Assessment Grading Criteria: Evaluating Academic Work

Outstanding presentation & report structure, with numbered paragraphs, list of contents/figures &appendices.

Articulate & fluent academic writing style with ideas cross referenced. No grammatical / spelling errors.

Outstanding selection of quality sources, well beyond core & recommended resources.

Outstanding standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Outstanding exploration of topic showing excellent knowledge & understanding through thorough & appropriate research.

Impressive choice and range of appropriate content.

Outstanding business insight & application.

Outstanding integration of literature/data into work.  Very impressive breadth and depth.  

Outstanding level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection.

Highly developed/ focused work, with thorough consideration of all possibilities and aspects of the topic.

Excellent presentation & report structure, with numbered paragraphs, list of contents/figures, appendices & cross referencing.

Excellent selection of quality sources. Evidence of independent searching beyond core & recommended resources.

Excellen standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.Excellent level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated.

Evidence of appropriate reading.

Excellent integration of literature/data into work.  Impressive breadth and depth. Excellent level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. Clearly developed points all of which are relevant to the top

Very good presentation & report structure, paragraphing, use of numbering, list of contents/figures, appendices & cross referencing.

Fluent academic writing style.

Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes.

Very good selection of mostly quality sources beyond the recommended resources. Few irrelevant/poor quality sources used.

Very good standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list. Very good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated.

Covers most relevant points & issues.

Few errors / omissions in content/calculations. Very good business insight & application.

Very good integration of literature/data into work. Very good use of literature/data with breadth and depth.   

Very good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection. A few less relevant ideas/points or would benefit from further development &/or evaluation/comparison.

Good clear presentation & report structure, use of numbering & appendices.

Writing is mainly good with some flow and spelling &/ or grammatical errors seldom impede understanding.

Good selection of quality sources but some irrelevant/poor quality sources used beyond the recommended reading.

Good standard of Harvard referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system.

Accuracy of in-text references & full details shown in Reference list.

Good grasp of the topic & some of its implications presented.

Good knowledge & understanding is demonstrated. Minor errors / omissions in content/ calculations.

Good business insight & application.

Good integration of literature/data into work. Good use of literature/data with adequate breadth and depth.  

Good level of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but more ideas/points could be addressed or developed further.

Satisfactory basic report structure.

Not always written clearly & has grammatical & / or spelling errors which impede understanding.

See CASE with feedback Satisfactory: Some quality sources used. Research did not go beyond the recommended sources.

Satisfactory referencing within text & consistent use of Harvard referencing system

Satisfactory content / level of knowledge of the topic. Addresses most of the task. Some errors / omissions in content/ calculations. May benefit from further research.

Satisfactory business insight & application. Limited integration with literature/ data

Use of literature/data but limited in breadth or depth. Satisfactory: basic evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection but some points irrelevant or superficially made so need further development.

Marginal Fail Weak report format. Limited or poor structure.

Muddled work with many spelling & / or grammatical errors.

Must see CASE with feedback Weak: Limited evidence of appropriate research. Some use made of recommended reading, but the majority of sources are irrelevant/of poor quality.

Weak use of Harvard referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback Weak: limited content / knowledge/ calculations. Limited or muddled understanding of the topic/question.

Does not meet all the learning outcomes.

Weak: unsatisfactory evidence of business application & insight

Work needs to show better links between practical application and theory.

Weak: limited evidence of discussion/analysis/ critical evaluation &/or reflection.

More development & comment needed. May need to do more than describe.

Clear Fail Inadequate report format and poor paragraphing / signposting.

Inappropriate writing style

Poorly written &/or poor spelling & grammar.  

Must see CASE with feedback Inadequate: Little evidence of appropriate research. Few quality sources used from recommended reading. Inadequate use of Harvard referencing with many errors &/or inconsistencies.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback Inadequate: Lacking in relevant content/ knowledge/calculations. Content irrelevant / inaccurate. Does not meet all the learning outcomes.

Inadequate: Lackevidence of business application & insight. Some literature missing or irrelevant to topic. Inadequate: Lacking / inadequate level of discussion/ analysis/critical evaluation & /or reflection. Descriptive.

Must see CASE with feedback

Little or Nothing of merit

Nothing of merit: Poorly written work, lacking structure, paragraphing / signposting.

Many inaccuracies in spelling & grammar.          

Must see CASE with feedback

Nothing of merit: No evidence of research. No use made of recommended reading. Sources are irrelevant & of poor quality. No or little attempt to use the recommended Harvard referencing system.

Must see CASE/ Information Managers (LRC) with feedback Nothing of merit: Unsatisfactory level of knowledge demonstrated.  Content used irrelevant / not appropriate/ to the topic. Does not meet the learning outcomes.