BU7069 Innovation in Health and Social Care Assignment Brief | UoC

90–100

(Distinction)

80–89

(Distinction)

70–79

(Distinction)

60–69

(Merit)

50–59

(Pass)

40–49

(Fail)

30—39

(Fail)

20–29

(Fail)

10–19

(Fail)

0–9

(Fail)

Knowledge

(25%) 

Knowledge and  

understanding of  innovation theory  and practice. 

SCOPE: Critical  

engagement with  wider reading and  sources to  

support work.

Insightful and 

sophisticated  

engagement with  research and/or  practice  

pertaining to  

field(s) and  

disciplines of  

study. 

Sophisticated  

demonstration  

and application of  knowledge of  

innovation in  

health and social  care, offering  

innovative and/or original insights,  possibly  

unparalleled in  

their application.  

A sophisticated  

degree of  

synthesis, quite  

likely of complex  and disparate  

material.

Advanced 

engagement with research and or  

practice  

pertaining to the  field(s) and  

disciplines of  

study. 

Accomplished  

demonstration of  knowledge of 

innovation in  

health and social  care, contributing  towards  

innovative and/or original insights.  

Extremely high  

degree of  

synthesis of  

research material.

A high degree of engagement with  research and/or  practice  

pertaining to  

field(s) and  

disciplines of  

study related to  innovation in  

health and social  care. 

Excellent  

demonstration of knowledge, of  

innovation in  

health and social  care with the  

possibility for  

new insights.  

A high degree of  synthesis relating  to research  

material.

Sustained 

engagement with research and/or  practice  

pertaining to  

disciplines of  

study. 

An assured  

understanding of  innovation in  

health and social  care supported by  critical analysis  

with the potential  for new insights.  

A sustained  

application and  

depth of research  material and  

accuracy in detail.

Engagement with relevant  

knowledge  

pertaining to  

discipline and key  issues. 

Satisfactory  

understanding of  innovation in  

health and social  care and  

conceptual  

awareness  

enabling critical  analysis.  

Response is  

appropriate and  addresses the  

range of learning  outcomes, where  the knowledge is  accurate. Work  

may lack  

sustained depth.

Unsatisfactory 

engagement with  relevant  

knowledge  

pertaining to  

discipline and key issues. 

Insufficient  

understanding  

and conceptual  

awareness.  

Response does  

not address the  

full range of  

learning  

outcomes,  

inaccurate and/or missing  

knowledge at  

times.

Inadequate 

coverage of  

relevant issues,  

inconsistent  

understanding  

shown. 

Inadequate  

understanding of  underpinning  

issues, weak and  underdeveloped  analysis.  

Response does  

not address  

learning  

outcomes,  

inaccurate and  

missing  

knowledge.

Lack of relevant 

research and little  understanding  

shown. 

Very weak  

understanding of  key issues, work  lacks critical  

oversight. 

Substandard  

engagement with  research material,  misunderstanding  evident.

Severely lacking in relevant  

research and  

underpinning  

knowledge. 

Slight  

understanding of  key issues, little  

attempt at critical  analysis. 

Slight  

engagement with research material,  inaccurate  

knowledge and  

misunderstanding  throughout.

Negligible 

understanding of  key issues, which  is likely to show  no critical  

analysis or  

knowledge.  

No engagement  with learning  

outcomes and  

assessment brief. 

90–100

(Distinction)

80–89

(Distinction)

70–79

(Distinction)

60–69

(Merit)

50–59

(Pass)

40–49

(Fail)

30—39

(Fail)

20–29

(Fail)

10–19

(Fail)

0–9

(Fail)

Analysis

(30%) 

Critical analysis  

and interpretation  of innovation in  

health and social  care. 

SCOPE: 

Appropriate 

analytical 

discussion and 

interpretation  

of source  

material. 

A sophisticated 

command of  

imaginative,  

insightful, original or creative  

interpretations. 

An unparalleled  level of analysis  

and evaluation. 

A sophisticated  

cogent argument  offering new and  original  

contributions to  knowledge.

Advanced 

command of  

imaginative,  

insightful, original or creative  

interpretations. 

Accomplished  

level of analysis  

and evaluation. 

A highly  

developed cogent  argument with  

the potential to  

bring new and  

original  

contributions to  knowledge.

An excellent 

command of  

imaginative,  

original or  

creative  

interpretations. 

A high degree of  analysis and  

evaluation. 

