7PE616 Language Learning: Theory and Practice Component 1: Coursework Assignment Brief | UoD

Very Poor 5-39%

Unsatisfactory 40-49%

Good/Satisfactory 50-59%

Very good 60-69%

Excellent 70-89%

Exceptional 90-100%

Subject knowledge:
 the ability to demonstrate an understanding of concepts and ideas gained through reading the SLA literature.

Inadequate subject knowledge, factual errors and conceptual gaps, minimal/no awareness of relevant issues and theory, some serious misunderstandings and errors.

Satisfactory subject knowledge to some extent;  some sound aspects but some of the following weaknesses are evident:  factual errors;  conceptual gaps;  some significant errors and misunderstandings.

Satisfactory subject knowledge, the work is generally sound but tends towards the factual or derivative, some significant errors and misunderstandings, possibly shown by conceptual gaps.

Demonstrates sound, current subject knowledge;  no significant errors in the application of concepts, minor errors and misunderstandings only.

Authoritative, current subject knowledge, a small number of misunderstandings/minor errors only.

Authoritative subject knowledge, work is close to the forefront of the subject and may be close to publishable or exhibitable quality, Only trivial or very minor errors.

Argument and Criticality:

the ability to shape knowledge to address the assignment; critical engagement with ideas and sources; development of a logical, persuasive argument; discussion of own viewpoint and use of sources to support the argument. 

a poor critical analysis and evaluation, no critical engagement with concepts and sources, no discernible argument developed, no appropriate support for points made

inadequate critical analysis and evaluation, little critical engagement with concepts and sources, tendency to describe or report  rather than show the strengths and weaknesses of arguments, no discussion of own point of view, argument is not explicit and sources not used to support it

a fair level of critical analysis and evaluation, some argument developed to address the assignment, some critical engagement with concepts and with sources (beyond describing and reporting),  Some attempt to discuss own point of view clearly,  some use of sources to support argument

a very good level of critical analysis and evaluation through a critical engagement with concepts and sources, own point of view discussed, consistent argument developed, competent and convincing use of sources to support points made

excellent critical analysis and evaluation through critical engagement with concepts and sources, own point of view clearly discussed, consistent and convincing argument developed using sources in an appropriate manner

a high level of critical analysis and evaluation, argument is comparable to that in publishable work, persuasive argument incorporating personal point of view, appropriate critical use of range of references appropriate to publishable work in the field

Presentation:
Ideas are presented clearly; signalling and signposting used to aid flow, language used is comprehensible  and appropriate; word choice,  grammar and punctuation are accurate

standard of presentation unacceptable;  ideas confused and/or incoherent – work lacks sound development

presentation does not meet the standard required;  ideas unclear and/or incoherent

a sound standard of presentation, ideas fairly clear and coherent

a very good standard of presentation;  ideas generally clear and coherent

excellent presentation, commendable clarity of ideas, thoughtful and effective presentation;  very strong sense of coherence and logic

high quality presentation;  impressive clarity of ideas;  excellent coherence and logic. 

Originality:
the ability to make a contribution to SLA and language learning by discovering new knowledge or applying existing knowledge in new ways; make new connections between concepts and facts, provide a new interpretation using existing /
known information

no evidence of originality

little evidence of originality

there may be minimal evidence of original thinking or originality

some evidence of original thinking or originality

significant originality

commendable originality

Referencing:
 In-text citations and reference list are complete and consistent, use of Harvard style

very poor referencing

Referencing may be inadequate.

Referencing is generally accurate.

Referencing is very good.

Referencing is excellent– consistently used, complete and accurate.

Referencing is consistently used, complete and accurate.

Research:  
the use of a wide range of appropriate SLA and language learning sources

inadequately researched

not well researched

adequately researched

well researched

well researched with a high level of technical competence – work is accurate and extensively supported by appropriate evidence

exceptionally well researched