Personality and Intelligence

Sheet1

	Outstanding 80+ (First)	Excellent 70 - 79 (First)	Very Good 60 - 69 (Upper Second; 2:1)	Good 50-59 (Lower Second; 2:2)	Satisfactory 40-49 (Third)	Marginal Fail 30 - 39	Fail < 29
Weighting 30% Learning Outcome: Demonstrate a critical understanding of key concepts within the domains of personality and intelligence.  Critical evaluation goes further than simply describing the basic elements of theories and/or research, by highlighting their relative strengths, weaknesses and limitations. An appropriate academic writing style, engagment with the relevant literature and research.	There is evident understanding and in-depth knowledge of the relevant constructs addressed in terms of personality and intelligence. There is outstanding evaluative evidence of linkage between the personality constructs and their relationship with the type of intelligence.Theories and research are relevant to the constructs and there is a clear and logical flow to the narrative, which goes beyond what the assessment brief requires as standard. Outstanding critical evaluation of the theories and research is woven into the argument. Theory and research is crtically analysed with exceptional confidence and used to build a rationale to support the central argument. The work demonstrates extraordinary independent thought and originality throughout. The student is able to present their ideas clearly and with conviction. Here, the author's voice comes through very clearly and there is an outstanding argument/ line of reasoning. All information is presented in a clear and concise way, with clear support throughout for any claims made.	There is considerable originality in the approach and the work demonstrates confidence and autonomy. Theories and research are relevant to the constructs and there is a clear and logical flow to the narrative, the work exceeds the assessment brief. There is excellent evaluative evidence of linkage between the personality constructs and their relationship with the type of intelligence. The author's voice comes through clearly and there is a very clear, persuasive line of reasoning/argument. Excellent critical analysis skills. Theory and empirical research is woven into the argument and is critically analysed with confidence and skill. The critique is used to build a rationale to support the central argument..	There is evidence of some originality and independence of thought. The work demonstrates the ability to analyse the subject and apply theory with very good academic and intellectual skills. The flow of the discussion shows a prominent element of critical evaluation and there is very good evaluative evidence of linkage between the personality constructs and their relationship with the type of intelligence. This covers very well what the assessment brief requires the student to do, Critical analysis skills are very good and fairly consistent. Theory and research is critiqued appropriately - highlighting strengths, weaknesses and limitations. The critique is used to build a case for the main argument being proposed. The narrative is well structured which makes regular reference to the relevant literature and research. There is evidence of independent thought in large parts of the work.	The flow of the narrative is good and there are indications of some evaluation. There is good evidence of linkage between the personality constructs and their relationship with the type of intelligence. The student is able to present their ideas with some clarity but may lack convicton. There is a good understanding of the relevant constructs, highlighting some strengths/weakensses and limitations but this may not contribute to an overall argument/line of reasoning However, this should adequately cover what the assessment brief requires. Enough of the information is presented in a clear and concise way and although the work may lack originality, academic skills are moving into the critical domain.	Satisfactory level of performance where the flow of the essay is acceptable but there is little to no evidence of critical evaluation. There are some omissions in the understanding of the constructs, theories and research, possibly with some misconceptions. There is satisfactory evidence of linkage between the personality constructs and their relationship with the type of intelligence. There is little evidence of independent thought. The structure is problematic at times and academic skills are limited. Little of the information presented appears in a clear and concise way, with many of the claims made not supported with evidence.	A limited piece of work in which there are clear gaps in understanding the concepts and underpinning theories.There is no evidence of linkage between the personality constructs and their relationship with the type of intelligence. Academic skills are weak and there are errors in expression.The work lacks original thought and is largely imitative. There is no critical analysis and no attempt to synthesise the evidence to provide the narrative with a logical flow. Most of the information presented is unclear or confusing, with claims made unsupported by evidence. This will fall short of what the assessment brief requires.	A poor performance in which there are substantial gaps in knowledge, understanding of the underpinning theories and constructs. There are numerous errors in expression.The work is imitative and no critical analysis is attempted. The flow of the narrative is very difficult to follow.There is no evidence of linkage between the personality constructs and their relationship with the type of intelligence. The information presented is either not relevant, or unclear and confusing. Claims made in the student's work are unsupported by any evidence This will fall short of what the assessment brief requires.