A sustained  

argument with  

the possibility for  new insights to  

knowledge.

A convincing and sustained  

command of  

accepted critical  positions. 

A developed  

conceptual  

understanding  

that enables the  student to find  

new meanings in  established  

hypotheses. 

A developed and  sustained  

argument with  

the possibility for  new insights to  

knowledge.

An ability to deal with complex  

issues both  

systematically  

and creatively. 

A satisfactory  

evaluation of  

current research  and critical  

scholarship in the  discipline. 

Ability to devise a  coherent critical/  analytical  

argument is  

supported with  

evidence.

A lack of ability to deal with  

complex issues. 

Judgements not  fully  

substantiated and  understood. 

The ability to  

construct an  

argument is  

underdeveloped  and not  

supported fully  

with evidence.

A lack of ability to deal with  

complex issues. 

Judgements are  not substantiated  or understood 

and the critical  

position is not  

made clear. 

Weak  

interpretation of  research and  

work is not  

supported with  

evidence.

Very weak 

analysis, possibly  limited to a single  perspective. 

Substandard  

argument, work  lacks scholarly  

analysis and  

interpretation. 

Episodes of self 

contradiction  

and/or confusion.

Slight indication of ability to deal  with key issues. 

Slight analytical  

engagement and  reflection, work  

lacks criticality  

throughout. 

Lacks evidence,  

work shows self contradiction and confusion.

Negligible 

coverage of  

learning  

outcomes and  

assessment brief. 

No attempt to  

interpret  

research  

material.

Reflection

(25%) 

Critical reflection  of the attributes  and skills of an  

innovator in  

health and social  care. 

SCOPE: 

Intellectual  

engagement with  the processes by  which the work is  realised.

Insightful 

response to  

critical self 

evaluation,  

reflecting  

exemplary  

professional  

and/or personal  standards of  

engagement and  conduct  

throughout. 

Sophisticated  

application of  

new insights (or  highly advanced  application of  

established ways  of working 

pertaining to the  discipline).

Advanced level of critical self 

evaluation,  

reflecting  

professional  

and/or personal  standards of 

engagement and  conduct  

throughout. 

Accomplished  

application of  

new insights (or 

advanced  

application of  

established ways  of working 

pertaining to the  discipline).

A high degree of critical self 

evaluation,  

reflecting  

professional and/  or personal  

standards of  

engagement and  conduct. 

Excellent  

application of  

new insights (or a  highly skilled  

application of  

established ways  of working  

pertaining to the  discipline).

An assured level of self 

evaluation,  

reflecting  

sustained  

professional  

and/or personal  standards of  

engagement and conduct. 

Assured  

application of  

new or  

established ways  of working. 

Work evidences  thorough  

independent  

planning and  

execution of key  tasks.

A satisfactory self evaluation,  

reflecting  

appropriate  

standards of  

professional  

and/or personal  engagement and conduct. 

Satisfactory  

engagement with  established ways  of working  

pertaining to the  discipline. 

Independent  

planning and  

execution.

Unsatisfactory 

self-evaluation of  professional  

and/or personal  engagement and  conduct. 

Unsatisfactory  

engagement with  established ways  of working  

pertaining to the  discipline. 

Insufficient  

planning, work  

not executed in  

full.

Weak self 

evaluation of  

professional  

and/or personal 

engagement and  conduct. 

Weak  

engagement with  established ways  of working  

pertaining to the  discipline. 

Inadequate  

planning.

Very weak self 

evaluation of  

professional  

and/or personal 

engagement and  conduct. 

Substandard  

engagement with  established ways  of working. 

Inappropriate  

execution of  

work.

Slight evidence of self-evaluation of  professional  

and/or personal  engagement and  conduct. 

Inappropriate  

execution of key  tasks and work  

may be a cause  

for concern.

Negligible 

evidence of self evaluation of  

professional  

and/or personal  engagement and  conduct. 

No engagement  with established  ways of working. 

In professional or equivalent  

contexts the  

work will be  

cause for  

concern.

90–100

(Distinction)

80–89

(Distinction)

70–79

(Distinction)

60–69

(Merit)

50–59

(Pass)

40–49

(Fail)

30—39

(Fail)

20–29

(Fail)

10–19

(Fail)

0–9

(Fail)

Communication

(10%) 

Communication  skills: creative,  

written and  

presented. 

SCOPE:  

Communication  of intent,  

adherence to  

academic subject  discipline  

protocols

A sophisticated 

response, the 

academic form  

matches that 

expected in  

published and 

professional  

work. 

