Field Work Essay

Assessment Criteria 

Unsatisfactory (F) 

Limited/beginning capability (P) 

Satisfactory (C) 

Good (D) 

Excellent (HD) 

Ability to address topic/assessment task (content; argumentation) (40%) 

Assessment task was not addressed or only basic aspects of the task were addressed.  

Assessment task was somewhat addressed. However, the provided argumentation is either too narrow or too broad or a main argument and/or supporting sub-arguments are missing/do not suffice in quantity. 

Theoretical underpinnings (including concepts of WIL, community development or international humanitarian aid/development aid) were not explained and/or applied in detail. 

Overall the argumentation lacks depth and detail. 

Some aspects of the assignment task were addressed. 

The essay provides a main argument and a number of sub-arguments.  However, the argumentation lacks depth and detail. 

Theoretical underpinnings (e.g. WIL, community development or humanitarian assistance/development aid) were described and explained.  

Most aspects of the assessment task were addressed. 

The essay provides a detailed analysis of theoretical underpinnings (e.g. WIL, community development or humanitarian assistance/development aid). 

A clear thesis/main argument and relevant sub-arguments were included.  

Overall, the argumentation shows detail and depth. 

Exceptional and in-depth reflection of theoretical underpinnings (e.g. WIL, community development or humanitarian assistance/development aid). 

The essay provides a clear thesis/main argument and relevant sub-arguments.  

Overall, the argumentation shows an unexpected level of depth, detail, rigour and new insights or evidence. 

Structural, logical sequencing and flow of information (structure; format; presentation of information) (20%) 

No apparent essay structure; assignment does not adhere to the prescribed formal criteria; the majority of the text is loosely structured with no/limited direction for the reader. 

Adhered somewhat to an essay structure (introduction, body and conclusion apparent on macro level, but not on micro-level). 

No or ineffective paragraph-level; adhered to some of the other prescribed formal criteria.  

Text somewhat structured, however with irregularities and limited direction for the reader. 

Adhered to almost all prescribed formal criteria.  

Adhered to an essay structure (introduction, body and conclusion) on a micro- and a macro-level with some irregularities; logical sequencing and flow of information with minor irregularities. 

Assignment adheres to all prescribed formal criteria. 

Effective use of an essay structure (on a macro- and micro-level). 

Well-structured text; logical sequencing and flow of information which provides good direction for the reader. 

Adhered to all pre-scribed formal criteria. 

Outstanding and rigorous application of an essay structure (on a macro- and micro level) which engages the reader. 

Smooth flow of information. 

Written expression (expressing ideas clearly; use of language; quality of grammar, punctuation, spelling and syntax) (15%) 

Poor grammar/punctuation/wording/syntax/ 

Spelling.  

No or little use of academic/formal/technical language. 

Assignment contains major spelling/grammar/punctuation/ syntax/wording errors. 

Little use of appropriate academic/formal/technical language. 

Occasional grammar/punctuation/ 

spelling/syntax/wording errors. 

Effective use of academic/formal style of writing with occasional insecurities or irregularities. 

Grammar, spelling, syntax, wording and punctuation have been used effectively with no or minor irregularities. 

Applied academic/formal language effectively and consistently throughout the essay.  

Ideas were expressed clearly. 

Excellent and exemplary use of grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation and wording. 

Ideas were expressed clearly. Exceptional and confident use of academic/formal/technical language. 

Referencing (attention to acknowledgment of other sources, both in-text and in the reference list; adhering to citation and referencing conventions overall) (15%) 

No or faulty use of in-text citations and references and/or acknowledgement of other sources in-text and in the referencing list. 

Generally, referencing conventions were not adhered to. 

Referencing style and in-text citations are identifiable but insufficient and/or have not been displayed in accordance to all referencing and citation conventions. 

No or little in-text references/paraphrasing. 

Generally adhered to academic referencing style and referencing conventions with minor errors or irregularities. 

In-text citations and paraphrasing are evident but do not suffice in terms of quantity. 

Adhered to most or all referencing and citation conventions.  

Provided a variety of in-text quotations and references.  

Additional references could have been provided to support the argumentation. 

Exemplary and confident use of referencing and citation in alignment with all referencing conventions. 

Large number of quotations and in-text references were provided to support the argumentation. 

Academic quality of references (selected references are of academic nature and support the author’s argumentation) (10%) 

The majority of provided references are not of academic nature and/or do not support the argumentation. 

Mix of academic and non-academic references which support the argumentation only on a basic level. 

The majority of references are only of primary or secondary nature. 

The majority of selected references are of academic nature. 

Both, primary and secondary references have been used.  

There is a clear link between the provided references and the argumentation. 

Selected references are exclusively of academic nature. 

References are contemporary and support author’s argumentation. 

Additional and more contemporary or subject-specific references could have been included to support all elements of the argumentation. 

Exceptional selection of adequate primary and secondary references. 

References are of academic nature.  

All references support them argumentation. 

References are contemporary and subject-specific. 

DID NOT SUBMIT (DNS) 0% 

Did not complete 50% or more of the assessment item(s). 

FAIL (F) <50% 

Fails to satisfy the requirements of the unit. 

PASS (P) 50 to <65% 

Satisfies all of the basic learning requirements of the unit, such as knowledge of fundamental concepts and performance of basic skills; demonstrates satisfactory, adequate, competent or capable achievement. 

CREDIT (C) 65 to <75% 

Demonstrates ability to use and apply fundamental concepts and skills of the unit going beyond the mere replication of content knowledge or skill to show understanding of key ideas, awareness of their relevance, some use of analytical skills, and some originality or insight. 

DISTINCTION (D) 75 to <85% 

Demonstrates awareness and underpinning of deeper and less obvious aspects of the unit, such as ability to identify and debate critical issues or problems, ability to solve non-routine problems, ability to adapt and apply ideas to new situations, and ability to evaluate new ideas. 

HIGH DISTINCTION (HD) 85 to 100% 

Demonstrates imagination, originality or flair, based on proficiency in all aspects of the unit; work is interesting or surprisingly exciting, well-read or scholarly.