Breath of understanding of methods – Global Homework Experts

Extent of the justification of the
method(s) / design.
E.g. related to theory / literature
/ standard practices /
performance requirements
(5%)
Absence of justifications. Method(s) / design(s) are
superficially justified. E.g. stated
but not elaborated upon.
Critical Thinking Skills
(30%)
Method(s) / design justification mostly absent. Method(s) / design(s) are mostly justified. Method(s) / design(s) are consistently and well justified. Assessment Relevance of Results
(5%)
Absence of results. relevant to the work presented. Results are somewhat related / Results relate to the work presented and are generally logically
presented. In the main relevant to objectives.
Results highly relevant to project and objectives; show consistent thought in their selection and
are logically presented.
Results do not relate to work presented / lack validity Assessment Ability to describe results
(5%)
Absence of descriptions Descriptions of main result features and trends, but errors or
omissions are evident and superficial comments.
Consistent high standard of correct descriptions. Focussed on project relevant features. Descriptions are limited to statements of what results are, no descriptions of content or trends Assessment Discussion and interpretation of
results (own project): ability to
sum up and interpret them,
showing an awareness of
limitations of own work
(5%)
No evidence of any
discussion of results.
Some discussion of results, but
superficial and/or incorrect.
Detailed, thorough and
imaginative analysis with
insightful discussion
(appreciation of
limitations/errors/ or
conflicting requirements).
Appropriate routine analysis and discussion of results. In the main
aspects discussed show a good general understanding but may fail to
add specific factors of the project. Unexpected results are
commented upon.
Consistent sound analysis and discussion, showing excellent
understanding of the influence of different factors/parameters.
Unexpected results are interpreted and discussed.
A few attempts at discussion, but lacks evidence of
understanding.
Assessment Discussion and interpretation of
results in wider context: ability
to interpret own results in wider
context
(5%)
No (or very limited) linking to wider context shown in discussion An attempt to relate results obtained to literature reviewed.
Comments on their context relative to others’ work.
Results are clearly and consistently related to the literature and relevant sources. There is
discussion of the elements of the project as a whole, linking to a consistent theme thought the
project.
Assessment Reflection on original plan
(5%)
No reflection on original plan. Limited to factual statements in
reflection on original plan.
+ Reflection outlines risks and
how the risks are mitigated and
managed
Superficial reflection on original plan. Good reflection on original plan. E.g.. comments made about plan
implementation, improvements, mistakes, areas of delay and
adjustments made.
Reflection to the original plan takes into account measurable
outcomes. Comments on learning to take forward to future
planning.
Assessment STRUCTURE OF WRITTEN
DOCUMENT: Title; Summary;
Contents etc.; Introduction;
Logically sequenced body of text;
Conclusions; References;
Appendices; Page, Section; Well
balanced sections/ subheading
depth.
(10%)
No formal structure /
formatting of document.
Some structure and
formatting so that the
document is readable.
Structured well to suit material. Well-balanced sections, good use of appendices, consistent sub
heading depth. Figures and tables cross-referenced in text. Correctly generated contents, etc.
Appropriate page, section, sub-section, figure, table and equation numbering, headings and
captions. Consistent and appropriate typography, equations, pagination and layout. Clear and
appropriate styles.
rt writing skills
%)
Document of appropriate length and reasonable sequence of
sections. Largely correct use of page, section and table numbering.
Mostly consistent use of fonts for body text and headings, fair page
layout.
Attempt to conform to expected structural constraints, but some
important aspects are seriously flawed.
Assessment Adequate
(MSc pass)
Good
(Merit)
Very Good
(Distinction)
(Zero) (Hard Fail) Very Poor (Fail) Poor Less than adequate (Soft Fail) Excellent
(Distinction)
Outstanding
(Distinction)