|
Level 3
|
Introductory knowledge
|
Cognitive and intellectual skills
|
Reading and referencing
|
Presentation, style and structure
|
|
Pass mark
|
50% – 59%
|
Adequate work showing understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s), resulting in students being prepared for study at Level 4, but lacking depth and breadth.
|
Adequate interpretation and evaluation of information and ideas, largely using appropriate skills, methods and procedures. Work shows awareness of the nature of the area of study and an emerging awareness of different perspectives or approaches within it.
|
Engagement with an appropriate range of reading beyond essential texts. Referencing may show minor inaccuracies or inconsistencies.
|
Work is structured in a largely coherent manner and is for the most part clearly expressed.
|
|
40% – 49%
|
Simple factual approach showing understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s), resulting in students being largely prepared for study at Level 4. Narrow or misguided selection of material, with elements missing or inaccurate.
|
A limited interpretation and evaluation of information and ideas, showing emerging awareness of the nature of the area of study and different perspectives or approaches within it, although not always logical or coherent and with inaccuracies.
|
Evidence of reading, largely confined to essential texts, but mainly reliant on taught elements. Referencing may show inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies.
|
Ordered presentation in which relevant ideas / concepts are reasonably expressed.
|
|
Marginal fail
|
35% – 39%
|
Work shows limited but fragmentary understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s), for example through inaccuracies, inclusion of irrelevant material and/or absence of appropriate information.
|
Weak and at times flawed interpretation and evaluation of information and ideas, resulting in largely descriptive work that shows lack of awareness of the nature of the area of study and different perspectives or approaches within it.
|
Poor engagement with essential texts and no evidence of wider reading. Heavily reliant on taught elements. Inconsistent and weak use of referencing.
|
Work is loosely, and at times incoherently, structured, with information and ideas often poorly expressed.
|
|
Fail
|
20% – 34%
|
Unsatisfactory work showing weak and flawed understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s), for example through serious inaccuracies, inclusion of a significant amount of irrelevant material and/or absence of appropriate information.
|
Very weak interpretation and evaluation of information and ideas, resulting in descriptive work that is often illogical, invalid or irrelevant. Little awareness of the nature of the area of study and no appreciation of different perspectives or approaches within it.
|
Limited evidence of reading and/or reliance on inappropriate sources. Limited engagement with taught elements. Very poor use of referencing.
|
Work is poorly presented in a disjointed and incoherent manner. Information and ideas are very poorly expressed, with weak English and/or inappropriate style.
|
|
< 20%
|
Highly unsatisfactory work showing major gaps in understanding of the basic underlying concepts and principles of the subject(s). Inclusion of largely irrelevant material, absence of appropriate information and significant inaccuracies.
|
Work is largely irrelevant or inaccurate, characterised by descriptive text and unsubstantiated generalisations. Minimal or no use of evidence to back up views, showing complete lack of awareness of the nature of the area of study and different perspectives or approaches within it.
|
No evidence of reading or engagement with taught elements. Absent or incoherent referencing.
|
Work is extremely disorganised, with much of the content confusingly expressed. Very poor English and/or very inappropriate style.
|