Weighting 30% Learning Outcome: Demonstrate a critical appreciation of historical and contemporary developments and limitations in the study, ethics and measurement of personality and intelligence.	Historical and current empirical evidence has been selected and used to illustrate developments and limitations of the constructs under discussion. If relevant, scales have been critically analysed to an exceptional standard extending into issues of validty, reliability and invariance. Historical and contemporary ethical considerations and direct reference has been made to specific parts of the BPS code, again where relevant, have been interwoven into the narrative and considered explictly. These ethical issues are considered explicitly to an exceptional degree. These considerations are evaluated with confidence, clarity and insight into the topic under discussion.	High level of performance in which there is clear evidence of a very thorough consideration of the relevant historical and contemporary literature surrounding the phenomena discussed. Ethical considerations have been considered and evaluated explicitly and direct reference has been made to specific parts of the BPS code, where relevant and are incorporated with clarity and insight into the narrative. There is strong evidence of the psychometric literature being researched and incorporated into the discussion in terms of strengths and weakenesses of the measures used, which are relevant to the constructs discussed. The student may also have researched whether the scales were invariant either across age, sex and.or culture. All information is presented in a clear and conside way, with clear support for any claims.	A very good submission, showing a critical appreciation of the relevant historical and contemporary literature surrounding the phenomena discussed. Critical evaluation is very good in terms of ethical considerations, which have been well researched and incorporated coherently into the narrative. The BPS code has been alluded to, again, where relevant.. The psychometric literature has been researched and strengths and limitations of the relevant measures used in research studies have been evaluated and incorporated appropriately into the narrative to support the argument being made There is very good support for any claims and there is a logical flow to the structure.	A good performance, showing consideration of the relevant historical and contemporary literature surrounding the phenomena discussed. There is an attempt to discuss relevant ethical considerations but these could have been further expanded upon, as they may be brief or vague. The psychometric literature has been researched and strengths and limitations of the relevant measures used in research studies have been described but not critically evaluated. There is some good support for any claims and an attempt has been made to provide a logical structure.	A satisfactory performance where some consideration has been given to the relevant historical and contemporary literature surrounding the phenomena discussed. There is no clear considerstion of ethical issues. There is no evidence of the psychometric literature being researched in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the measures used in research studies, which are relevant to the constructs discussed. There is some support for any claims and an attempt has been made to provide a logical structure. There is no successful attempt at critical analysis.	A limited submission where minimal consderation has been given to the relevant historical and contemporary literature surrounding the phenomena discussed. There is no attempt to consider ethical issues. There is no evidence of the psychometric literature being researched in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the measures used in research studies, which are relevant to the constructs discussed. There is minimal support for any claims, however, there is no logical structure.	A poor performance in which there is no evidence that the student has any reasonable understanding of the constructs they are writing about. There is no consideration of the relevant historical and contemporary literature surrounding the phenomena discussed. Ethical considerations have not been evaluated or described, even where relevant. There is no evidence of the psychometric literature being researched in terms of strengths and weakenesses of the measures used, which are relevant to the constructs discussed. There is no clear support for any claims and no logical structure.
Weighting 30% Learning Outcome: Apply and demonstrate skills relevant to selecting and adapting appropriately sourced evidence to support an argument.  Evidence has been synthesised to develop a critical narrative. There is an extensive demonstration of wider reading and all evidence has been sourced from robust academic literature (peer reviewed journal articles), not text books.	There is exceptional management of resources. The selection of theory and research is very appropriate and provides exceptionally useful insights into the topic under discussion. The structure is excellent, where the evidence has been synthesised to support the argument and provide a logical flow to the narrative. The points from the literature are specifically relevant to the constructs being discussed and the line of argument The relevant literature and research is engaged with throughout showing an understanding of the interaction between theory, phenomena and relevant research.	Resources have been managed with exceptional confidence and exceeds the assessment brief. Selection of theory and research is appropriate and provides useful inisghts into the topic under discussion. The evidence has been excellently synthesised into the narrative providing a clear and logical flow. The student has evidently researched the topic widely and has shown the ability to select appropriate points from a variety of journal papers as well as adapt and apply these points into the narrative.	A very good range of resources underpin the work and there is clear evidence of self-directed research. Appropriate theories and research have been selected and applied . There is evidence of clear understanding of the theory and research selected and the student has incorporated these into the narrative, with good evidence of critical analysis. The student has evidently read widely and sourced appropriate journal articles to support and build the argument.	The work shows a sound level of competence in managing basic sources and materials.Some appropriate theory and/ or research has been selected and included in the answer and a general understanding of these is demonstrated, although there may be some lack in understanding. The student has attempted to incorporate points selected from the literature although they may not have been adapted into a logical flow to provide support for the argument. There is evidence of wider reading and the student has not shown a reliance on the core text book.	There is little evidence of independent thought and the work shows a satisfactory use of sources and materials.Some theories and/ or research have been selected and included in the answer but these may all not be entirely suited to the question being addressed. The points are incorporated into the narrative but are not synthesised to build a critical narrative. There is some evidence of wider reading although the core text book is relied on. Any evidence applied is descriptive.	The work shows a limited use of sources and materials. Some appropriate theories or research may be incorpoated, but this is underdeveloped and may not be well-suited to the topic under discussion. The structure of the essay is weak, and sources are limited mainly drawing from the core textbook, showing a lack of wider reading. There is no synthesis of evidence and the essay is descriptive and poorly structured. There is little understanding of how to select and adapt evidence to support an argument.	The work shows little evidence in the use of appropriate sources and materials.If any theory/ research is included, it may not be well-suited to the topic under discussion. There is no evidence of wider reading and the structure of the essay is poor with no attempt to synthesise evidence and there is no logical flow to the narrative, The points made are not specifically relevant to the constructs being discussed and there is no line of argument. There is no understanding of how to select and adapt evidence to build and support an argument.
