Distinction | | Well-chosen topic in an important but neglected area of research Very little use of technical jargon. Where these are used, they are in appropriate places and explained clearly; language and style suitable for a general public audience, highly coherent and compelling narrative Strong evidence of ability to present differing points of view, and to critically evaluate them Systematic use of appropriate evidence to support claims Strong evidence of one’s own original critical reflection
|
Excellent Distinction | 100 | Presentation reaches an exceptional level of achievement that significantly exceeds the standards described by the statements above. |
Good Distinction | 90 | Presentation exceeds the standards described by the above statements. |
Solid Distinction | 80 | Presentation is well described by the above statements. |
Low Distinction | 75 | Presentation mostly meets the standards described by the above statements |
Merit | | Largely well-chosen topic in an important area of research, but without identifying a neglected aspect
Limited use of technical jargon. Where these are used, they are mostly in appropriate places and mostly explained clearly; language and style mostly suitable for a general public audience, coherent and compelling narrative
Good evidence of ability to present differing points of view, and to critically evaluate them
Systematic use of appropriate evidence to support claims, but may be one-sided in places
Good evidence of one’s own original critical reflection
|
Good Merit | 68 | Presentation exceeds the standards described by the above statements, but does not meet standards for a distinction. |
Solid Merit | 65 | Presentation is well described by the above statements. |
Low Merit | 62 | Presentation mostly meets the standards described by the above statements |
Pass | | Chosen topic is relevant but not of high importance and not identifying a neglected area
Some use of technical jargon/acronyms that are not explained, or are in inappropriate places; language and style broadly suitable for a general public audience, but there is some incoherence in narrative
Some evidence of ability to present differing points of view, and to critically evaluate them
Some use of appropriate evidence to support claims, but may be somewhat one-sided in places
Some evidence of one’s own original critical reflection
|
Good Pass | 58 | Presentation exceeds the standards described by the above statements, but does not meet standards for a merit. |
Solid Pass | 55 | Presentation is well described by the above statements. |
Low Pass | 52 | Presentation mostly meets the standards described by the above statements |
Marginal Fail | | Chosen topic is somewhat relevant but clearly not of high importance and not identifying a neglected area
Much use of technical jargon/acronyms that are not explained and are inappropriately placed; language and style not suitable for a general public audience, and there is much incoherence in narrative
Weak evidence of ability to present differing points of view, and to critically evaluate them
Weak use of appropriate evidence to support claims, and is heavily one-sided in places
Weak evidence of one’s own original critical reflection
|
| 48 | Presentation exceeds the standards described by the above statements, but does not meet standards for a pass. |
| 45 | Presentation is well described by the above statements. |
| 42 | Presentation falls below the standards described by the above statements |
Clear Fail | | Chosen topic is not relevant, important nor neglected
Full of technical jargon/acronyms that are not explained and inappropriately placed; language and style clearly not suitable for a general public audience, illogical and incoherent narrative
Poor evidence of ability to present differing points of view, and to critically evaluate them
Very little to no use of appropriate evidence to support claims, and is extremely one-sided throughout
Very little to no evidence of one’s own original critical reflection
|
| 38 | Presentation exceeds the standards described by the above statements, but does not meet the standards for a marginal fail. |
| 32 | Presentation is well described by the above statements. |
| 10 | Presentation falls below the standards described by the above statements. |
Zero Marks | 0 | No presentation given. |