2250 words in 8 hours

Criteria

High Distinction

Distinction

Credit

Pass

Fail

Written communication (report)

Out of 20

Excellent tables, lists, heading formats, paragraphs, formal writing, grammar/spelling, reference formatting and report structure.

Good tables, lists, heading formats, paragraphs, formal writing, grammar/spelling, reference formatting and report structure.

Mostly okay tables, lists, heading formats, paragraphs, formal writing, grammar/spelling, reference formatting and/or report structure.

Adequate tables, lists, heading formats, paragraphs, formal writing, grammar/spelling, reference formatting and/or report structure.

Inadequate tables, lists, heading formats, paragraphs, formal writing, grammar/spelling, reference formatting and/or report structure.

Word count (report)

Out of 10

Very economical writing so the report is just under or exactly on the word count (no more), because (almost) no unnecessary word use. Does not use any scanned words.*

Mostly economical writing so the report is just under or exactly on the word count (no more), because mostly little unnecessary word use. Does not use any scanned words.*

Somewhat economical writing so the report is just under or exactly on the word count (no more), but quite a bit unnecessary word use. Does not use any scanned words.*

Adequate economical writing but the report is a little (1-50 words) over the word count, and/or mostly unnecessary word use. Does not use any scanned words.*

Exceeds the word count by more than 50 words, or is quite a few words under the word count (50 or more). May include scanned words (e.g. in tables, figures, images).*

Criteria

High Distinction

Distinction

Credit

Pass

Fail

Ethical decision- making framework (report)

Out of 35

Excellent knowledge and original use of the ethical decision-making framework (including short, medium and long-term impact) to produce a highly expert analysis and argument. Original, excellent consideration and balance of viewpoints of and implications for the specified stakeholders.

Good knowledge of the ethical decision-making framework (including short, medium and long- term impact) to produce quite an expert analysis and argument, but lacks originality. Good consideration and balance of viewpoints of and implications for the specified stakeholders, but lacks originality.

Good knowledge of the ethical decision-making framework (including short, medium and long- term impact) to analyse and make an argument, but some major errors in knowledge/use. Mostly considers viewpoints of and implications for the specified stakeholders, but a little biased to one or two only.

Adequate knowledge of the ethical decision-making framework (including short, medium and long-term impact) to analyse and make an argument, but many major errors in knowledge/use. Viewpoints of and implications of some/most of the specified stakeholders is considered, but mostly biased to one or two only.

Inadequate knowledge of the ethical decision-making framework (including short, medium and long- term impact) to analyse and make an argument because hardly/not used. Very little or no consideration of the specified stakeholder viewpoints and/or implications.

Ethical

Comprehensive synthesising of

Good synthesising of credible,

Mostly credible, quality academic

Adequately convincing argument with

Largely unconvincing argument

research

credible, quality academic

quality academic sources

sources, and some counter-points to

some credible, quality academic

with little/no (credible, quality

(report)

sources (way beyond minimum

(somewhat beyond minimum

the opposing argument, are used to

sources and/ or counter-points for the

academic) sources, or counter-

requirements) to make an original,

requirements) to make a convincing,

make a good argument. The report

opposing argument. The report has,

points for the opposing argument.

Out of 35

convincing and very well informed

well informed argument. Good

can be improved with more sources

however, insufficient sources and

Very little/no insight into the

argument. Very original, excellent

counter-points to the opposing

(than just the minimum), synthesis

counter-points and limited (if any)

complexity of the moral dilemma

counter-points to the opposing

argument. Offers good insight into

and/or counter-points. Somewhat

synthesis. Adequate insight into the

from the research, and/or mostly or

argument. Offers original insight

the complexity of the moral dilemma

good insight into the complexity of

complexity of the moral dilemma from

entirely generic.

into the complexity of the moral

beyond just using academic

the moral dilemma than just using

the research, but the report needs

dilemma beyond just using

sources. The report lacks originality

the research, but needs a bit more

much more depth of analysis and

academic sources.

in the use of research, however.

depth of analysis and insight.

insight (i.e. it is too generic).