ASSESSMENT TASK TEMPLATE

ASSESSMENT TASK TEMPLATE

Module Code: BHO0255
Module Title: The Psychology of Work and Organisations
Assessment Task(s) Essay
Academic Year 2019/20

Learning Outcomes
This assessment task addresses the following learning outcomes from the
module specification
Knowledge and Understanding Outcomes
• Have acquired a clear understanding of the role of psychology in organisational settings.
• Have developed a critical appreciation of current research trends and findings, research
methodologies employed presently and historically, and the contribution these make to the
understanding of organisational behaviour.
• Be able to appraise the contribution of key figures in psychology, including the implications their
research has for the field of organisational psychology.
Ability Outcomes
• Critically appraise the issues and assumptions of the theories and principles of psychology within
an organisational context.
• Assess the main contributors to the discipline and understand the development of the field and its
value in business and in psychology.
• Evaluate advanced theoretical knowledge showing how organisations engage with psychologists to
resolve issues presented by businesses, people and their resources.
Assessment brief
Essay task:
With reference to relevant literature, critically explore and evaluate the notion that
intelligence and personality determine individuals’ behaviours and performance at work.
Your essay should include the following sections:

  1. Introduction
    Provide non-technical (no jargon) and intuitive summary about why intelligence and
    personality are important psychological factors to consider in relation to workplace
    behaviour. You should also briefly outline what you will cover in the main body of your essay.

2

  1. Theoretical background
    In the theoretical background you are expected to define intelligence and personality and
    critically discuss the existing theories of these two psychological factors. In particular, you
    should explore, develop and contrast the arguments and predictions offered by theories of
    intelligence and personality.
  2. Behaviour and performance at work
    Based on the theoretical explorations, critically evaluate the notion that intelligence and
    personality determine/influence individuals’ behaviours and performance at work.
  3. Conclusion
    Summarise the main points covered in the main body of your essay.
    You are advised to:
    • Avoid merely describing theories/methods and concepts. Whilst descriptive
    accounts are an important way to demonstrate your understanding of the
    module content, you must also critically evaluate/discuss them. A critical
    approach to essay writing is essential at this level of academic study.
    • Work should be written/cited/referenced in APA 6th edition style. You can
    access APA 6th edition via Brightspace by clicking on the Library button.
    • Read widely from textbooks and academic journals to inform your
    points/arguments. Please DO NOT refer to lecture slides in your essay.
    • Pay close attention to the Assessment Criteria at the end of this document –
    this lists general assessment criteria and specific criteria to the
    requirements of this assignment. These criteria will be used to inform your
    electronic feedback on your marked assignment.
    • Finally, do not show or send your work to anyone on your course.

Marking criteria

  1. Please refer to the assessment task-specific criteria in Appendix 1. These
    show you the issues that will guide your tutors in marking your work. You are
    encouraged to use these at all stages of preparing your work. Please
    remember that the marking process involves academic judgement and
    interpretation within the marking criteria.
  2. In addition to the assessment task-specific criteria, generic assessment
    criteria are attached in Appendix 1 & 2.
  3. The Learning Development Group are available to help you to understand
    and use the assessment criteria. To book an appointment, either visit them
    on The Street in the Charles Sikes Building or email them on
    [email protected]
  4. The University has regulations relating to academic misconduct, including
    plagiarism. The Learning Development Group can also advise and help you

3

about academic conventions and avoiding ‘poor scholarship’ which can result
in potential academic misconduct.

Submission information
Word Limit: 1500
Submission Date: 20th December 2019
Feedback Date: 31st January 2020
Submission Time: 15:00
Submission Method: Electronically via Brightspace. Papers submissions are

not required. For support please contact

Tutor Reassessment Due in 1 week after assessment feedback is returned.

