|
Introduction
(10 marks)
|
The
introduction and objectives are clearly stated. Background and context are
clearly articulated and linked to objectives effectively.
(10-8 marks)
|
The
introduction and objectives are clear. Background and context are partially
described and mostly linked to objectives.
(7-6 marks)
|
The
introduction and objectives are clear, but the background and context are not
well described nor clearly linked to objectives.
(5 marks)
|
The
introduction is vague. Background and context are vague or absolutely lacking
and there are no clear links to objectives.
(0-4 marks)
|
|
Analysis
(30 marks)
|
Analysis
is highly relevant to the assignment requirements and presented clearly and
logically. Strong link is made between theory and practice.
(30
-26 marks)
|
Analysis
is relevant to the assignment requirements but is not always presented
clearly and / or logically. Strong link made between theory and practice.
(25-
20 marks)
|
Analysis
is reasonably relevant to the assignment requirements.
At
times, the analysis is not clearly or logically presented. A fair link made
between theory and practice.
(19-15
marks)
|
Analysis
is not relevant to the assignment requirements.
Analysis
is vague and illogical. The link between theory and practice is unclear and
illogical or has major errors.
(14 -0 marks)
|
|
Case laws
(40 marks)
|
The
Case law presented, and facts is highly relevant to the assignment.
(40
-33 marks)
|
The
Case laws presented, and facts is relevant to the assignment.
(32-25
marks)
|
The
Case laws presented, and facts is somewhat relevant to the assignment.
(24
-20 marks)
|
The
Case laws presented, and facts is not relevant to the assignment.
(19
– 0 marks)`
|
|
Conclusion
(10 marks)
|
Conclusion
is clearly stated and connections to the arguments and positions are clear
and relevant. The underlying logic is explicit.
(10-8 marks)
|
Conclusion
is clearly stated but connections to arguments and positions are not always
clear and relevant – some aspects may not be connected or minor errors in the
underlying logic are present.
(7-6 marks)
|
Conclusion
is fairly well stated and connections to arguments and positions are somewhat
unclear / irrelevant.
(5 marks).
|
Conclusion
is very poorly stated and the connections to the arguments and positions are
incorrect, unclear, irrelevant, or presented without explanation. Underlying
logic has major errors.
(4-0 marks)
|
|
Writing
(5 marks)
|
The
Project is coherently organized and easy to follow. There are no spelling or
grammatical errors and technical terms are clearly defined.
(5 marks)
|
The
Project is generally well organized and mostly easy to follow. There are only
a few minor spellings and/or grammatical errors, and technical terms are not
clearly defined.
(4 marks)
|
The
Project is fairly well organized and somewhat easy to follow. There are a few
minor spellings and / or grammatical errors and technical terms are not
defined.
(3 mark)
|
The
Project is poorly organized and difficult to read – does not flow logically
from one part to another. It is not easy to follow. There are several
spellings and/or grammatical errors; technical terms are not defined or are
poorly defined.
(0-2 marks)
|
|
Referencing
(5 marks)
|
Four
or more references were used/ cited.
References
were:
Appropriate
for the context of the Project.
Were
very current where applicable using references produced during the last 5
years.
Used
effectively in the Project.
Written
using the latest APA style format.
(5 marks)
|
Three
references were used/ cited.
References
were:
Generally
appropriate for the context of the Project.
Were
not always current, using references produced during the last 6 years.
Used
most effectively in the Project.
Written
using the latest APA style format for the most part.
(4 marks)
|
Two
references were used/ cited.
References
were:
1.
Reasonably
appropriate for the context of the Project
2.
Were for the
most part, outdated, using references produced during the last 7 years.
3.
Used somewhat
effectively in the Project.
4.
Written using
the latest APA style format was inconsistent throughout
(3 marks)
|
Only
one reference or no references were used/ cited.
References,
if used were:
1.
Not appropriate
for the context of Project.
2.
Were for the
most part, outdated, using references produced during the last 8 years or
more.
3.
Ineffectively
used in the Project.
4.
Not written
using the Latest APA style.
(0-2 marks)
|