Criterion 1: Understanding of the methods, concepts and issues introduced in the module.

Demonstrate core knowledge and understanding of concepts and theories of effective teaching within your specific discipline covered during the taught element of the course (Learning Outcomes 1a,2a,3c; UKPSF A1, K1, V3).
 Demonstrate an awareness of the variety of methods and choices for teaching, learning and assessment within your specific discipline and the pedagogical issues associated with these (Learning Outcome 1a,2b,3c; UKPSF A1, K1, V3 ).

Situate your discussion of concepts and issues appropriately within an institutional, national and or global context, acknowledging the impact of various policies on teaching practices (Learning Outcome 3d; UKPSF V4).
Criterion 2: Presentation and content of your essay.
 Incorporate scholarship, research and literature at the level expected of a Masters’ piece of work from various sources such as NEXUS, Evidence.net, HEA subject centre websites, pedagogical books and journals, and CADAIR past teaching cycle projects (Learning Outcome 3c; UKPSF V3).
 Provide a comprehensive bibliography listing all references cited in the text
(Learning Outcome 3c;UKPSF V3).

Provide a careful and considered balance between theory, description and critical discussion (Learning Outcome 1b, 2a, 3c; UKPSF A2, K1, V3).

Proof-read before submission in order to provide a clear and well presented piece of work (Learning Outcome 3d; UKPSF V4).
How to improve
Comments
Comments
Marks/60
Marks/40
Mark/100

80% and above (Exceptional Distinction): Outstanding work that shows evidence of independent critical thought and reflection and is likely to be of a quality suitable for publication. It will demonstrate complete command of the topic, subtlety of interpretation, exceptional critical evaluation and considerable reflection. Such work will be exceptionally well written and presented.
70-79% (Distinction): Work that shows a considerable degree of critical thought, flair and independence, together with a sound factual knowledge, directly targeted at the topic. The work will illustrate a power of critical analysis, critical evaluation and reflection. Such work will be written and presented to high academic standards.
67-69% (Very Good Pass): Answers in this range should be essentially sound and convincing, with evidence of good understanding and solid critical thought. Answers should show thorough understanding of the subject and broad-based knowledge, with an ability to use material comparatively and critically. Examples and supporting evidence should be used appropriately, to demonstrate clarity and coherence of argumentation. Such work will be written and presented to good academic standards.
64-66% (Good Pass): Work of this standard should be competent and methodical indicating a clear understanding of the topic, and an ability to critically engage with relevant debates. Examples and supporting evidence should be present and used appropriately. The work will show some analytical power. It will be written and presented to good academic standards and should be clear of major grammatical errors.
60-63% (Fairly Good Pass): Work shows some limitations in coverage, and some minor errors in fact or credible interpretation. There will be a tendency to accept ideas uncritically and describe for extended passages, rather than analyse. Work of this standard should be competent but less methodical, yet still indicating a clear understanding of the topic and some ability to critically engage with the debates. Examples and supporting evidence will be present, but not always optimally deployed.
The work will show some analytical qualities, but not consistently. It will be written and presented to acceptable standards but may contain some grammatical errors.
55-59% Satisfactory Pass: This work will demonstrate a reasonable grasp of the principle materials relevant to the subject and link them into an at least partly sustained argument from premises to conclusions. It will be solid and competent. However, arguments may display a lack of clarity, crispness and focus. There may be some factual errors, and shortcomings in terms of coverage, reading, organisation and only limited evidence of sustained critical thought. The text will be clear, but may be flawed by grammatical errors that nevertheless do not obscure the meaning.
50-54% Low Pass: This work will demonstrate some grasp of principle materials and arguments will be apparent but show incomplete comprehension. There will be a poor understanding of the context. There may be some factual errors. Significant grammatical and/or structural deficiencies may mar the text, leaving the reader to have too much to do to discern the intended sense of the argument.
40-49% (Fail): This work will be poorly or illogically structured and show only limited understanding of the issues and inadequate appreciation of the context. It will include some relevant material but not enough; and will have significant inaccuracies and significant sections of irrelevance. The work will typically make a number of statements of opinion not adequately supported by evidence. It will be insufficiently focused on the question, fail to shape the argument from premises to conclusion, take little account of key readings and be marred by significant shortcomings of grammar and syntax.
39 and Below (Serious Fail): Such work will show a very limited grasp of essential literature, revealing major errors or omissions, or substantial irrelevant material. The work is likely to contain extensive irrelevance and be seriously and repeatedly marred by errors of grammar and expression. Arguments will be poorly organised and difficult to follow, or not present at all. Evidence is likely to be weak and limited. The work is likely to make unsupported assertions and statements that are not backed up be evidence.