Notes:
N/A

4
Appendix 1 Assessment task-specific marking criteria
Unacceptable Unsatisfactory
(Refer if required)

Pass Fair Good Very Good Excellent Outstanding

Tutors to create
assessment-task specific
criteria eg

0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

Knowledge of Theory,
Concepts and Methods

Does not
address
any
relevant
theories,
concepts
or
methods
Mentions
some
terminology
relating to
relevant
theories,
concepts or
methods

Mentions
some
terminology
relating to
relevant
theories,
concepts or
methods
wholly
inadequate
attempt at
explanation

Mentions some
terminology
relating to
relevant theories,
concepts or
methods with a
partially
inadequate
attempt at use or
explanation

Relevant theory,
concepts and
models used or
explained but
some aspects may
have been missed
or misconstrued

Most relevant
theories, concepts
and models used
or explained in an
appropriate and
straight forward
manner with
some
assumptions and
implications
recognised

Appropriate
selection of
relevant theories,
concepts and
models used or
explained
insightfully with
assumptions,
implications and
contextualisation
recognised

Appropriate
selection of
relevant
theories,
concepts and
models used or
explained
insightfully with
wide range of
assumptions
and
implications
recognised with
highly
appropriate
contextualisatio
n
demonstrating
excellent
understanding

Appropriate
selection of
relevant theories,
concepts and
models used or
explained
innovatively with
full range of
assumptions and
implications
recognised with
highly appropriate
contextualisation
demonstrating
excellent
understanding of
complex material

Appropriate
selection of
relevant theories,
concepts and
models used or
explained
innovatively with
full range of
assumptions and
implications
recognised with
highly
appropriate
contextualisation
demonstrating
exceptional
understanding of
complex material

Scholarship: Evidence of
Reading, Research, and
appropriate use of APA in
citations, referencing and
writing.

No
evidence
presented
or what is
presented
is wholly
irrelevant
No evidence
presented
or what is
presented is
generally
irrelevant
Minimal
evidence
presented is
generally
irrelevant or
lacking
currency

Minimal evidence
presented
uncritically and
lacks evidence of
independent
research beyond
core texts

Evidence of
limited but
relevant reading
which is
presented
uncritically and
tends to use
summary
description

Evidence of
relevant reading
which shows clear
attempt at
independent
reading and some
attempt at
synthesis

Evidence of range
of relevant
reading generally
used critically
which shows clear
attempt at
independent
reading and
ability to
synthesise

Evidence of
wide range of
relevant reading
used critically
which shows
high degree of
independent
reading and a
strong ability to
synthesise

Evidence of the
fullest range of
relevant reading
used critically
which shows a
very high level of
independent
reading and an
excellent ability to
synthesise

Evidence of the
fullest range of
relevant reading
used critically
which shows the
highest level of
independent
reading and an
outstanding
ability to
synthesise

Critical Reasoning

No
demonstr
ation of
critical
thought
No
demonstrati
on of critical
thought
No
demonstrati
on of critical
thought

No demonstration
of critical thought
but has potential
to be developed
Minimal
demonstration of
critical thought

Demonstrates
critical thought
Often
demonstrates
critical thought

Consistent
application of
well integrated
critical thought

Consistent
application of
excellently
integrated critical
thought

Consistent
application of
outstandingly
integrated critical
thought

Relevant use of
psychological theories to
inform workplace
behaviour

Psycholog
ical
theories
have not
Psychologic
al theories
used are
not relevant
Psychologic
al theories
used are
not relevant

Psychological
theories used are
not relevant to
informing

The author
demonstrates
limited
understanding of

The author
demonstrates a
good
understanding of

The author
demonstrates a
good
understanding of

The author
demonstrates
an excellent

The author
demonstrates an
excellent

The author
demonstrates an
outstanding

5

been used
to inform
workplace
behaviour
to informing
workplace
behaviour

to informing
workplace
behaviour
but basic
concepts
are
understood

workplace
behaviour but
basic concepts are
understood and
the author shows
potential to
develop
arguments.

how psychological
theories inform
workplace
behaviour.

