|
Criteria and Weighting
|
To obtain 70% or above:
|
To obtain 60% or above:
|
To obtain 55 – 59%:
|
To obtain 50% - 54%:
|
To obtain a Fail grade of between 49 - 40 %:-
|
To obtain a substantial fail of between 39 - 0%:-
|
|
Video presentation – 45%
|
|
Content mastery – 15%
|
|
Problem definition (5%)
|
An excellent problem definition, very well written, making full use of one or more theoretical frameworks to structure the section.
The audience is clearly considered and the questions to be answered and preparation for analysis are clearly tailored to the audience.
|
A good problem definition, well written, with some integration of theoretical frameworks in its presentation.
The audience is partially considered in defining the questions to be answered.
|
A good problem definition, making some use of existing theoretical frameworks to build and support the argument, which may sometimes lack in clarity. Few issues may be weakly explored.
The audience may be weakly considered.
|
A reasonably good problem definition, making some use of existing theoretical frameworks to build and support the argument, which may sometimes lack in clarity.
The audience may be weakly explored.
|
A poorly written problem definition, with limited support from existing theoretical frameworks, and no or little consideration of the audience.
|
A very poor or missing problem definition, with little if any link between theory and practice, or not at all attempted.
|
|
Communication of findings (10%)
|
An excellent communication of the analysis’ findings, with excellent choices for visual elements that fully support the argument and help address the original question.
|
A good communication of the analysis’ findings, with good choices for visual elements that support the argument and help address the original question.
|
A reasonably good communication of the analysis’ findings, with reasonable choices for visual elements that partially support the argument and help address the original question to some extent.
|
The communication of the findings is relatively weak, needing stronger support from visual elements and a stronger answer to the original question.
|
The communication is confusing and/or incomplete, with little or no visual support.
|
Little evidence of understanding of the issues surrounding communication of findings post analysis.
|
|
Critical review of your analysis and its limitations (5%)
|
An excellent review of the analysis and its strengths and weaknesses, using appropriate theoretical frameworks.
|
A good review of the analysis and its strengths and weaknesses, using appropriate theoretical frameworks.
|
A reasonable review of the analysis and its strengths and weaknesses. Stronger use of appropriate theoretical frameworks was needed.
|
A shallow look at the strengths / weaknesses of your own analysis, with little if any use of theoretical frameworks to structure the review.
|
A poor review of the analysis and its limitations, with no use of theoretical frameworks.
|
Little evidence of understanding of the issues surrounding data analysis limitations.
|
|
Structure and organisation – 10%
|
|
|
The presentation is excellently organized, with a clear and logical structure. Transitions between sections are smooth and enhance the overall flow.
|
The presentation is well-organized with a clear structure. Transitions between sections are generally smooth, though some areas may lack fluidity.
|
The presentation has a reasonable structure, but some sections may be disjointed or lack clear transitions.
|
The presentation has a basic structure, but sections may be poorly organized or transitions may be abrupt.
|
The presentation lacks clear structure, making it difficult to follow. Transitions between sections are unclear or absent.
|
The presentation is disorganized with little to no structure, making it difficult to understand.
|
|
Delivery and Communication – 10%
|
|
|
Delivery is confident, engaging, and clearly communicated. The speaker effectively uses voice modulation, eye contact, and body language to enhance the presentation.
|
Delivery is clear and confident, with effective communication. The speaker generally uses voice modulation, eye contact, and body language, though some areas could be improved.
|
Delivery is reasonably clear but may lack confidence or engagement. The speaker uses some voice modulation, eye contact, and body language but inconsistently.
|
Delivery is somewhat unclear, with issues in communication. The speaker may struggle with voice modulation, eye contact, or body language, impacting engagement.
|
Delivery is unclear and lacks engagement. The speaker struggles with voice modulation, eye contact, and body language, making it difficult to follow.
|
Delivery is poor, with little to no engagement. The speaker is difficult to understand, with no effective use of voice modulation, eye contact, or body language.
|
|
Use of visual aids – 5%
|
|
|
Visual aids are excellently chosen, well-designed, and effectively integrated into the presentation, enhancing understanding and engagement.
|
Visual aids are well-chosen and effectively used, contributing to the presentation. Some minor design improvements could be made.
|
Visual aids are adequately used, though they may not fully enhance the presentation or may have some design issues.
|
Visual aids are used but may be poorly chosen, designed, or integrated into the presentation, limiting their effectiveness.
|
Visual aids are poorly used, chosen, or designed, detracting from the presentation.
|
Visual aids are absent or poorly executed, providing little to no support to the presentation.
|
|
Engagement with audience – 5%
|
|
|
The presentation is highly engaging, with the speaker effectively capturing and maintaining viewer interest throughout. The content is tailored to the audience, and the speaker uses techniques such as rhetorical questions, direct addresses, and engaging visuals to enhance viewer involvement.
|
The presentation is engaging, with the speaker maintaining viewer interest for most of the presentation. Some use of techniques like rhetorical questions or visuals is evident, though there may be areas for improvement.
