Assessment Appendices
Table of Contents
Appendix AA. Assessment Criteria for Development .......................................................... 2
Appendix AB. Assessment Criteria for Tutorial Contributions, Attendance and
Participation ............................................................................................................................. 1
Appendix AC. Assessment Criteria for Essays ..................................................................... 1
Appendix AD. Assessment Criteria for Oral Presentations................................................. 1
Appendix AE. Assessment Criteria for Practical Work/Laboratory Practical Reports ... 1
Appendix AG. Assessment Criteria for Multiple Choice Examinations ............................ 2
Appendix AH. Assessment Criteria for Examination Essay Questions .............................. 1
Appendix AI. Assessment Criteria for Multipart Examination Questions ........................ 1
Appendix AA. Assessment Criteria for
Development
Version 1.2
2002/05/11 11:23:25
Such work will usually consist of the following:
•
a piece of development which may involve coding to a specification which is part of the
instructions; using a piece of software to design or develop a piece of work; using equipment
provided by the department; or some other activity which constitutes a significant part of the
overall task.
•
a body of documentation, the format and content of which is usually outlined in the description of
the task, and which usually describes, clarifies, extends or in some other way augments the piece
of development described above.
1st: 80-100%. An outstanding body of work demonstrating a very deep understanding of the
problem and presented as such. Written components will be professionally presented in both layout
on the page and logical structure. They will also be excellently presented in an appropriate style and
will be grammatically of an extremely high standard. Demonstrates an excellent understanding of
the technologies employed and uses appropriate terminology accurately. Implementation
components will be extremely well finished and will more than completely fulfil the functional
requirements.
1st: 70-79%. An excellent body of work demonstrating a deep understanding of the problem and
presented as such. Written components will be professionally presented in both layout on the page
and logical structure. They will also be very well presented in an appropriate style and will be
grammatically of a very high standard. Demonstrates an excellent understanding of the technologies
employed and uses appropriate terminology accurately. Implementation components will be very
well finished and will at least completely fulfil the functional requirements.
2(i): 60-69%. A good body of work demonstrating a good understanding of the problem and
presented as such. Written components will be well presented in both layout on the page and logical
structure. They will also be presented in an appropriate style and will be of a good grammatical
standard. Demonstrates good understanding of the technologies employed and a good grasp of the
terminology appropriate. Implementation components will be complete and will usually fulfil the
functional requirements in all aspects.
2(ii): 50-59%. A body of work which shows understanding of the problem in most aspects. Written
components will demonstrate those areas which are well understood and those areas which are not
so well understood. The documents will be structured in a reasonable way which allows them to be
easily read, but may be lacking in structure, clarity and grammatical quality. Displays an adequate
level of understanding of technologies used and mostly uses terminology appropriately.
Implementation components will probably be incomplete in some relatively minor aspects, and may
omit some of the more advanced pieces of work.
3rd: 40-49%. A body of work which shows some understanding of the problem. Written
components will show what progress has been made, and make some attempt to show which areas
have not been understood. Documents may show a lack of structure, comprehensibility, clarity and
grammatical quality. Documents may also be incomplete in coverage of the work undertaken.
Probably fails to show understanding of the technologies used and often fails to use appropriate
terminology. Implementation is likely to be incomplete and may omit some aspects of the core
problem. No adequate attempt to tackle more advanced sections of the work.
Fail: 30-39%. A body of work which fails to show proper understanding of the problem or which
demonstrates an inappropriate, inadequate or incomplete response. Written components will
typically fail to accurately or completely describe the work done and will often contain little
indication of which parts of the problem are understood and which are not. Documents often show a
lack of structure, comprehensibility, clarity and grammatical quality. Failure to demonstrate
understanding of the technologies used and lack of or inaccurate use of the terminology appropriate.
Implementation is probably drastically incomplete, severely misguided or severely hampered by
inability to use the technologies required.
Fail: 20-29%. Some work which shows little or a seriously flawed understanding of the problem,
and an inappropriate, inadequate or drastically incomplete response. Written components will be
poor in terms of presentation and content. They will usually fail to describe the problem, the work
done, or the level of understanding reached. They will also lack structure, clarity or
comprehensibility and often be of a poor grammatical standard. The work will often show a failure
to understand the technologies required to solve the problem and will not use the correct
terminology. Implementation is likely to be absent, drastically incomplete, severely misguided or
severely hampered by inability to use the technologies required.
