KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING

CREATIVITY & NOVELTY

PRACTICAL APPLICATION

ACADEMIC WRITING

1^st Class Marks

Literature review is outstanding, with evidence of critical analysis. All sources are highly relevant and of high quality. Excellent understanding of the game and the papers reviewed is clearly demonstrated.

The assignment, and the experiment it reports, demonstrate a great deal of creativity and originality. The design addresses a novel question that has relevance for the real world or has the potential to contribute significantly to the academic debate, and this relevance and novelty is fully explained.

Experimental choices are very well justified. A comprehensive explanation is given for the experimental decisions made. No relevant information is omitted from the experimental design.

Very clearly written and concise throughout. Excellent grammar and sentence construction. Properly referenced throughout with a full and accurate reference list. Very well organised with a good structure and the argument flows.

2.1. Marks

Literature review is good. All sources are relevant and of high quality. Good understanding of the game and the papers reviewed is clearly demonstrated with only limited errors.

The assignment, and the experiment it reports, demonstrate some creativity and originality. The design addresses a fairly novel question that is relevant for the academic debate and this relevance and novelty is partially explained.

Experimental choices are mostly well justified with a clear explanation given for most of the experimental decisions made. Little to no relevant information is omitted from the experimental design.

Generally well written and referenced with some minor errors in grammar and/or sentence construction or a tendency to be verbose and/or vague at times. Generally well organised with a good structure and the argument largely flows. Mostly well referenced with some minor errors and a close to full and accurate reference list.

2.2. Marks

Literature review is competent. Sources are of mixed relevance, with a reliance on lower quality sources. Some understanding of the game and the papers reviewed is demonstrated but there are some errors.

The assignment, and the experiment it reports, demonstrate limited evidence of creativity and originality. The design addresses a question that has already been largely addressed in the literature. The relevance and novelty is not explained.

Experimental choices are sometimes justified. Explanations of experimental decisions are of mixed clarity. Some relevant information is omitted from the experimental design.

Poorly written, with weak sentence construction and grammatical errors. Writing lacks clarity, parts of the assignment are hard to follow. The assignment is poorly organised with some problems with structure. The line of argument is sometimes difficult to follow. Some missing references or errors, incomplete or inaccurate reference list

Third Class Marks

Literature is mostly descriptive with little to no analysis. Failure to consult a sufficient variety of sources; heavily reliant on low quality, poorly selected sources. Limited understanding of the game and the papers reviewed is demonstrated with frequent evidence of misunderstanding.

The assignment, and the experiment it reports, demonstrate very limited evidence of creativity and originality. The design addresses a question that has already been addressed fully in the literature. The relevance and novelty is not explained.

Experimental choices are rarely justified. Explanations of experimental decisions are of limited clarity and show evidence of misunderstanding. A great deal of relevant information is omitted from the experimental design.

Writing style is very weak with poor sentence construction and grammar. Writing is verbose or vague and hard to follow throughout. Serious problems with organisation and structure. The line of argument is mostly difficult to follow. Poor referencing throughout, some references missing and an incomplete and inaccurate reference list.

Fail

Literature review severely lacking. Failure to consult any relevant sources. Very serious misunderstanding of the game and the papers reviewed is demonstrated, or the game is not explained.

The assignment, and the experiment it reports, demonstrate no evidence of creativity or originality. The relevance and novelty is not explained.

Explanation of the experimental choices is severely lacking. Decisions and explanations show severely limited or no evidence of understanding. Almost all relevant information is omitted from the experimental design.

Very poorly written, with weak sentence construction, numerous grammatical errors and fails to make much sense. No structure or organisation and no line of argument presented. Minimal referencing, numerous referencing errors of inaccurate and incomplete or missing reference list.