|
|
0 - 45
|
45 – 49 (MARGINAL)
|
50 - 59
|
60 - 69
|
70 - 79
|
80 - 100
|
|
1. Identifies the macro /micro context for the proposed research and presents a clear rationale for its pursuit.
|
The context and current issues are not identified leading to no clear research objectives.
|
The context and current issues are partially identified, leading to objectives that are inappropriate or imprecise.
|
The context and current issues are sufficiently identified and expressed, but lacks clarity in some
areas, leading to an adequate but somewhat loose identification of research objectives.
|
The context and current issues are clearly identified and scoped, leading to the identification of appropriate research objectives.
|
The context and current issues are unambiguously identified, scoped and prioritized, leading to well framed research objectives.
|
The context and current issues identified are theoretically grounded. Factual data are well used to iterate the scenario that leads to precisely framed research objectives.
|
|
2. The research objectives / hypothesis are /is clear and precisely framed.
|
Incomplete, lacking in
originality Not available
|
Poorly articulated, and not enough originality
|
Articulated and expressed but lacks clarity in some areas
|
Clearly articulated and expressed
|
Fully articulated and well expressed
|
Original, clearly articulated and well expressed
|
|
3. Critically review and synthesize the relevant literature on the subject area.
|
Not identified
|
Partially addressed, although insufficient theory considered and this was not integrated. Opinion based
|
Satisfactory range of literature considered, analysis has some critical focus and is integrated with the literature
|
A good range literature considered and comprehensively utilised
|
Critical application and critique of concepts with evidence of breadth and depth of literature reviewed and integrated
|
Outstanding Critical application and critique of concepts with evidence of breadth and depth of literature reviewed and integrated
|
|
4. Potential weaknesses wrt to the literature review are fully recognised
|
Not identified
|
Partially identified and opinion based
|
Identified with some critical focus
|
Clearly identified with critical focus and well articulated
|
Fully articulated and identified with a clear focus tentative solutions.
|
Fully articulated and identified with a clear focus and innovative solutions.
|
|
5.Presentation
|
Inadequate presentation with inconsistent referencing and muddled structure inappropriate writing style
|
Poor presentation inconsistent referencing and citations and unclear structure and/or inappropriate writing style
|
Satisfactory referencing. Reasonably structured and clear, reasonably fluent writing style.
|
Clear, accurate and consistent referencing.
Clear, well linked structure.
Fluently written.
|
Excellent referencing and clear structure with strong links between sections.
Fluent and convincing.
|
Outstanding referencing and clear structure with strong links between sections. Fluent and extremely convincing.
|
|
What was done well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A key area(s) to improve this assignment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