Weighting 10% Learning Outcome: Demonstrate effective communication of ideas in writing.  This includes formatting, writing style, title, references and reference list. The essay should not have subheadings as specified in the assessment brief. Writing is clear, concise, formal and academic in style, presenting informatini effectively to the reader with no confusion. This includes accurate sentence cnstruction and paragraphing. References from robust sources (peer-reviewed articles) and used/cited appropriately in text and in reference list (AP?A 7 for Psych students and Harvard AU for Joints students). Title is clear and communicates the purpose and focus of the critical essay.	Writing is exceptionally well structured and accurately referenced throughout. With some minor edits, the work would be of publication standard. Outstanding use of formal, professional writing style, with all information clear, concise, and presented logically. Paragraphing is used accurately to support excellent flow of ideas. For example, there is one clear point per paragraph and paragraphs are linked throughout the essay. Outstanding use of references, including high quality sources and correct reference format in-text and reference list (APA /AU Harvard), with no errors. Title is effective and concise, and demonstrates to the reader the purpose and focus of the essay.	Writing is exceptionally well structured and accurately referenced throughout. Excellent use of formal, professional writing style, with all information clear, concise, and presented logically. Paragraphing is used accurately to support flow of ideas. For example, there is one clear point per paragraph and links are made between paragraphs. Excellent use of references, including a wide range of high quality sources and correct reference format in-text and reference list (APA /AU Harvard), with little or no errors. Title is effective and concise, and demonstrates to the reader the purpose and focus of the essay.	Academic writing skills are good, expression is accurate overall and the work is consistently referenced throughout. Very good use of formal, professional writing style, with most of the information clear, concise, and presented logically. Very good use of references, including most from up-to-date, high quality sources and mostly correct reference format both in-text and reference list (APA 7/ AU Harvard) with some errors. Title is mostly effective, and indicates to the reader the purpose of the essay.	Academic writing skills are good and accurate overall and the work is planned and structured with some thought. There are some references to the relevant literature and research. Satisfactory use of formal/ academic writing style, with the information presented somewhat clearly and logically, with some room for improvement. Mainly good use of references, although with some from weak sources. Reference format in-text and reference list (APA 7/ AU Harvard) includes several errors but have mostly been adhered to. Title somewhat demonstrates to the reader the general focus of the essay.	Basic level formatting, Weaknesses in scientifc writing style and clarity of information. References are scarce so improvements in referencing are required, including use of higher quality sources and correctly formatting in-text references and reference list (APA or AU Harvard). The title does not effectively demonstrate to the reader the focus of the essay.	A lot of information not presented coherently. No formatting guidelines have been adhered to. Weaknesses in formal/ academic writing style and clarity of information, with confusion of content. Little or no references, or references from very weak sources, and incorrect or no reference list (APA / AU Harvard). Title is vague and lacks clarity.	Academic writing skills are very weak and there are numerous errors in expression. The work lacks structure overall. The majority of information is presented in a confusing manner and there are many weaknesses in scientifc writing and clarity of information. No references, and no reference list or references from very weak sources (APA or AU Harvard). There is either no title, or the title does not appropriately fit the assignment brief.
\