Result name

Mark range

Description

High distinction

85 - 100

• Consistently strong and ongoing demonstration and evidence of superior organisational and conceptual skills. The work is extremely well conceived, coherent, logical, original and lucid as well as professionally prepared.
• Superior clarity in presentation and expression with attention to detail in all aspects evident.
• Persuasively articulates argument displaying clear focus & academic rigour. Respectful of diverse backgrounds & experiences.
• Convincing synthesis of evidence, critical analysis and understanding of multiple perspectives to formulate a coherent argument.
• ​Displays an exceptional understanding of subject/discipline specific content and practices.
• Uses recommended referencing style consistently and accurately in text of work and reference list. Effective use of relevant quotations and scholarly referencing at all times.

Distinction

75 - 84

• Consistently strong and ongoing demonstration of very good organisational and conceptual skills. The work is well conceived, coherent, logical and lucid as well as professionally prepared.
• Fluent and succinct communication style appropriate to the assessment task. Grammar, spelling, use of language and punctuation is appropriate and accurate.
• Communicates effectively using a variety of relevant, imaginative, fluent and professional presentation styles and communication methods. Evidence of deep reflection on the presentation. Respectful of diverse backgrounds & experiences.
• Considered use of evidence and consistently demonstrates application of critical analysis. Justifies relevant conclusions and their implications.
• Displays an excellent understanding of subject/discipline specific content and practices.
• Uses recommended referencing style consistently and accurately in text of work and reference list. Effective use of relevant quotations and scholarly referencing at all times.
•  

Credit

65 - 74

• Strong organisational & conceptual skills and evidence that the task is logical and coherent and professionally prepared.
• Communication is mainly clear, fluent and appropriate to document. Grammar, spelling, use of language and punctuation is accurate.
• Uses a variety of discipline-appropriate formats to communicate confidently & effectively. Evidence of reflection on the presentation. Demonstrates sensitivity to diverse backgrounds & experiences.
• Credible argument making relevant use of evidence, analysis and understanding. Able to apply concepts and draw and justify conclusions.
• Displays a good understanding of subject/discipline specific content and practices
• Uses recommended referencing style consistently and accurately in text of work and reference list. Effective use of relevant quotations.

Pass

50 - 64

• Demonstrates task organisation and conceptual understanding in a style which is mostly logical, coherent and flowing.
• Communication is appropriate to the assessment task and is mostly fluent and clear. Grammar, spelling, use of language and punctuation mostly accurate.
• Communicates competently in a variety of formats appropriate to the discipline and report procedures in a structured manner using relevant information. Evidence of sensitivity to diverse backgrounds & experiences.
• Demonstrates some evidence of analytical and evaluative skills. Able to apply fundamental concepts and draw and justify conclusions.
• Displays an understanding of most of the subject/discipline specific content and practices
• Uses recommended referencing style with minimal errors. Effective use of relevant quotations.

Fail

0 - 49

• Attempts are made to demonstrate a logical & coherent understanding of the assessment task but some aspects may be confused or undeveloped.
• Meaning apparent but not always fluently or clearly communicated. Grammar, spelling, language and/or punctuation may display minor errors. Some evidence of applying School’s style guide.
• Communication is unstructured and unfocused and/or in a format inappropriate to the discipline. Not all material is relevant and/or is difficult to understand. May be evidence of insensitivity to diverse backgrounds & experiences.
• Little or no evidence of analytical and evaluative skills. Fails to draw on fundamental concepts and to justify conclusions.
• Does not meet the required level of subject/discipline specific knowledge of content or practices
• Many errors or no use of conventions in referencing. Fails to meet University’s academic honesty policy.