how psychological
theories inform
workplace
behaviour.

how psychological
theories inform
workplace
behaviour.
Arguments are
well structured
and logical.

understanding
of how
psychological
theories inform
workplace
behaviour.
Evaluation is
well supported
and provides
convincing
conclusions.
Arguments are
well structured,
complex and
logical.

critical
understanding of
how psychological
theories inform
workplace
behaviour and
demonstrates
ability to question
‘received
opinion’.
Evaluation is well
supported and
provides
convincing
conclusions.
Arguments are
complex, lucid
and persuasive.
critical
understanding of
how
psychological
theories inform
workplace
behaviour and
demonstrates
ability to question
‘received
opinion’.
Evaluation is well
supported and
provides
convincing
conclusions.
Arguments are
complex, lucid
and persuasive.

6

Appendix 2 Generic marking criteria
UG Generic Assessment Criteria (covering a range of types of assessment)

Unacceptable
Work at this level
-does not address the task set or
represents a wholly inadequate attempt
-requires a complete re-write

Unsatisfactory
(Refer if required)
Work at this level
will demonstrate
-an incomplete
answer
-insufficient depth
of understanding
-some serious
errors and/or
major omissions
-a potentially
recoverable piece
of work

Pass
Work at this level
will demonstrate
-limited use of
module
material
-a basic level of
understanding
-a simply
descriptive
approach
-some errors and
omissions
Fair
Work at this level
will demonstrate
-generally good
use of some of
the module
material
-reasonable and
coherent
description of
theory
-limited analysis
and evaluation
-no major errors
Good
Work at this level
will demonstrate
-good use of
module
material
-ability to
compare and
contrast
material from a
variety of
relevant
sources
-analytical ability
underpinning
logical
argument
-well-structured,
clear and
consistent
presentation,
although there
may be a few
errors

Very Good
Work at this
level will
demonstrate
-accomplished
discussion
and
application
of theory
-clear ability to
compare and
contrast
material
from a wide
variety of
relevant
sources
-some
synthesis
based on
critical
analysis

-well-
structured,

clear and
coherent
presentation,
although
there may be
a few minor
errors

Excellent
Work at this level
will demonstrate
-a mastery of
complex
knowledge and
ideas

  • originality and
    insight derived
    from a mature
    depth of
    understanding
    of material that
    goes well
    beyond that
    provided in the
    module
  • creative
    synthesis
    arising from
    critical analysis
    and evaluation
    of relevant
    information
  • presentation
    that is clear,
    coherent and
    error free

Outstanding
Work at this level
will demonstrate
-a mastery of
complex
knowledge and
ideas

  • originality and
    insight derived
    from a mature
    depth of
    understanding
    of material
    that goes well
    beyond that
    provided in the
    module
  • creative
    synthesis
    arising from
    critical analysis
    and evaluation
    of relevant
    information
  • presentation
    that is clear,
    coherent and
    error free

0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

Knowledg
e of
Theory,
Concepts
and
Methods
Does not
address
any
relevant
theories,
concepts
or
methods
Mentions
some
terminology
relating to
relevant
theories,
concepts or
methods

Mentions
some
terminology
relating to
relevant
theories,
concepts or
methods
wholly
inadequate
attempt at

Mentions some
terminology
relating to
relevant theories,
concepts or
methods
inadequate
attempt at use or
explanation

Relevant theory,
concepts and
models used or
explained but
some aspects may
have been missed
or misconstrued

Most relevant
theories, concepts
and models used
or explained in an
appropriate and
straight forward
manner with
some
assumptions and
implications
recognised

Appropriate
selection of
relevant theories,
concepts and
models used or
explained
insightfully with
assumptions,
implications and
contextualisation
recognised

Appropriate
selection of
relevant
theories,
concepts and
models used or
explained
insightfully with
wide range of
assumptions
and

Appropriate
selection of
relevant theories,
concepts and
models used or
explained
innovatively with
full range of
assumptions and
implications
recognised with

