Program level criteria | HD | DN | CR | P | FL |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Justification |
Sophisticated and coherent The claims, rationale and relevant facts are strong and sophisticated. This argument is detailed and evidences advanced critical thinking. |
Extensive and clear The justification has related relevant and detailed facts to the proposition or rationale. It is a well-researched and careful argument. |
Critical and clear The relationship between the facts and the rationale are clear – the claim is supported and sensible. |
Evident Reflection and examination of facts are evident a reason is given. |
Unjustified No justification made – no clear argument or point. |
Analysis |
Systematic and skilful Data/evidence is organised and relations are interpreted. Analysis of evidence reveals insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to topic. |
Thorough and effective Data/evidence reveals important patterns, differences, or similarities. Relations between data are highlighted and thorough. |
Effective descriptions/relations Data is described, organised and clear patterns, differences, or similarities are identified. |
Basic definitions/analysis Research/ data/content is described. Relations between parts of the data and what they may mean are identified. |
Lacks organisation Conducts a basic review. Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/ or is unrelated to focus. |
Evaluation |
Comprehensively and insightfully Comprehensive evaluation of solutions is deep, insightful and thorough (contains thorough and insightful explanation) and deeply considers: history of problem, reviews logic/ reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution. |
Thoroughly explains Evaluation critically examines, analyses and identifies key elements. A clear statement of judgement supported by facts. Determines broader, longer-term impact/change. |
Effectively explains Evaluation of solutions is adequate containing a relevant explanation and explains: history of problem, reviews logic/ reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution. |
Accurately explains Evaluation of solutions is brief; lacking some depth and includes descriptions of: history of problem, reviews logic/ reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution. |
Narrow explanation Evaluation of solutions is superficial (for example, contains cursory, surface level explanation) and includes the following: considers history of problem, reviews logic/ reasoning, examines feasibility of solution, and weighs impacts of solution. |
Selection and description of knowledge |
Skillful and proficient Discriminately selects pertinent literature and synthesises significant and less explored aspects of knowledge. |
Proficient and effective Wisely selects key literature and succinctly describes significant aspects of knowledge. |
Clear and coherent Selects relevant literature and coherently describes key aspects of knowledge. |
Coherent Selects related literature and describes fundamental knowledge in generalist terms. |
Imprecise and vague Selects irrelevant or mediocre literature. Describes knowledge in vague or incoherent terms. |
Use of literature or Research |
Advanced and Judicious Demonstrates an advanced understanding of the content and theory. Judiciously selects compelling content from credible sources to convey a persuasive stance. |
Credible and Scholarly Makes smooth and convincing connections between (facts, theories, etc) to demonstrate extended knowledge. Selects appealing content from credible sources to support a stance. |
Relevant and Valid Connects relevant literature to evidence a sound understanding. Uses credible sources to support valid ideas appropriate for the discipline. |
Relevant and Indistinct Includes a collection of relevant literature. Uses sources to develop and explore ideas. Simple ideas are described. |
Undiscerning and Invalid Undiscerning selection and use of literature to state an unconvincing or invalid argument. |