Mastery and  

command of 

specialist skills  

pertaining to the academic form. 

Idiomatic and  

highly coherent, 

scholarly  

expression.

Persuasive 

articulation,  

where the  

academic form  

largely matches  

that expected in published work. 

Accomplished  

command of 

specialist skills  

pertaining to the academic form,  

discipline and 

context(s).

A high degree of skill, the 

academic form  

shows 

exceptional  

standards of 

presentation or  

delivery. 

A high command  of specialist skills  pertaining to the  academic form,  

discipline and  

context(s).

Secure and 

sustained 

expression,  

observing 

appropriate  

academic form. 

Fluent and  

persuasive 

expression of  

ideas, work 

shows flair. 

Assured  

interpretation of  the style and  

genre, content,  

form and  

technique for  

specialist and 

non-specialist  

audiences as 

appropriate.

Good expression, observing 

appropriate  

academic form. 

Predominantly  

accurate in 

spelling and  

grammar, ideas 

communicated  

appropriately and  satisfactorily. 

Satisfactory  

application of 

specialist skills  

with effective 

technical control.

Unsatisfactory 

demonstration 

and application of  key 

communication  

skills. 

Recurring errors  in spelling and 

grammar, ideas  

limited and 

underdeveloped,  possibly poor 

paraphrasing. 

Skills  

demonstrated are insufficient for  

the task and work may lack  

technical  

judgement.

Significant errors evident in the 

academic form. 

Weaknesses in  

spelling and 

grammar, lacks  

coherence and 

structure,  

possibly poor 

paraphrasing. 

Work lacks  

technical 

judgement.

Very weak 

observation of 

academic  

conventions. 

Severe  

deficiencies in  

spelling and  

grammar and  

expression 

undermines  

meaning, possibly poor  

paraphrasing. 

Work lacks  

technical 

judgement.

Slight observation of academic 

conventions. 

Weak expression,  mostly incoherent  and fails to secure meaning, poor  

paraphrasing. 

Slight  

engagement with  the work.

Negligible 

observation of 

academic  

conventions. 

Incoherent and  

confused 

expression, poor  paraphrasing. 

No discernible  

demonstration of  key skills  

(pertaining to the discipline). 

No engagement  with the work.

90–100

(Distinction)

80–89

(Distinction)

70–79

(Distinction)

60–69

(Merit)

50–59

(Pass)

40–49

(Fail)

30—39

(Fail)

20–29

(Fail)

10–19

(Fail)

0–9

(Fail)

Sources

(10%) 

Reading and use  of appropriate  

sources. 

SCOPE: Accurate  and consistent 

acknowledgment and referencing  of sources.

Extensive range 

and sophisticated  use of 

appropriate  

sources. 

Unparalleled  

standard of 

research both in  breadth and 

depth, which  

demonstrates a 

very high  

intellectual 

engagement and  rigour.

Extensive range 

and use of 

appropriate  

sources. 

Extremely well  

referenced 

research both in  breadth and 

depth, which  

demonstrates 

high intellectual  engagement and  rigour.

Substantial range and sophisticated  use of sources. 

Well-referenced  research both in  breadth and  

depth, which 

demonstrates  

clear intellectual rigor.

An assured range of reading, with  sustained  

reference to key  and core texts.  

The work may  

include current  

research at the  

leading edge of  

the discipline. 

Very good  

referencing in 

breadth and/or  

depth, which 

shows a very  

good level of 

intellectual rigor. 

Sources  

acknowledged 

appropriately  

according to 

academic  

conventions of 

referencing.

A satisfactory 

range of core and  basic texts, which references  

current research  in the discipline. 

Sources  

acknowledged 

appropriately  

according to 

academic  

conventions of 

referencing. The  work may contain  minor errors and  be limited in  

breadth, depth  

and intellectual  

rigor.

Insufficient range of source reading  of core and basic texts. 

Sources not  

acknowledged in line with  

academic 

conventions of  

referencing.

Reading material is inadequate and  may not include  core and basic  

texts. 

Sources  

inaccurately 

referenced.

Very weak 

engagement with source reading of  core and basic  

texts. 

Inconsistent  

and/or limited 

referencing of  

sources.

Severely lacking source reading. 

Sources either  

not present 

and/or not  

referenced.

Negligible 

attempt to  

identify source  

material. 

No indication of  source reading.