use of
evaluation
techniques which
lacks justification to
defend the
argument.
Limited ability to
synthesise, parts of
knowledge have
been broken down
but not rebuilt to
summarise or
compose new
ideas.
Limited range of
references.
Inaccuracies in
presentation of
references in text
and/or reference list
Poor structure and
illogical sequencing
Writing style lacks clarity
Spelling and grammar
errors throughout.
Very limited/inaccurate
knowledge and
understanding, many
omissions.
Very limited application,
little or no evidence of
problem solving
Lacking in analysis,
mainly descriptive
No evidence of
problem solving.
Very limited
evaluation of the
given criteria. No
judgments made
that support the
argument.
Very limited range
of references
Many inaccuracies
and/or omissions of
references in text
and/or list
Very poor structure
Poorly written. Many
spelling and grammatical
errors throughout
Little or no application
of content to context.
No evidence of problem
solving
Little or no evidence
of analysis. Purely
descriptive.
Little or no
evaluation or
judgments
demonstrated.
Lack of content
does not allow for
any synthesis of
knowledge or
creation of new
ideas based on the
evidence.
Little or no
synthesis or
inappropriate
proposal of new
ideas.
Little or no
appropriate use
and/or presentation
of references.
Little or no discernible
logic or structure
Difficult to follow
Numerous spelling and
grammatical errors
Marginal Fail
20 - 29
Clear Fail
Analysis
2013
Little or no knowledge and
understanding. Missing
and/or inaccurate content.
2|Page
Grading Criteria level 4 LTI draft master
Knowledge &
Understanding
Practical
action points
to take
forward for
your next
assignment
Define
Recognise
Recall
Appropriate/relevance
Breadth
Depth
Demonstrate
2013
Application/problem
solving
Analysis
Evaluation
Synthesis
Referencing
Presentation &
structure
Interpret
Demonstrate
Illustrate
Apply
Utilise
Solution
Implement
Question
Level
Appropriate
Depth
Relevance to
context
Appraise
Compare/contrast
Select
Argue
Justification
Measurement
Appropriate
Relevance
Accurate
Diagnose
Planning
Summarise
Construct
Create
Propose
Relevance
Assemble
Generate
Ideas/concepts
Breadth
Depth
Currency
Integration
Accuracy
Citations
Appropriate style
Logical
Accurate paraphrasing
Clarity
Fluency
Sentence structure
Spelling
Grammar
Overall
feedback
Level 4: knowledge of the underlying concepts and principles associated within their area of study, an ability to present, evaluate and interpret concepts and evidence from a
range of sources; start to develop lines of argument and make judgements where appropriate; accept responsibility for determining and achieving personal and/or group
outcomes.
Final Grade
First: Outstanding (80-100) Outstanding scholarship for subject and ability to apply, in the right measure, the skills necessary to interpret theoretical information, make
judgements and develop new ideas in a fluent manner.
First: Excellent (70-79) Breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding is excellent. A well-developed ability to appreciate concepts and their inter-relationship is
demonstrated. Clear evidence of independent thought. Presentation of work is fluent, focused and accurate.
Upper Second: Very good (60-69) Knowledge base is very good, up-to-date and relevant. A significant ability to apply theory, concepts, ideas and their inter-relationship is
illustrated.
Lower Second: Good (50-59) Sound comprehension of topic. Reasoning and argument are generally relevant but not necessarily extensive. Awareness of concepts is
apparent, but the ability to conceptualise, and/or to apply theory is reasonable.
Third: Satisfactory (40-49) Knowledge is satisfactory but limited and/or superficial. In the most part, description/assertion rather than argument or logical reasoning is used.
Marginal fail (30-39) Minimal awareness of subject area. Presentation and communication of knowledge frequently inarticulate and/or irrelevant.
Clear Fail (20-29) Poor grasp of topic concepts or of awareness of what concepts are. Failure to apply relevant theory and skills. Work is inarticulate and/or incomprehensible.
Little or nothing of merit (0-19) Unacceptable grasp of the topic or awareness of what the concepts are. Failure to apply relevant theory and skills. Work is inarticulate and/or
incomprehensible.
3|Page