| Criteria |
70 + |
69 – 60 |
59 – 50 |
49 – 40 |
39 – 0 |
| TASK 1 Interview Self Reflection
Critical analysis into strengths and limitations of students own performance
Integration of theory with analysis of performance
Identification and justification of steps for self-improvement
|
Thoughtful, critical and perceptive insights throughout into strengths and limitations of students own performance.
The analysis is clearly informed by theory.
Excellent links are made between theory and student’s performance.
Ideas for self-improvement are challenging and well justified. |
Some thoughtful, critical and perceptive insights into strengths and limitations of students own performance.
Examples from student’s performance are analyzed by reference to relevant theories but would have benefited from more detailed analysis and integration.
A serious attempt is made to specify steps for self-improvement, but they could be more challenging, or better justified. |
Some attempt has been made to reflect critically on strengths and limitations of students own performance, but its scope and depth are limited.
Some attempt has been made to integrate theory with analysis of student’s performance, but further development needed.
Steps for self -improvement plan needs further development and/or justification. |
Only a weak attempt to reflect critically on strengths and limitations of student own performance.
The self-reflection includes examples from students’ performance, but these are insufficiently linked to theory. Or the self-reflection includes some theory, but it is insufficiently linked to analysis of performance.
Very limited steps for self-improvement identified. |
Lacks critical insight into strengths and limitations of students own performance.
Insufficient integration of theory with analysis of performance.
Little or no steps for self-improvement identified. |
| TASK 2 Performance Review report
Identification of issues discussed at review
Identification of SMART objectives
Explanation of additional support required
Details of timescales and follow-up action
|
Excellent identification of key performance issues discussed at review.
Clear, appropriate and SMART objectives are provided.
Outstanding explanation of a variety of additional support activities with realistic time frames and appropriate follow-up actions.
|
Very good attempt to identify performance issues and to identify objectives, but some do not achieve all the ‘SMART’ criteria.
Clear explanation of a range of sources of support with time frames and follow-up actions although these could be more realistic and/or appropriate to the performance issues. |
Adequate attempt to identify broad issues from the review but lacks depth.
Objectives are identified but all/some do not achieve the SMART criteria and/or lacks relevance to the identified performance issues.
Some sources of additional support are described but further explanation is needed. Timescales and follow-up action are be limited/unrealistic. |
Superficial or inadequate attempt to identify performance issues.
A limited set of objectives which do not meet the SMART criteria.
Weak explanation of additional support and/or unrealistic follow-up actions and timescales. |
Very weak identification or insufficient detail of performance review issues.
Little attempt to identify SMART objectives.
Poor explanation of additional support required and inappropriate or irrelevant follow-up actions. Timescales are missing or unrealistic. |
| TASK 3: Negotiation case study analysis
Identification of key areas of negotiation
Quality of plan for negotiation interview
Integration of theory with analysis of case
|
Excellent identification of key areas of negotiation.
Interview plan provides an exceptionally robust and concise outline for the negotiation, supported by evidence from the analysis of the case.
Excellent links are made between theory and the analysis of the case.
|
Very good identification of most key areas of negotiation.
Interview plan provides a very good and concise outline for the negotiation, supported by some evidence from the analysis of the case.
There are some links from the case analysis to relevant theories but would have benefited from more detailed analysis and integration.
|
Identifies some key areas of negotiation.
Interview plan provides a competent outline for the negotiation but lacks detail or limited supporting evidence from the case analysis.
Some attempt has been made to integrate theory with analysis of the case study, but further development needed.
|
Superficial or inadequate attempt to identify key areas of negotiation
Interview plan lacks detail and provides
inadequate outline for the negotiation, with little or no supporting evidence from the case study analysis.
The analysis includes examples from the case study, but these are insufficiently linked to theory OR includes some theory, but it is insufficiently linked to analysis of the case study.
|
Very weak identification or insufficient attempt to identify key areas of negotiation.
Interview plan is limited and not supported by evidence from the case study analysis.
Insufficient integration of theory with case study analysis.
|
| TASK 4: Training Plan
Identification of training aim and objectives
Explanation for selecting training activities
Analysis of challenges in delivery of training
|
Excellent identification of clear training aim and session objectives.
Outstanding explanation and justification for training activities.
Thoughtful and critical analysis of challenges in delivery of the training, including ideas for improvement. |
Very good identification of aim and objectives of training session.
Clear explanation of variety of training activities although this could have been developed further or better justified.
Some thoughtful and perceptive analysis of the challenges in delivery of the training. |
Training aim and objectives identified but could be developed further.
Some training activities are described but further detail and justification for their choice is needed.
Some attempt has been made to analyze the challenges in training delivery, but its scope and depth are limited.
|
Inadequate identification of training aim and session objectives.
Weak explanation and lack of justification for choice of training activities.
Only a weak attempt to critically analyze the challenges in training delivery. |
Very weak or insufficient attempt to identify training aim and session objectives.
Poor or no explanation and/or justification for the choice of training activities.
Lacks critical analysis of challenges in delivery of the training.
|
| GENERAL:
Quality of writing and good academic practice |
The writing style is fluent and persuasive and no major grammatical/spelling errors. Referencing is complete, accurate and follows the Harvard protocol. |
Writing style is clear with few grammatical/spelling errors. The referencing is accurate and complete for the most part and follows the Harvard protocol. |
Writing style is generally clear although there may be grammatical /spelling errors that detract from the meaning in places. Referencing does not always follow Harvard style and/or there are some inaccuracies/omissions. |
Writing style is unclear in places and this detracts from the content. Referencing does not follow Harvard style and/or there are major inaccuracies /omissions. |
The work is poorly written and /or unclear. Major errors in referencing or a complete lack of reference to source material. |