Fail: 0-19%. Probably very little work on either implementation or documentation, or a body of
work which is very severely flawed by lack of ability to use the required technologies and/or to
present the small amount of work done. Implementation absent, barely commenced or very severely
misguided.
Appendix AB. Assessment Criteria for Tutorial
Contributions, Attendance and Participation
Version 1.2
2002/05/11 11:23:26
Tutorials usually occur on a regular basis and are directed by a member of staff who moderates
discussions, debates, presentations and other activities of a group of up to about 15 students.
1st: 80-100%. Attendance will be 100%; or have very few absences for very good reasons which
were brought to the attention of the tutor at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner. The
student will provide regular extremely useful and well-informed contributions. These will consist of
astute questions; concise, accurate and relevant answers to others questions; and extremely helpful,
relevant and well-balanced suggestions. The student will display extremely well developed social
skills including the ability to listen to others, encourage their participation and evaluate and
comment on their contributions. The student will strike an excellent balance between contributing,
listening and encouraging others to contribute. The student will display interest and attentiveness at
all times.
1st: 70-79%. Attendance will be 100%; or have very few absences for good reasons which were
brought to the attention of the tutor at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner. The student
will provide regular useful and well-informed contributions. These will consist of astute questions;
concise, accurate and relevant answers to others questions; and helpful, relevant and well-balanced
suggestions. The student will display good social skills including the ability to listen to others,
encourage their participation and evaluate and comment on their contributions. The student will
strike a very good balance between contributing, listening and encouraging others to contribute. The
student will display interest and attentiveness at all times.
2(i): 60-69%. Attendance will be close to 100%; and absences will be for good reasons which were
brought to the attention of the tutor at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner. The student
will provide regular useful contributions. These will consist of relevant questions; relevant and
useful answers to others questions; and helpful suggestions. The student will display the ability to
listen to others and will encourage the participation of others. The student will strike a balance
between contributing, listening and encouraging others to contribute. The student will display an
interest in most discussions.
2(ii): 50-59%. Attendance will be good and most absences will be accounted for and will have been
appropriately explained to the tutor, usually in advance. The student will contribute in a variety of
ways without prompting. These contributions will will often be relevant and useful though they may
upon occasion highlight a lack of understanding or failure to grasp the significance of the
discussion. The student will not be over-domineering and will not inhibit others when they wish to
contribute. The student may at times appear disinterested or inattentive.
3rd: 40-49%. Average to poor attendance which may in some instances have been accounted for
and explained to the tutor. The student will contribute, but is likely to need prompting to do so.
Contributions may occasionally be useful, but also may lack relevance and/or highlight a lack of
understanding or failure to grasp the significance of the discussion or failure to pay attention. The
student may show a lack of balance in contributions, or be over-domineering, or reluctant to
contribute, or disruptive in some way.
Fail: 30-39%. Probably poor attendance record which is often unaccounted for or for unacceptable
reasons. The student may be unwilling to contribute and is likely to be incapable of or unwilling to
make any useful contribution. The student may be deliberately disruptive, antagonistic, rude, overdomineering and/or fail to comply with requests to contribute or be unwilling to listen to others.
Fail: 20-29%. Probably poor or very poor attendance record which is often unaccounted for or for
unacceptable reasons. The student may be unwilling and/or unable to make any contribution. The
student is probably deliberately disruptive, antagonistic, rude, over-domineering and/or fail to
comply with requests to contribute or be unwilling to listen to others.
Fail: 0-19%. The student may fail to attend altogether, or provide no contribution or be deliberately
disruptive, antagonistic, rude, over-domineering and/or fail to comply with requests to contribute or
be unwilling to listen to others.
Appendix AC. Assessment Criteria for Essays
Version 1.2
2002/05/11 11:23:25
Essay type answers are usually directed by a single sentence or short paragraph inviting description,
discussion and analysis of a topic. There is a large range of work (including reports, surveys and
critiques) and question types which may be considered to be in this class.
1st: 80-100%. An outstanding answer which constitutes a comprehensive response and provides a
useful addition to the literature in the field. Provides an insightful commentary on the topic and
probably provides new insights in the field. Layout on the page which is of publishable quality and
follows any instructions precisely, carefully and appropriately. In a professional style and of
excellent grammatical quality. Excellent use of technical language where appropriate, and providing
citations to all other key work in the field.
1st: 70-79%. An excellent answer which constitutes a wide-ranging response and provides a useful
addition to the literature in the field. Provides a useful commentary on the topic and may provide
new insights in the field. Layout on the page which is of publishable quality and follows any
instructions appropriately. In a professional style and of very good grammatical quality. Excellent
use of technical language where appropriate, and providing citations to other key work in the field.
