Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2020 2:03:11 GMT
Examples of Generalised Assessment Criteria
The criteria below are not associated with any particular learning outcome.
Criteria for a postgraduate award
This is more like a marking scheme, but counts as assessment criteria since it does attempt to describe the qualities of work itself.
70% or more
Excellent.
The work will be of very high standard and will reflect knowledge and autonomous development of reasoning processing well beyond that given in class or in standard works. There is clear evidence of depth and breadth in reading.
60 – 69%
Credit.
Very good work which is well developed beyond that given; demonstrates sound knowledge and reasoning; depth and breadth of reading
50 – 59%
Average.
The work is reasonably competent, though there may be some weaknesses. Knowledge is adequate and while it demonstrates reading beyond the class or in standard works, it might be patchy or not broad.
40 – 49%
Compensatable fail.
There is knowledge of core material but the knowledge and the processing of knowledge is weak or limited. There is only little evidence of wider reading.
39% and below
Fail.
The work does not reach the standards in Master’s level level descriptors. There is no evidence of further reading or considered thought about the subject matter.
‘Criteria’ for an oral presentation
The list below is the kind of list that students might be given as ‘assessment criteria’ for an oral presentation.
This list does not really qualify to be termed ‘criteria’ since there is no means of telling whether a student has performed satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily on each requirement.
Clarity of ideas in the presentation;
Clarity of speech;
Quality of argument;
Qualify of introduction;
Quality of conclusion;
Eye contact with the audience;
Use of overhead slides or Power Point;
Management of questions – etc.
The criteria below are not associated with any particular learning outcome.
Criteria for a postgraduate award
This is more like a marking scheme, but counts as assessment criteria since it does attempt to describe the qualities of work itself.
70% or more
Excellent.
The work will be of very high standard and will reflect knowledge and autonomous development of reasoning processing well beyond that given in class or in standard works. There is clear evidence of depth and breadth in reading.
60 – 69%
Credit.
Very good work which is well developed beyond that given; demonstrates sound knowledge and reasoning; depth and breadth of reading
50 – 59%
Average.
The work is reasonably competent, though there may be some weaknesses. Knowledge is adequate and while it demonstrates reading beyond the class or in standard works, it might be patchy or not broad.
40 – 49%
Compensatable fail.
There is knowledge of core material but the knowledge and the processing of knowledge is weak or limited. There is only little evidence of wider reading.
39% and below
Fail.
The work does not reach the standards in Master’s level level descriptors. There is no evidence of further reading or considered thought about the subject matter.
‘Criteria’ for an oral presentation
The list below is the kind of list that students might be given as ‘assessment criteria’ for an oral presentation.
This list does not really qualify to be termed ‘criteria’ since there is no means of telling whether a student has performed satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily on each requirement.
Clarity of ideas in the presentation;
Clarity of speech;
Quality of argument;
Qualify of introduction;
Quality of conclusion;
Eye contact with the audience;
Use of overhead slides or Power Point;
Management of questions – etc.