Appropriate
selection of
relevant theories,
concepts and
models used or
explained
innovatively with
full range of
assumptions and
implications
recognised with

7

use or
explanation

implications
recognised with
highly
appropriate
contextualisatio
n
demonstrating
excellent
understanding

highly appropriate
contextualisation
demonstrating
excellent
understanding of
complex material
highly
appropriate
contextualisation
demonstrating
exceptional
understanding of
complex material

Scholarshi
p:
Evidence
of
Reading
and
Research
No
evidence
presented
or what is
presented
is wholly
irrelevant
No evidence
presented
or what is
presented is
generally
irrelevant
Minimal
evidence
presented is
generally
irrelevant or
lacking
currency

Minimal evidence
presented
uncritically and
lacks evidence of
independent
research beyond
core texts

Evidence of
limited but
relevant reading
which is
presented
uncritically and
tends to use
summary
description

Evidence of
relevant reading
which shows clear
attempt at
independent
reading and some
attempt at
synthesis

Evidence of range
of relevant
reading generally
used critically
which shows clear
attempt at
independent
reading and
ability to
synthesise

Evidence of
wide range of
relevant reading
used critically
which shows
high degree of
independent
reading and a
strong ability to
synthesise

Evidence of the
fullest range of
relevant reading
used critically
which shows a
very high level of
independent
reading and an
excellent ability to
synthesise

Evidence of the
fullest range of
relevant reading
used critically
which shows the
highest level of
independent
reading and an
outstanding
ability to
synthesise

Critical
Reasonin
g
No
demonstr
ation of
critical
thought
No
demonstrati
on of critical
thought
No
demonstrati
on of critical
thought

No demonstration
of critical thought
but has potential
to be developed
Minimal
demonstration of
critical thought

Demonstrates
critical thought
Often
demonstrates
critical thought

Consistent
application of
well integrated
critical thought

Consistent
application of
excellently
integrated critical
thought

Consistent
application of
outstandingly
integrated critical
thought

Use of
Evidence:
Analysis
&
Evaluatio
n
Does not
analyse or
any
analysis is
irrelevant
Does not
analyse or
any analysis
is irrelevant
Does not
analyse but
basic
concepts
are
understood

Does not analyse
but the potential
for analysis is
evident. Shows
potential to
develop
arguments.

Demonstrates
limited analysis
with some
development of
argument and
related evaluation
(if applicable)

Demonstrates
good ability to
analyse and
evaluate (if
applicable) with
arguments
developed
coherently

Demonstrates
very good ability
to analyse a range
of topics/issues
critically.
Evaluation is well
supported (if
applicable).
Arguments are
well structured
and logical.

Demonstrates
excellent ability
to analyse a
range of
topics/issues
critically and
demonstrates
ability to
question
‘received
opinion’.
Evaluation is
well supported
and provides
convincing
conclusions (if
applicable).
Arguments are
well structured,
complex and
logical.

Demonstrates
excellent ability to
analyse a range of
topics/issues
critically and
demonstrates
ability to question
‘received
opinion’.
Evaluation is well
supported and
provides
convincing
conclusions (if
applicable).
Arguments are
complex, lucid
and persuasive.

Demonstrates
outstanding
ability to analyse
a range of
topics/issues
critically and
demonstrates
ability to question
‘received
opinion’.
Evaluation is well
supported and
provides
convincing
conclusions (if
applicable).
Exceptionally
complex, lucid
and persuasive
arguments.