2(i): 60-69%. A very good answer which covers the field well and probably provides a tutorial level
introduction to the field. May have some minor omissions but covers most of the relevant issues and
provides significant interpretation. Shows some development from the original material. Probably
requiring some minor alterations to produce work of a publishable quality. In an easily read style
with very few grammatical errors. Good use of technical language where appropriate, and providing
citations to other work in the field.
2(ii): 50-59%. A good answer which covers some of the field well but probably suffers from some
significant omissions. Shows some interpretation and development of the relevant issues. Probably
requiring some very significant alterations to produce work of a publishable quality. In a
comprehensible style with some grammatical errors. Use of technical language sometimes marred,
and providing insufficient citations to other work in the field.
3rd: 40-49%. An answer which significantly lacks coverage of the field. Little original
development or interpretation. Often drawn mainly from other sources such as lecture material or
reference books. Readable but of a poor standard in terms of structure and may disregard
instructions about the format required. May contain many grammatical errors. Well below
publishable quality. Often lacking references to sources used.
Fail:30-39%. Some of the key areas probably considered but usually no original contribution. Often
largely drawn directly from lecture notes and standard reference books. Lacks organisation and
omits some areas of fundamental importance. May demonstrate superficial or lack of understanding
of significant areas. Probably contains many grammatical errors. Often lacking suitable
acknowledgement of the source of the material presented.
Fail: 20-29%. A seriously flawed response failing to consider most of the key areas. No useful
original content. Sometimes uses other sources in a way which borders on plagiarism due to lack of
suitable referencing. Little or no analysis or understanding of the field made evident. Likely to be of
a very poor grammatical quality and written in a very poor style. Some redeeming features.
Fail: 0-19%. No real attempt at a response due to brevity, major misconceptions, errors or failure to
understand what was required.
Appendix AD. Assessment Criteria for Oral
Presentations
Version 1.2
2002/05/11 11:23:26
Oral presentations are usually given before a small audience of peers and staff. They are usually
short and on a pre-agreed topic. There is often significant guidance offered by particular modules to
assist in preparation for oral presentations.
1st: 80-100%. An outstanding presentation showing detailed coverage and analysis of the topic.
Uses visual aids and other media to full advantage and in an appropriate way. Results in a polished
and professional feel. Outstanding public speaking with no faults in use of vocabulary, clarity, pace
and modulation.
1st: 70-79%. An excellent presentation showing detailed coverage and analysis of the topic. Uses
visual aids and other media to very good advantage and in an appropriate way. Results in a polished
and professional feel. Outstanding public speaking with very few faults in use of vocabulary, clarity,
pace and modulation.
2(i): 60-69%. A very good presentation showing wide-ranging coverage and analysis of the topic.
Uses visual aids and other media well and appropriately. Results in a polished feel. Very good
public speaking with few faults in use of vocabulary, clarity, pace and modulation.
2(ii): 50-59%. A presentation showing reasonable coverage of the topic, but probably with some
noticeable omissions and/or lacking somewhat in analysis and/or with an unsuitable focus. May
result in a superficial or overly technical feel with unnecessary technical detail. Reasonable publicspeaking, but may lack in clarity, make poor use of vocabulary, be monotonous, nervous, or at an
inappropriate pace.
3rd: 40-49%. A presentation significantly lacking in coverage of the topic with little or no analysis
and/or with an unsuitable focus. May result in a superficial or overly technical feel with unnecessary
technical detail and/or show evidence of poor preparation and/or inappropriate use of visual aids.
Poor public speaking probably lacking in clarity, making poor use of vocabulary, monotonous,
extremely nervous or at an inappropriate pace.
Fail: 30-39%. A presentation which fails to cover the topic and probably does not provide any
analysis. May result in an embarrassing feel due to lack of preparation, poor use of visual aids
and/or lack of knowledge of the topic. Probably poor or disinterested public speaking suffering from
many faults.
Fail: 20-29%. A presentation with some redeeming features but which basically fails to cover the
topic, and/or suffers from a very poor level of public-speaking.
Fail: 0-19%. A presentation with no redeeming features. Often embarrassing to watch, unprepared,
and with no useful visual aids.
