| 90-100% |
An exceptional project, excellent in every respect, showing extensive knowledge and understanding and an outstanding ability to analyse, evaluate, and discuss. Exhibits a high level of insight and is extremely well expressed and presented. Clear hypothesis and the study design and methodology reflect this. Almost of publishable quality! |
| 80-89% |
An outstanding project in almost all aspects showing extensive knowledge and understanding and an outstanding ability to analyse, evaluate, and discuss. Evidence of extensive reading and study and thorough discussion. An accurate, well-organized, well-presented, and sharply focused project. Clear hypothesis and the study design and methodology reflect this. |
| 70-79% |
An excellent project in most respects showing evidence of extensive knowledge and understanding. Evidence of substantial reading. Accurate, well-organized, sharply focused, and balanced. Very good ability to analyse and evaluate the material in the context of the question. Clear hypothesis and the study design and methodology reflect this. |
| 65-69% |
A very good project showing evidence of wide knowledge and understanding of relevant material and clear evidence of significant background reading and research. Discussion of material from a relatively substantial number of sources. Well-focused on the question with balanced argument but lacks some of the qualities of a first-class project. May be let down by a significant omission or by grammar or presentation. |
| 60-64% |
A good project showing sound knowledge and understanding; based predominantly on the project content but with clear evidence of outside reading and research. May include a majority of salient points but not in sufficient depth and/or detail. Mostly accurate but may contain occasional errors. Weaknesses may be evident in higher-level cognitive skills, especially in the ability to evaluate and critically analyse. Weaknesses are likely in organization, presentation, or balance in the sharpness of focus on the question. Clear hypothesis but the study design and methodology may not reflect the hypothesis. Good description of results, but the discussion and conclusion sections may not have relevant discussion of findings of this study. |
| 55-59% |
A competent project showing reasonable knowledge and understanding but with less evidence of outside reading or research. Lacking in depth and detail of discussion. May contain errors as well as omissions. At least two-thirds of the material presented should be of direct relevance to the project. May not focus consistently on the question. Weak on examples, organization, and/or presentation. The hypothesis may not be clear, and the study design and methodology may not reflect the hypothesis. The discussion and conclusion sections may not discuss the findings of the study with relevance to other studies in the area. |
| 50-54% |
An adequate answer showing basic knowledge and understanding of course content but lacks evidence of outside reading and research. Mentions at least half of the salient points, but important points may be missed. At least half of the material presented should be of direct relevance to the questions. Lack of consistent focus is likely. Weak organization and little or no evidence of higher cognitive skills. Poor hypothesis and study design. Results are poorly reported. Discussion is poor and does not discuss the findings of the study. |
| 45-49% |
A deficient project showing limited knowledge and understanding. Usually contains errors as well as omissions. Mentions less than half of salient points, but important points are missed. Addresses the questions, at least in part, but organization is weak. May be unfocused, poorly expressed, short, or incomplete. Poor hypothesis and study design. Methodology is lacking in information and clarity. Results are poorly reported, and discussion lacks relevance, depth, and detail. |
| 40-44% |
A weak project showing very limited knowledge. Usually contains significant errors as well as omissions in design and layout. Mentions some salient points in the literature review but does not identify the most pertinent. At least one-third of the material presented should be of direct relevance to the question. Project may be unfocused, superficial, poorly expressed, short, or incomplete. Poor hypothesis and badly designed study. Methodology is lacking in information and clarity, and results are poorly reported. Discussion is poor and may not discuss the findings of the study. |
| Fail |
A poor project with extensive omissions and errors, which may be numerous and major. The central question is seriously misinterpreted or avoided. Relevant knowledge may be poorly organized or presented. No clear hypothesis, and the study is poorly designed. Methodology is poor and does not answer the question asked. Results are incoherent and irrelevant. Discussion is poor and does not discuss the findings of the study. |