Clarity of
Written
Incoheren
t and
incompre
Largely
incomprehe
nsible

Generally
comprehens
ible but

Language errors
often impede
understanding

The meaning is
clear but contains
language errors

Generally fluent
and accurate use

Consistently
fluent and
accurate use of

Consistently
fluent and
accurate use of

Consistently
fluent and
accurate use of

Consistently
fluent and
accurate use of

8

Expressio
n
hensible
througho
ut

language
errors
generally
impede
understandi
ng and flow
of reading

and flow of
reading

of grammar and
spelling

grammar and
spelling

grammar and
spelling
employing
appropriate
genre

grammar and
spelling
employing
appropriate genre
and excellent
expression

grammar and
spelling
employing
appropriate
genre and
exceptional
expression

Skill or
Compete
nce:
INSERT
NAME
Not
attempte
d
Attempted
but not
demonstrat
ed

Inadequatel
y
demonstrat
ed

Insufficiently
demonstrated to
be considered
competent

Sufficiently
demonstrated to
be considered to
have acceptable
competence level

Sufficiently
demonstrated to
be considered to
have fair
competence level

Sufficiently
demonstrated to
be considered to
have good
competence level

Sufficiently
demonstrated
to be
considered to
have very good
competence

Sufficiently
demonstrated to
be considered to
have excellent
competence

Sufficiently
demonstrated to
be considered to
have outstanding
competence

Structure No
structure
Structure
wholly
inappropria
te to the
task

Structure
generally
inappropriat
e to the task

Structure does not
meet expectations
of the task

Shows sufficient
awareness of
required general
structure

Demonstrates
good organisation
and awareness of
required general
structure

Demonstrates
consistently
logical
organisation and
awareness of
required general
structure

Polished and
excellently
organised; fully
meets
structural
expectations

Polished and
excellently
organised; fully
meets structural
expectations and
demonstrates a
highly imaginative
approach

Polished and
outstandingly
organised; fully
meets structural
expectations and
demonstrates a
highly
imaginative
approach

Oral
Communi
cation
(monolog
ue)
Inc
organisati
on,
supportin
g material
and
delivery
Barely
comprehe
nsible,
no
connectio
n to
context.
No
audience
awarenes
s. Does
not
demonstr
ate any
understan
ding
Completely
inadequate,
Significant
lack of
clarity,
inconsistent
, indifferent
to context.
Little
audience
awareness.
Demonstrat
es minimal
understandi
ng

Significant
lack of
clarity,
inconsistent
, minimal
connection
to context.
Inadequate
audience
awareness.
Demonstrat
es an
inadequate
level of
understandi
ng

Insufficient clarity,
little tailoring to
context. Some
significant
inadequacies,
weak
expression with
some systematic
errors
. Insufficient
audience
awareness. Does
not demonstrate
sufficient level of
understanding

Generally clear,
some tailoring to
context. Some
flaws in
expression, some
systematic errors
of expression.
Generally engages
audience.
Demonstrates a
sufficient level of
understanding
through
extemporaneous
delivery

Appropriately
tailored to
context. Fluent
expression with
articulate
delivery.
Generally engages
audience.
Demonstrates a
general level of
understanding
through
extemporaneous
delivery

Persuasive
delivery and
effectively
tailored to
context. Engages
audience
throughout.
Demonstrates a
high level of
understanding
through
extemporaneous
delivery

Lively, eloquent
persuasive
delivery and
very effectively
tailored
to context.
Engages
audience
throughout.
Demonstrates
excellent
understanding
through
extemporaneou
s delivery

Lively, eloquent,
highly
persuasive,
sophisticated
delivery, superbly
tailored to
context. Provides
audience with
high levels of
engagement
throughout.
Demonstrates
excellent
understanding
through
extemporaneous
delivery

Lively, eloquent,
highly
persuasive,
sophisticated
delivery, superbly
tailored to
context. Provides
audience with the
highest levels of
engagement
throughout.
Demonstrates
outstanding
understanding
through
extemporaneous
delivery

Presentati
on of
work
Length
requirem
ents may
not be
observed;
does not
follow
academic
conventio
ns;
Length
requiremen
ts may not
be
observed;
does not
follow
academic
conventions
; language
Length
requiremen
ts may not
be
observed;
generally
does not
follow
academic
conventions
Length
requirement met
and academic
conventions
mostly followed.
Minor errors in
language or
presentation