Appendix AE. Assessment Criteria for Practical
Work/Laboratory Practical Reports
Version 1.2
2002/05/11 11:23:26
These reports are usually produced after a specified piece of work has been completed. They usually
consist of a description of the work done, the equipment used, the issues being investigated, the
results that were obtained and a discussion of their significance and relevance to the module for
which the work was performed.
1st: 80-100%. An outstanding report showing an in depth understanding and detailed analysis of the
work undertaken and the issues that the work was designed to explore. A clear and accurate
description of the methods employed. A rational and in depth presentation of the data which clearly
justifies any results and claims that are made. Detailed, accurate and succinct analysis of the results
in a very well organised form. Excellent and precise use of the terminology relevant to the work.
1st: 70-79%. An excellent report showing an in depth understanding and detailed analysis of the
work undertaken and the issues that the work was designed to explore. A clear and accurate
description of the methods employed. A rational and in depth presentation of the data which clearly
justifies any results and claims that are made. Detailed, accurate and succinct analysis of the results
in a very well organised form. Excellent and precise use of the terminology relevant to the work.
2(i): 60-69%. A very good report showing a good understanding and analysis of the work
undertaken and the issues that the work was designed to explore. A clear and accurate description of
the methods employed. A rational and meaningful presentation of the data which justifies any
results and claims that are made. Detailed and accurate analysis of the results in a well organised
form. Good use of the terminology relevant to the work.
2(ii): 50-59%. A report showing understanding of the work undertaken and some sensible attempt
at analysis. Comprehension of the work is demonstrated, although lack of clarity and occasional
minor errors may be evident. Analysis of the data tends to be lacking and tends to become
descriptive rather than in-depth although presented in a basically sound form. Terminology mostly
used correctly, but sometimes lacking or inaccurate.
3rd: 40-49%. A report which shows some basic understanding of the work undertaken, and makes
some attempt at analysis. Description of the work undertaken is probably erroneous in some respects
although does not demonstrate any gross misunderstandings. Analysis is probably poor and
highlights failures to understand rather than being of positive value. The report may be poorly
organised and/or demonstrate an inability to express the required concepts. Terminology may be
poorly used.
Fail: 30-39%. The report shows that some of the fundamental issues examined by the work are
understood, but that there are some major failures of understanding and/or misconceptions. The
results presented are likely to contain some errors or omissions and analysis of the data is likely to
be flawed due to this or fundamental misconceptions. Lacks clarity and organisation to an extent
which is a major hindrance to understanding. Poor expression and poor use of terminology are likely
to be evident.
Fail: 20-29%. A seriously flawed report which demonstrates that the work required to be done is
incomplete, has not been attempted or has been drastically misunderstood. The results are
incomplete, poorly presented, or analysed grossly inaccurately. Poor organisation, expression and
use of terminology are all likely to be evident.
Fail: 0-19%. A grossly incomplete, inadequate, ill-informed or misconceived report. Likely to
present drastically incomplete, erroneous or meaningless data.
Appendix AG. Assessment Criteria for Multiple
Choice Examinations
Version 1.2
2002/05/11 11:23:26
Multiple choice papers will be assessed according to the following criteria unless a different prepublished scheme associated with the individual module is indicated.
•
One mark will be added to the total for each correct answer.
•
A penalty factor calculated as follows:
1/(no._of_possible_wrong_answers_for_this_question)
will be deducted for each wrong answer.
•
A question which is not attempted will awarded zero.
Appendix AH. Assessment Criteria for
Examination Essay Questions
Version 2.0
9/9/2004
Essay type answers are usually directed by a single sentence or short paragraph inviting description,
discussion and analysis of a topic. There is a large range of work (including reports, surveys and
critiques) and question types which may be considered to be in this class.
1st: 80-100%. An outstanding answer which constitutes a comprehensive response. Provides an
insightful commentary on the topic and probably provides new insights in the field. In a professional
style with good use of technical language where appropriate.
1st: 70-79%. An excellent answer which constitutes a wide-ranging response. Provides a useful
commentary on the topic and may provide new insights in the field. . In a professional style with
good use of technical language where appropriate.
2(i): 60-69%. A very good answer which covers the field well and probably provides a tutorial level
introduction to the field. May have some minor omissions but covers most of the relevant issues and
provides significant interpretation. Shows some development from the original material. In an easily
read style with reasonable use of technical language where appropriate.
2(ii): 50-59%. A good answer which covers some of the field well but probably suffers from some
significant omissions. Shows some interpretation and development of the relevant issues. In a
comprehensible style with somewhat marred use of technical language.
