Law Assignment

BHL4010 Foundations of Law

STUDENT NAME:

STUDENT NUMBER:

Module Number: BHL4010

Term: YR

Module Title: Foundations of Law

Module Leader: Stella Diamantidi

Assignment Due Date:

ASSIGNMENT:

SECTION A: SELF ASSESSMENT (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE STUDENT)

In relation to each of the set assessment criteria, please identify the areas in which you feel you have strengths and those in which you need to improve. Provide evidence to support your self-assessment with reference to the content of your assignment.

STRENGTHS

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

I certify that this assignment is a result of my own work and that all sources have been acknowledged:

Signed:___________________________________ Date_______________________

SECTION B: TUTOR FEEDBACK

(based on assignment criteria, key skills and learning outcomes)

STRENGTHS

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND TARGETS FOR FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS

GRADE AWARDED

DATE:

SIGNED

ASSIGNMENT MODERATED BY:

DATE:

MODERATOR’S COMMENTS:

70+ (A)

60-69 (B)

50-59 (C)

40-49 (D)

35-39 (E)

BELOW 35 (FAIL)

CRITERION 1

(%)

Demonstration of legal knowledge and understanding

Have I demonstrated my understanding of the salient legal points raised by the topic?Have I applied my knowledge appropriately to the question?

Detailed, accurate, and relevant. Key points highlighted. Demonstrates systematic understanding of all key aspects of topic and excellent breadth and depth of knowledge. Appreciating any ambiguities in the area of legal study.

Strong ability to apply legal knowledge to the key issues of the task

Detailed, accurate, relevant.

Shows thorough understanding of key aspects of topic.

Discussion of more complex legal issues often tackled successfully

Sound knowledge and understanding of key topics. May be a tendency to reproduce information received from elsewhere (e.g. programme materials). A few errors or misconceptions may be present, but not in important areas.

Some evidence of ability to apply core legal principles.

Demonstrates basic knowledge and understanding, Reproducing information is a frequent feature.

Errors or misconceptions will be evident but outweighed by the overall understanding.

Limited knowledge, with many errors misconceptions, and gaps.

Extremely limited with significant errors and gaps

CRITERION 2

(%)

Critical analysis, development of legal argument and use of authority to support reasoning

Are the points that I have made well-reasoned and supported by reference to legal authority?

Have I shown appreciation of alternative perspectives and identified possible flaws in arguments, counter-arguments and defences where appropriate?

Have I evaluated the arguments and provided reasons or evidence for my conclusion or advice?

Analytical and clear conclusions well-grounded in legal doctrine and authority, possibly showing development of new and innovative solutions to legal problems

Key points supported with legal authority, and alternative perspectives are critically evaluated.

Comments perceptively on the application of legal authority to practical problems

Able to undertake detailed legal analysis,

Good development of arguments which are substantiated

Most points illustrated with relevant evidence.

Good evidence of evaluation and ability to make appropriate judgments

At times demonstrates an ability to undertake analysis.

Evidence of findings and conclusions usually grounded in appropriate legal authority. Arguments usually substantiated.

Some over reliance on description and factual presentation

Fairly superficial and generally derivative, balance of work is in favour of description and factual presentation.

Some evidence mentioned, but not generally integrated into the work or evaluated, although there may be some limited attempt at legal analysis and evaluation.

Largely descriptive, any arguments are rarely substantiated with legal authority.

There may be some attempt to present legal arguments and solutions but the outcomes may be naive, simplistic or unconvincing.

Little or no evidence of being able to undertake analysis.

Fails to identify or evaluate different perspectives or arguments

Inconclusive or lacks an appropriate conclusion

CRITERION 3

(%)

Research and use of legal sources. Accurate referencing

Have I synthesised information from primary and secondary sources and have I identified and used material which is relevant to the task and referenced it accurately?

Wide variety of sources used extending well beyond programme material, showing strong ability to synthesise

Academic and textbook referencing clear, relevant and consistently accurate using the Harvard system.

Material from a variety of sources used extending beyond those sources provided, demonstrating some synthesis of information.

Referencing relevant and mostly accurate using Harvard system

Tendency to rely on core materials and information provided by tutors although evidence of some individual reading.

Minor inconsistencies and inaccuracies in referencing using Harvard system.

Over-reliance on materials provided by tutor. Little or no evidence of reading around the subject.

Referencing present but contains inconsistencies and some inaccuracies, overall Harvard system used.

Referencing frequently inaccurate

Harvard system may be incorrectly used

No evidence that any reading of the subject matter/ around the subject matter was undertaken

No referencing used at all or frequently inaccurate

CRITERION 4

Communication of ideas

(%)

Is the language that I have used professional and is it clear and succinct? Are my arguments well structured?

In written work, is my use of grammar and my spelling accurate?

Rigorously argued, logical, easy to follow. Obvious and well defined structure.

Demonstrates a strong ability to communicate information and complex ideas in a coherent and succinct manner.

The standard of presentation is high with correct use of grammar and accurate spelling.

Generally clearly argued and logical. Key points appropriately organised and dealt with systematically.

The ability to communicate information and ideas clearly and succinctly is good, with very few spelling or grammatical errors.

Overall the format and structure are appropriate but the work may not always clear or logical.

There may be occasional faults in the presentation of the work but overall these do not detract from the clarity of expression.

Key points may not be logically sequenced.

Arguments may be underdeveloped and not entirely clear.

Although there will be faults in the work generally the language and meaning is still clear.

Muddled, faults in structure mar the clarity of expression

Inaccuracies in spelling and grammar are apparent.

No structure apparent throughout. Incoherent.

Frequent faults in presentation make the work unclear and difficult to follow.