Order 968374: Determination of Vitamin C Concentration using a redox titration method

MARKING GRID Foundation

(0-100%)

Coherence and organisation of assignment. Clarity of expression (incl. spelling, grammar, punctuation). Communication and presentation (appropriate to discipline)

Content and knowledge: evidence of reading, quality of sources used

Critical thinking. Analysis. Conclusions

80-100

Strong logical organisation and coherence enhances fulfilment of the assignment objectives.

Fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment. Grammar and spelling accurate.

Effective communication which demonstrates a strong understanding of the discipline.

Demonstrates broad and/or in-depth independent reading from appropriate sources.

Sources used are acknowledged in the text and reference list and used effectively to support discussion.

Referencing follows a systematic approach, appropriate to the discipline.

Uses a balanced combination higher quality secondary sources and some primary sources.

Emerging critical thinking is consistently integrated into the work. Shows some ability to evaluate theories / concepts / assumptions / data.

Makes very good use of a range of relevant analytic techniques. Shows good ability to compare alternative theories / analytic approaches (where relevant).

Conclusions are well developed and analytical. They are grounded in theory / evidence / literature. They form an integrated part of the overall argument / discussion.

70-79

Demonstrates logical organisation and coherence.

Language fluent. Grammar and spelling mainly accurate.

Good communication in a format appropriate to the discipline.

Evidence of independent reading from a fairly wide range of appropriate sources.

Sources used are acknowledged in the text and reference list and used to support discussion.

Referencing follows a systematic approach, appropriate to the discipline.

Uses a balanced combination of higher quality secondary sources.

Demonstrates appropriate critical thinking grounded in theory / evidence / literature.

Makes good use of established techniques of analysis relevant to the discipline. Shows some developing ability to compare alternative theories / analytic approaches (where relevant).

Conclusions show some critical insight. They relate clearly to evidence / theory / literature.

60-69

Demonstrates sound, thoughtful organisation.

Language generally fluent. Grammar and spelling mainly accurate.

Communication is effective and in a format appropriate to the discipline.

Evidence of independent reading from a range of appropriate sources.

Sources used are acknowledged in the text and reference list.

Referencing follows a systematic approach, appropriate to the discipline.

Mostly uses higher quality secondary sources.

Demonstrates some critical insight, with clear links to evidence / theory / literature.

Makes effective use of established techniques of analysis relevant to the discipline. Shows some awareness of alternative theories / analytic approaches (where relevant).

Logical conclusions are drawn, which are derived from evidence / theory / literature.

50-59

Demonstrates generally sound, conventional organisation.

Meaning clear, but language not always fluent. Grammar and/or spelling contain errors.

Communication is generally effective and shows awareness of the discipline’s academic style.

Evidence of some independent reading from appropriate sources.

Attempts to follow systematic approach to the citation of sources, appropriate to the discipline.

Uses appropriate secondary sources.

Demonstrates some conventional critical insight and recognises alternative positions.

Makes fair and/or conventional use of established techniques of analysis, relevant to the discipline.

Generally sound conclusions are drawn which are supported by evidence / theory / literature.

40-49

Shows limited organisation.

Generally understandable, but language contains errors which detract from the argument.

Generally clear but limited evidence of discipline’s academic style.

Evidence of reading from appropriate sources. Literature is presented in a descriptive way.

Some attempt to cite sources in the text but contains inaccuracies, inconsistencies and/or omissions.

Integration between text and reference list is inconsistent.

Some use of appropriate secondary sources, but also draws upon some unreliable and/or inappropriate sources.

Demonstrates limited critical insight. Some recognition of alternative positions.

Makes satisfactory but limited use of established techniques of analysis, relevant to the discipline.

Some relevant conclusions are drawn which are derived from limited understanding of evidence / theory / literature

20-39

Poorly presented and structured but partially understandable.

Meaning often unclear and/or frequent errors in grammar and/or spelling.

Communication is unstructured and unfocused and/or in a format inappropriate to the discipline.

Very limited evidence of reading and/or inappropriate sources used and/or engagement with the literature very superficial.

Citations of sources in the text are inconsistent, inaccurate and/or incomplete.

Makes some use of appropriate sources, but also strongly draws upon unreliable and/or inappropriate sources.

Critical thought and/or analysis very limited and/or incoherent.

Attempts at analysis ineffective and/or uninformed by the discipline.

Limited or ineffective attempt to draw together arguments.

0-19

Disorganised and/or incoherent.

Meaning unclear. Poor spelling, grammar and punctuation.

Communication is disorganised and/or incoherent and/or shows no understanding of the discipline.

Little or no evidence of engagement with relevant literature.

Little or no acknowledgement of sources of information in text and/or reference list.

Uses unreliable and / or inappropriate sources.

No evidence of critical thought.

Lacks any analysis.

Lack of conclusions, or unsubstantiated and/or invalid conclusions drawn.