Research Question and Objectives

0-24

25-34

35-49

50-59 (Pass)

60-69 (Merit)

70-79 (Distinction)

80 - 100 (Distinction)

Not clearly stated, confusing, unrelated to title, difficult to
understand, inappropriate study

Very limited lacks
effective focus
and clear rational
Too ambitious or
too basic

Poorly defined and presented, some confusion in rationale

Clearly stated, some relevance, straightforward

Well stated purpose, appropriate and realistic explanation of the context /problem/case

Very clearly stated, feasible, innovative

Exceptionally well
stated, interesting,
sophisticated, original, full and convincing justification

Literature Review

Inadequate and/or
irrelevant evidence, virtually no evidence of appropriate
selection, no discussion of selection criteria,
unsystematic or
omitted referencing

Rudimentary coverage, very limited evidence of understanding

Lacks structure with clear gaps, no discussion of
selection criteria,
unsystematic
referencing.
Limited evidence
of understanding
and evaluation of
the selected
literature.

A basic coverage of relevant literature.
Inconsistent referencing, The literature offers some additional understanding the
problem/ project
/ development of
project /case
study

Good coverage, awareness of relevant prior research, clear structure, stated selection criteria, consistent referencing, clarity of understanding, the literature, informs and adds to the development of the project /case study

Comprehensive and inclusive use of highly relevant literature, good
structure, clearly articulated discussion that relates to the topic of research

Exceptional section that fully demonstrates a discerning, creative and critical engagement with what has been read.

Theory and Research Methodology

No methodological and theoretical basis, no discussion or justification of approach, highly inadequate, no evidence of critical
evaluation of
sources and data

Irrelevant, very limited
explanation of approach to the study

Irrelevant methodological and theoretical basis, poorly explained approach

Some evidence of a methodological and theoretical basis, reasonably explained.

Clear and relevant methodological and theoretical basis, appropriate approach, useful and appropriate
information. An awareness of strengths and weaknesses of
approach.

Very clear and relevant methodological and theoretical basis, persuasive rational for research approach, or methods used for the development of a project/ case study, evidence of critical evaluation

Provides excellent
theoretical and methodological understanding rigorously argued approach, exceptional understanding evident

Analysis of Primary and/or Secondary Data

None, totally inappropriate and
unrelated

Extremely limited
collection of data,
poorly identified
data, no criteria
for evaluation, next-to-nothing analysis

Casual acquisition
of data, lacks
structure, limited
evaluation against
unclear or
inappropriate
criteria, mostly
descriptive

Standard approach to collection, limited
validity, limited and basic, but acceptable evaluation or techniques

Standard approach to collection, clear validity and reliability, critical
analysis using appropriate techniques and appropriate criteria

Advanced approaches of collection, clear validity, critical and robust analysis using appropriate techniques and appropriate criteria, fully justified

Outstanding and rigorous analytical techniques and approaches, evidence of creation of new approaches (if appropriate), thorough and rigorous analysis, exceptionally well justified

Discussion and Findings

No attempt to relate findings to theory

Findings are not
effective, discussion shows no learning from the evidence
presented

Discussion shows a very limited awareness of theory and attempt to link this to the findings. There is a very limited discussion of the implications, and limitations of the research or development

Adequate level of critical analysis and reflection on personal learning. Adequate discussion of implications of the findings and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research or development

Some links with theory, discussion justified with appropriate evidence, good critical analysis of the implications of the findings, and reflection on the strengths and
weaknesses of the
research or development

Comprehensive links with theory, complete
justification with appropriate evidence, very
good critical analysis of the implications of the findings, and reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the
research or development

Sophisticated and
critical discussion
of the issues involved,
outstanding reflection on the strengths and
weaknesses of the research, offers
fresh/new insights on the problem or development

Presentation and Structure

Mostly inarticulate
and incomprehensible,
very hard to understand and
follow, confused
and unstructured

Poor presentation,
many spelling and
grammatical
errors, difficult to
understand,
inappropriately
structured

Basic layout, inconsistent flow, few spelling and grammatical errors, poor citation and reference list, poor structure, confused.

Adequate use of graphics and charts, good command of spelling and grammar, some typos, some omissions or inconsistencies in reference list, most sections have a logical flow and structure

Clear and effective use of graphics and charts, no spelling or grammatical
errors, appropriate and consistent referencing, logical, clear and coherent structure

Very good logical flow and cohesion, Discerning use of graphics, charts and tables, no
spelling of grammatical errors, appropriate and consistent referencing, well developed and appropriate structure

Outstanding logical flow, excellent use of
language, appealing and
effective use of graphics, charts
and tables, appropriate and consistent referencing, very skilfully developed
structure, outstanding
logical flow, most effective use of
conventions appropriate for purpose

Conclusion

Conclusions are not justified by evidence, they do not relate to the topic of the dissertation, their
development is unclear and incomplete, no
recommendations
/opportunities for
further development

Conclusions
poorly justified by
evidence, they
have a poor
relationship to the
topic of the
dissertation, their
development is of
poor quality,
recommendations
/ opportunities
for further
development are
not of practical
use

Conclusions have
limited
justification in the
evidence, there is
limited
relationship to
existing theory
and the topic of
the dissertation,
very limited
recommendations
/ opportunities
for further
development

Adequate attempt
to use evidence to
reach appropriate
conclusions that
relate to the topic
of the dissertation,
conclusions may
be general and
uncritical, adequate
recommendations
/ opportunities
for further
development

Clear conclusions relating to the
topic of the dissertation and justified by the evidence. Identifies clear recommendation / opportunities for further development

Clear conclusions with a very good relationship to the
topic of the dissertation and justified well by the evidence. Identifies clear and practical recommendation
/ opportunities
for further
development

Exceptional conclusions that relate strongly to the topic of the dissertation with
excellent justification in the evidence. Conclusions add new insight to the topic of the dissertation and identify clear and practical recommendations / opportunities for further development