Length
requirement met
and academic
conventions
mostly followed.
Possibly very
minor errors in
language or
presentation

Fair standard of
presentation;
length
requirement met
and academic
conventions
followed

Good standards
of presentation

Very good
standards of
presentation

Professional
standards of
presentation

Highest
professional
standards of
presentation

9

language
and
presentati
on errors
impact on
intelligibili
ty
and
presentatio
n errors
impact on
intelligibility
; language
and/or
presentatio
n errors
may impact
on
intelligibility

Reflection No
attempt
at
reflection
Some
evidence of
an attempt
at reflection
but does
not
constitute
reflection.
A wholly
inadequate
level of
reflection.
There is no
link
between
self and
relevant
theories,
models,
concepts,
and/or
strategies.
Viewpoints
and
interpretati
ons are
missing,
inappropriat
e, and/or
unsupporte
d. Irrelevant
exemplificat
ion.

A level of
reflection which
does not meet
minimum
expectations.
Insufficient linking
between self and
relevant theories,
models, concepts,
and/or strategies.
Viewpoints and
interpretations
are insufficiently
supported or
supported with
flawed
arguments.
Irrelevant
exemplification.

An adequate level
of reflection.
There is evidence
of relevant linking
between self and
theories, models,
concepts, and/or
strategies.
Viewpoints and
interpretations
are generally
supported. Some
relevant
examples, when
applicable, are
provided.

A fair level of
reflection. There
are some of
instances where
relevant links
have been made
between self and
relevant theories,
models, concepts,
and/or strategies.
Viewpoints and
interpretations
are supported.
Appropriate
examples are
provided, as
applicable

A good level of
reflection. There
are a number of
instances where
relevant links
have been made
between self and
relevant theories,
models, concepts,
and/or strategies.
Evidence of
analysis through
questioning and
challenging of
assumptions
leading to
transformation of
personal insight.
Well supported
by clear, detailed
examples as
applicable.

A very good
level of
reflection.
There are many
instances where
relevant links
have been
made between
self and
theories,
models,
concepts,
and/or
strategies.
Extensive
evidence of
analysis through
questioning and
challenging of
assumptions
leading to
transformation
of personal
insight.
Well supported
by clear,
detailed
examples as
applicable.

An excellent
reflection.
Contains a wide
range of instances
where relevant
links have been
made between
self and theories,
models, concepts,
and/or strategies.
Extensive
evidence of
analysis through
questioning and
challenging of
assumptions
leading to
transformation of
personal insight.
Well supported by
clear, detailed
examples as
applicable.

An outstanding
reflection.
Contains a wide
range of
instances where
relevant links
have been made
between self and
theories, models,
concepts, and/or
strategies.
Extensive
evidence of
analysis through
questioning and
challenging of
assumptions
leading to
transformation of
personal insight.
Well supported
by clear, detailed
examples as
applicable

Ethics,
sustainabi
lity &
Responsib
ility
(subject
area)
Not
considere
d or no
relevance
Considerati
on at a
superficial
level with
minimal
relevance to
subject.

Considered
with
relevant
solutions
identified
but no
detail
relevant to
the subject.

Considered with
relevant solutions
identified but little
detail relevant to
the subject.

Considered with
relevant solutions
identified and
adequate detail
relevant to the
subject.

Wide
consideration
with relevant
solutions
identified and
appropriate detail
relevant to the
subject.

Full consideration
of implications for
subject with
range of solutions
discussed in
detail.

Full
consideration of
implications for
subject with
wide range of
solutions
discussed in
detail.

Full consideration
of implications for
subject with
extensive range of
solutions
discussed in
detail.

Full consideration
of implications
for subject with
full range of
solutions
discussed in
detail.

10

Ethics,
sustainabi
lity &
Responsib
ility
(professio
nal
practice)
Not
considere
d or no
relevance
Considerati
on at a
superficial
level with
minimal
relevance
shown to
professional
practice.