3rd: 40-49%. An answer which significantly lacks coverage of the field. Little original
development or interpretation. Often drawn mainly from other sources such as lecture material or
reference books. Readable but of a poor standard in terms of structure.
Fail:30-39%. Some of the key areas probably considered but usually no original contribution. Often
largely drawn directly from lecture notes and standard reference books. Lacks organisation and
omits some areas of fundamental importance. May demonstrate superficial or lack of understanding
of significant areas.
Fail: 20-29%. A seriously flawed response failing to consider most of the key areas. No useful
original content. Little or no analysis or understanding of the field made evident.
Fail: 0-19%. No real attempt at a response due to brevity, major misconceptions, errors or failure to
understand what was required.
Appendix AI. Assessment Criteria for Multipart
Examination Questions
Version 1.2
2002/05/11 11:23:25
1st: 80-100%. The response will provide a complete, precise, well formed and concise rendition of
all the information pertinent to each part of the question. The response will address the question
precisely and will provide information to an appropriate level which will be well beyond that
presented in lecture notes. The response will be legible, comprehensible and in a format appropriate
for the question. An outstanding level of factual knowledge, ability to synthesise and ability to
analyse information will be demonstrated when appropriate.
1st: 70-79%. The response will provide a complete, precise, well formed and concise rendition of
all the information pertinent to each part of the question. The response will address the question and
will provide information to an appropriate level which will be well beyond that presented in lecture
notes. The response will be legible, comprehensible and in a format appropriate for the question. An
excellent level of factual knowledge, ability to synthesise and ability to analyse information will be
demonstrated when appropriate.
2(i): 60-69%. The response will provide a precise and well formed rendition of most of the
information pertinent to each part of the question. The response will address the question and will
provide information to an appropriate level which will be beyond that presented in lecture notes.
The response will be legible, comprehensible and in a format appropriate for the question. A very
good level of factual knowledge will be demonstrated when appropriate. The analysis and synthesis
parts of the response are likely to be less complete than the factual components.
2(ii): 50-59%. The response will provide an accurate rendition of a significant portion of the
information pertinent to most parts of the question. The response will address the question and will
provide information at least to the level of lecture notes. The response will be legible,
comprehensible and in a format appropriate for the question. A reasonable level of factual
knowledge will be demonstrated when appropriate although there may be a few inaccuracies and
omissions. The analysis and synthesis parts of the response are likely to be incomplete and may
display a lack of ability to analyse and synthesise due to misconceptions and incompleteness of
factual and conceptual knowledge.
3rd: 40-49%. The response will provide some of the information pertinent to most parts of the
question. The response will provide information to a level which will mostly be to the level
presented in lecture notes, although there may be some minor omissions and errors. The response
will be legible but may be presented in an inappropriate format such as phrases, keywords or
disconnected sentences which do not indicate a full understanding of the question. A level of factual
knowledge which indicates some understanding of the issues addressed in the question will be
evident. The analysis and synthesis parts of the response are likely to be absent or incomplete and
are likely to display a lack of ability to analyse and synthesise due to misconceptions and
incompleteness of factual and conceptual knowledge.
Fail: 30-39%. The response will provide some information pertinent to some parts of the question.
The response will provide information to a level which does not go beyond the level presented in
lecture notes, and there are likely to be major omissions and errors. The response will be legible but
may be presented in an inappropriate format such as phrases, keywords or disconnected sentences
which do not indicate a full understanding of the question. A level of factual knowledge which
indicates some understanding of some of the issues addressed in the question is likely to be evident.
The analysis and synthesis parts of the response are likely to be absent or grossly incomplete. There
are likely to be some indications of significant gaps in knowledge or misunderstandings.
Fail: 20-29%. The response will provide some of the information pertinent to a few parts of the
question. The response will provide information to a level which does not demonstrate
understanding of the majority of the key issues addressed by the question. The response may be
legible but may be presented in an inappropriate format such as phrases, keywords or disconnected
sentences which do not indicate a full understanding of the question. A level of factual knowledge
which indicates little or no understanding of the issues addressed in the question will be evident.
The analysis and synthesis parts of the response are likely to be absent, grossly incomplete or to
display gross misunderstanding; and are likely to display a lack of ability to analyse and synthesise
due to misconceptions and incompleteness of factual and conceptual knowledge. Some redeeming
features.
Fail: 0-20%. The response is likely to be too incomplete, misguided or irrelevant to demonstrate
any understanding of the question. It is also likely to be factually inaccurate although there may be
some accurate statements.