|
The presentation is reasonably engaging, with some effort to maintain viewer interest. However, the speaker may not consistently use techniques to fully capture or retain attention.
|
The presentation has limited engagement, with the speaker struggling to maintain viewer interest. There is minimal use of techniques to involve the viewer, leading to a somewhat flat delivery.
|
The presentation is poorly engaging, with little effort to capture or maintain viewer interest. The speaker makes few attempts to engage the viewer, resulting in a lackluster presentation.
|
The presentation fails to engage the viewer, with no apparent effort to capture or maintain interest. The speaker does not use any techniques to involve the viewer, making the presentation difficult to watch.
|
|
Reflection piece – 45%
|
|
Depth of reflection – 20%
|
|
|
Demonstrates an excellent level of reflection, with deep, insightful analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection goes beyond surface-level descriptions, showing critical engagement with the material and drawing meaningful conclusions.
|
Shows a good level of reflection, with a thoughtful analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection is detailed but may not fully explore all aspects or draw as deep conclusions as higher levels.
|
Displays a reasonable level of reflection, with some analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection may be more descriptive than analytical, and conclusions may be somewhat superficial.
|
Demonstrates a basic level of reflection, with minimal analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection is mostly descriptive, with limited critical engagement or meaningful conclusions.
|
Displays limited reflection, with little analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection is overly descriptive, lacking depth and critical engagement.
|
Demonstrates little to no reflection, with no meaningful analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection is purely descriptive or missing.
|
|
Integration of Theory and Practice – 15%
|
|
|
Excellent integration of relevant theories and concepts into the reflection. Theoretical insights are skillfully applied to personal experiences, demonstrating a strong understanding of their practical implications.
|
Good integration of relevant theories and concepts, with some application to personal experiences. There may be minor gaps in understanding or application, but overall the theory is used effectively.
|
Reasonable integration of relevant theories and concepts, though the application to personal experiences may be inconsistent or superficial. Some understanding of theory is demonstrated.
|
Basic integration of theories and concepts, with limited application to personal experiences. There may be gaps in understanding or relevance to the reflective content.
|
Poor integration of theory, with little or no application to personal experiences. Understanding of relevant concepts is weak or missing.
|
No integration of theory, with no application to personal experiences. The reflection lacks any theoretical basis.
|
|
Clarity and Coherence (5%)
|
|
|
The reflective piece is excellently structured and coherent, with a clear and logical flow of ideas. Writing is clear, concise, and free of errors, making the reflection easy to follow.
|
The reflective piece is well-structured and generally coherent, with a logical flow of ideas. Writing is clear, though minor errors may be present, and the reflection is mostly easy to follow.
|
The reflective piece has a reasonable structure, though some ideas may be disjointed or lack clarity. Writing is mostly clear but may contain some errors that affect readability.
|
The reflective piece has a basic structure, but ideas may be poorly organized or unclear. Writing may be unclear in places, with errors that impact readability.
|
The reflective piece lacks a clear structure, making it difficult to follow. Writing is unclear, with frequent errors that significantly impact readability.
|
The reflective piece is disorganized and incoherent, with little to no logical flow. Writing is unclear and riddled with errors, making it very difficult to follow.
|
|
Critical Thinking and Self-Awareness (5%)
|
|
|
Shows excellent critical thinking and self-awareness, with a deep understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, and growth. Reflection demonstrates a willingness to challenge assumptions and consider alternative perspectives.
|
Demonstrates good critical thinking and self-awareness, with a thoughtful understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, and growth. Some consideration of alternative perspectives is evident.
|
Displays reasonable critical thinking and self-awareness, with some understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, and growth. There may be limited consideration of alternative perspectives.
|
Shows basic critical thinking and self-awareness, with minimal understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, and growth. Reflection may lack depth in considering alternative perspectives.
|
Displays limited critical thinking and self-awareness, with little understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, and growth. The reflection does not challenge assumptions or consider alternative perspectives.
|
Shows little to no critical thinking or self-awareness, with no understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, or growth. The reflection is shallow and lacks any consideration of alternative perspectives.
|
|
Quality of expression in English – 5%
|
|
Quality of expression in English
|
Spelling, grammar, punctuation and vocabulary meet the minimum standard for this study level of accuracy and clarity. Written expression has very few errors in standard UK English spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Vocabulary choice shows an accurate understanding of the meaning of a wide range of specialist terms in the context of the subject. The specialist terms used may include those where the meaning is still being developed, or where the meaning is changing; or where the meaning is not agreed by all subject experts. There is also a broad and varied general vocabulary chosen so that nuances of meaning can be expressed concisely and to reflect the most current thinking in the subject area. Sentences are grammatically correct and express arguments and ideas through using both short, simple sentences and longer, compound sentences that allow the writer to bring facts or ideas together in a logical way. Expression is appropriate to the form of the assessment (for example, the use of bullet points and captions instead of sentences).
meets the Tech Prof threshold criterion wholly (gain 5 points)
|
meets the Tech Prof threshold criterion partly (3 points)
|
does not meet the Tech Prof threshold criterion (0 points)
|
