Research Presentation Marking Scheme
STUDENT NAME: STUDENT NO: TUTOR 1 TUTOR 2
| Specific criteria being assessed | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |||||||
| Selected Findings and Discussion (FD) · Findings are presented exceptionally clearly and logically. · Findings are discussed in very good detail, with clear reference to the research questions and the literature, showing very good critical thinking skills. · Research questions are dealt with very comprehensively and sensible conclusions are reached. | 5 – Excellent evidence 4 – Very good evidence 3 – Sufficient evidence 2 – Limited evidence 1 – Insufficient evidence 0 – Not represented
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Structure and quality of materials (SQ) · Very clear use of a range of signposting. · Points clearly link with & build on the previous one. · Coherent, tight, logical development of arguments/ideas. · Graphics are used where appropriate and are of outstanding quality. · Visuals support audience in in understanding | |||||||||||||||||||
| Reflections on Project (RP) · Uses appropriate academic language · Make several perceptive points of reflection on the research process · Highly perceptive discussion of difficulties faced, and solutions found · Acknowledges successes achieved in the research process | |||||||||||||||||||
| Delivery (D) · Very good clarity, pace, fluency and variety in tone. · Maintains good contact with the audience. · Very good verbal reference to visuals. · Response to questions is full, clear and focussed | |||||||||||||||||||
| All criteria are equally weighted at 25% multiply actual mark by 25 divide by 4:Eg. Selected findings and discussion 4×25=100, Structure and quality of materials 3×25= 75, Reflections on Project 2×25=50, Delivery 2×25= 50 Total – 275-:-4= 68.75 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Marks awarded | Criterion: | FD | SQ | RP | D | Final Mark | |||||||||||||
| T1 Actual marks: | |||||||||||||||||||
| T2 Actual marks: | |||||||||||||||||||
| Comments:
| Agreed Final mark: | ||||||||||||||||||
Marking guidance:
5 – Excellent evidence – as comprehensive as could be expected
4 – Very good evidence – a thorough attempt to represent this aspect with only a few minor errors, omissions and/or missed opportunities
3 – Sufficient evidence – a good attempt to represent this aspect with all main aspects covered but noticeable errors, omissions and/or missed opportunities
2 – Limited and/or inconsistent evidence – this aspect is represented reasonably well at times but numerous errors, omissions and/or missed opportunities exist throughout
1 – Insufficient evidence – the attempt to represent this aspect is inappropriate or too weak to convey anything very meaningful and/or academic.
0 – No attempt to represent this aspect