|
Indicators
|
ZERO
|
FAIL
|
FAIL
|
Pass
|
Merit
|
Distinction
|
High Distinction
|
|
Objectives
|
Inaccurate and irrelevant content, knowledge or theory and concepts. Confused application of knowledge to problem. Very limited, inappropriate or no sources of information.
|
Relevance to the proposal weak. Proposal poorly or not justified with only descriptive use of knowledge. Little indication of relevance of theory and concepts, confused application of the knowledge to topic, limited referencing.
|
Relevance of the content to proposal topic is generally described but is weak in places and/or lacking depth. Little justification of why it is being done. May include unnecessary theory of techniques. Knowledge of theory and concepts is limited in relation to the study. A small number of relevant references.
|
Balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical Introduction confined to concepts that are not at the forefront of the discipline. A adequately supported by the literature albeit descriptively rather than critically.
|
Relevance of the content to proposal topic is well reasoned and relates taught facts/concepts. Introduces key background to the proposal and indicates why it is being done. Demonstrates a broad knowledge of theory and concepts, arguments and explanations are provided that are typically supported by the literature.
|
Clear independent insight and critical awareness of relevant concepts. Full introduction to background to the proposal, justification and gap in knowledge indicated. Broad and deep knowledge of theory and concepts, with relevant application. Draws on a wide range of sources.
|
Content is relevant and is fully evaluated. Full introduction to background to the proposal, justifying it and identifying a clear gap in knowledge. Broad and deep knowledge of theory and concepts, with creative and imaginative application. Draws on a wide range of sources which may themselves be evaluated.
|
|
Little or no attempt made at posing a hypothesis, aims or objectives.
|
A limited and insufficient attempt made to provide a hypothesis and/or aims and/or objectives but lacking understanding and very unclear.
|
An insufficient attempt made to provide a hypothesis and/or aims and objectives but lacking clarity
|
Defined hypothesis or clear aims and objectives or hypothesis which is not clearly addressed by aims and objectives
|
Defined hypothesis with aims and objectives that allow the testing of the hypothesis or very clear aims and objectives
|
Clearly and rationally defined hypothesis with aims and objectives.
|
Clearly defined and rationally hypothesis with specific achievable aims and objectives.
|
|
Lay Description
|
Little or no attempt made at writing the description.
|
Major errors in scientifically content and the text is not readable for the target audience. Meaningless terms or phrases used. Lack of structure between aims. Aims and objectives are insufficient described.
|
Scientifically content is incorrect and not easily readable for the target audience. Complex or meaningless terms used. Lack of structure between aims. Text written in the passive voice. Aims and objectives are insufficient described.
|
Scientifically content, but is not easily readable for the target audience. Some complex or meaningless terms used. Structure leads from point to point but maybe presented in the passive voice. Aims and objectives are adequately described, may not be understandable by the general public.
|
Scientifically content and detail, may not be easily readable for the target audience. Some complex terms used. Structure leads from point to point but maybe presented in the passive voice. Aims and objectives are described in a way the general public would understand.
|
Scientifically content and has depth and detail, and is easily readable for the target audience. Avoids complex or meaningless terms and phrase. Structure is logical from point to point but maybe presented in the passive voice. Aims and objectives are described in a way the general public would understand.
|
Content is scientifically correct and written in an easily readable style for the target audience. Avoids complex or meaningless terms and phrase. Text is logically, flows and is presented in the active voice. Aims and objectives are be clearly and understandable by the general public.
|
|
Technical Summary
|
Minimal attempt made to describe experiments to be performed, No Gantt Chart provided, no details of controls or repeats.
|
An attempt made to describe experiments to be performed but lacking key information, details of appropriate controls. May be disorganised and/or contain inaccuracies. A Gantt chart may be provided but is not informative.
|
A limited account of the experiments to be performed presented. Some information may be lacking and there may be some inaccuracies. Some information on controls and number of repeats.
A Gantt chart provided which may contain errors.
|
A good account of the experiments that will be performed including information on controls and number of repeats presented.
A fairly complete Gantt chart provided (may contain a few minor errors).
|
A very good account of the experiments that will be performed to meet your objectives, including details of specialist facilities required, with references to methods where appropriate. Details of controls and number of repeats. Appropriate Gantt chart provided.
(may miss a few aspects)
|
An excellent account of the experiments that will be performed to meet your objectives and test your hypothesis, including details of specialist facilities required, with references to methods where appropriate. Details of controls and number of repeats. Detailed appropriate Gantt chart providing clear evidence of multitasking (minor errors).
|
An exceptional concise account of the experiments that will be performed to meet your objectives and test your hypothesis, including details of specialist facilities required, with references to methods where appropriate. Details of controls and number of repeats. Detailed appropriate Gantt chart providing clear evidence of multitasking.
|
|
Data handling and statistical analysis
|
No or minimal attempt made on presentation and organization of data. May not be the most appropriate.
|
An attempt made for presentation and organization of data although not the most appropriate.
|
Some reasonable suggestions made for presentation and organization of data. Some omissions. May not consider statistical analysis.
|
Reasonable suggestions made for presentation and organization of data, may not consider statistical analysis fully.
|
An appreciation of appropriate presentation and organization of data and consideration of statistical analysis, which is mainly correct.
|
An appreciation of appropriate presentation and organization of data and consideration of statistical analysis with consideration given to the distribution of the data sets to be generated, which is mainly correct.
|
An appreciation of appropriate presentation and organization of data and correct statistical analysis with consideration given to the distribution of the data sets to be generated.
|
|
Scientific Integrity, ethics, health and safety including risk assessment
|
Few aspects covered, may include mention of risk assessment. No risk assessment carried out. Inaccuracies present.
|
No risk assessment carried out or incomplete or inaccurate. Other aspects, eg ethical considerations incomplete or missing. May be inaccuracies.
|
An incomplete consideration of ethical implications.
Risk assessment attempted but contains omissions or inaccuracies.
|
An incomplete but thought out consideration of ethical implications.
Risk assessment carried with few omissions or inaccuracies.
|
An fairly complete, thought out consideration of ethical implications of the project.
Risk assessment carried with minor omissions or inaccuracies.
|
A consideration of ethical implications of the project.
Risk assessment complete.
|
A complete consideration of all aspects of ethical implications of the project.
Risk assessment considered relevant to materials used. Detailed, complete risk assessment provided
|