Considered
with
relevant
solutions
identified
but no
detail
relevant to
professional
practice.

Considered with
relevant solutions
identified but little
detail relevant to
professional
practice.

Considered with
relevant solutions
identified and
adequate detail
relevant to
professional
practice.

Wide
consideration
with relevant
solutions
identified and
appropriate detail
relevant to
professional
practice.

Full consideration
of implications for
professional
practice with
range of solutions
discussed in
detail.

Full
consideration of
implications for
professional
practice with
wide range of
solutions
discussed in
detail.

Full consideration
of implications for
professional
practice with
extensive range of
solutions
discussed in
detail.

Full
consideration of
implications for
professional
practice with full
range of solutions
discussed in
detail.

Teamwor
k and
Oral
communi
cation
(dialogue)
No
evidence
of
teamwork
or
engageme
nt with
views or
learning
of others.
Minimal
teamwork,
unaddresse
d
conflicts
evident,
negative
engagemen
t
with
difference

Marginal
teamwork,
conflicts
unaddresse
d, little
engagemen
t with
difference

Little teamwork or
effort to
collaborate
effectively,
symptoms of lack
of mutual respect.

Worked together
much of the time,
With adequate
level of
engagement.
Some unresolved
conflict but
mostly respectful
with evidence of
listening.

Generally
cohesive team, all
members active
most of the time,
exercising mutual
respect and
evidence of
effective dialogue
most of the time.
Any conflict
resolved.

Highly cohesive
team, all
members active,
high levels of
mutual respect
and evidence of
effective dialogue
most of the time.
Any conflict
identified and
resolved quickly.

Very good team
cohesion, all
members
active, high
levels of mutual
respect and
evidence of
effective
dialogue
throughout.
Any conflict
identified and
resolved early.

Excellent team
cohesion, all
members
consistently
active mutually
respectful and
evidence of
effective dialogue
throughout. Any
conflict identified
and resolved
early.

Exceptional team
cohesion, all
members
consistently
active mutually
respectful and
evidence of
effective dialogue
throughout. Any
conflict identified
and resolved
early.

Critical
peer
review
No
comment
made on
the work
of peers
Lack of any
reasoning in
comments
made on
the work of
peers

Unsupporte
d reasoning
in
comments
made on
the work of
peers

Insufficiently
supported
reasoning in
comments made
on the work of
peers

Evidence of
reasoned
comments made
on the work of
peers

Evidence of ability
to assess
strengths and
weaknesses in the
work of peers

Evidence of ability
to assess
strengths and
weaknesses in the
work of peers and
judge areas for
improvement

Evidence of
ability to assess
strengths and
weaknesses in
the work of
peers and judge
areas for
improvement.
Provides
commentary on
assessment
outcome and
can offer
insights into
how it could be
developed.

Evidence of
excellent ability to
assess strengths
and weaknesses
in the work of
peers and judge
areas for
improvement.
Provides
commentary on
assessment
outcome and can
offer detailed
insights into how
it could be
developed.

Evidence of
outstanding
ability to assess
strengths and
weaknesses in
the work of peers
and judge areas
for improvement.
Provides
outstanding
commentary on
assessment
outcome and can
offer detailed
insights into how
it could be
developed.

Originalit
y
No
evidence
of any
attempt
at
independ
ent
thinking
Any
attempt at
independen
t thinking is
irrelevant
Any
attempt at
independen
t thinking is
generally
irrelevant

Insufficient
evidence of
independent
thinking and
development of
own ideas

Limited evidence
of independent
thinking and
development of
own ideas

Some evidence of
independent
thinking and
development of
own ideas

General evidence
of independent
thinking and
development of
own ideas

High level of
evidence of
independent
thinking and
development of
own ideas

Strong evidence
of independent
thinking and
development of
own ideas

Outstanding
evidence of
independent
thinking and
development of
own ideas
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *