Negotiated Learning

Module Handbook HEA 2077

Negotiated Learning Shell

Module Leader Jacqui Hitchen

[email protected] 01695 657027

FACULTY OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

Department of Applied Health and Social Care

FdSc Management and Supervision of Offenders Student Intake: September 2011

Ormskirk Campus

mailto:[email protected]

2

CONTENTS

Introduction Page 3

Learning Outcomes Page 4 Assessment Strategy Page 5 Assessment Guidance Page 6 Assessment Submission Page 7 Confidentiality Page 9 Appendix A: Negotiated Learning Agreement Page 10 Appendix B: On-line submission instructions Page 12 Appendix C: Level 5 marking criteria Page 13 Timetable 6

3

INTRODUCTION Welcome to module HEA 2077 Negotiated Learning Shell. On successful completion of all the elements within the module, you will be awarded 20 credits at Level 5. This shell module offers an opportunity for you to study a topic or work related issue at academic level 5. It involves you identifying the chosen area for study, developing and negotiating a learning contract, which will outline the what, how, when, where and why of the study period as well as the means of assessment to show case the acquired learning. Throughout the module I will be your module leader and my contact details are listed on this handbook cover. If you wish to arrange a tutorial outside the timetabled support, please contact me to arrange an appointment. This will ensure that I am available to see you and will prevent a wasted journey for yourself. This module handbook should be read in conjunction with your Programme Handbook available on the Edge Hill website, which details important information regarding confidentiality, academic rules, regulations and support. On behalf of all the staff within the Faculty of Health and Social Care, I would like to offer you a warm welcome, I hope that you enjoy this module and wish you every success.

Jacqui Hitchen Module Leader

4

LEARNING OUTCOMES On successful completion of the module you will be able to: 1. Identify and analyse a specific subject area.

2. Using skills of critical thinking reflect upon learning achieved as a result of the study

undertaken. 3. Evaluate recommendations for change, either personal or work-based, dependent

upon findings.

5

ASSESSMENT STRATEGY Summative Assessment The summative assessment for this module will be: A learning agreement will be negotiated between you and your academic tutor which will include your learning outcomes and the agreed assessment strategy (see Appendix A). The individual learning outcomes and assessment strategy (negotiated learning agreement) will be approved, both internally via the Negotiated Learning Approval Panel (NLAP) and externally via the external examiner, prior to commencement of the module. The assessment is negotiated between you and your academic tutor to demonstrate achievement of the learning outcomes The principle of 4,000 words or equivalency will govern the limits of the assessment strategy and may include e.g. reflective essay; case study; portfolio of evidence; presentation; OSCEs. In order to pass the module you must achieve a mark of 40% or above

6

ASSIGNMENT GUIDANCE Assignment guidance will be tailored to the individual student and their specific learning agreement. Negotiated Learning Agreement – Approval Process:

Outline of topic, learning outcomes and method of assessment to be completed and submitted by Wednesday 31st October 2012. I recommend that you seek individual appointments with me prior to this time.

All Negotiated Learning Agreements will then be reviewed at a provisional panel meeting on Wednesday 7th November 2012.

I may need to liaise with you regarding any changes which need to be made following this meeting.

The topics have to be submitted to the Panel by Monday 12th November and ratified by the Negotiated Learning Agreement Panel on Monday 3rd December 2012.

These will then be sent to the external examiner.

Ratification of the topic and method of presentation will then be ready for commencement of the module week beginning 28th January 2013

Failure to submit the work based learning agreement may affect your progression on the course

7

ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION

Submission Date: 3rd May 2013

Before 4.00pm Provisional Marks available by: 27th May 2013 The appropriate submission (hand-in, presentation or online) will depend on the assessment task which is negotiated in your individual case. The following provides some guidance which may be applicable to you:

Hand in submissions: Assignments should be placed in the Assignment Box situated in reception, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Ormskirk Campus. On line submission: Your assignments should be generated electronically and submitted online. Instructions for online submission and the how to view results can be found in Appendix B of this handbook.

Non-submission will result in a fail grade being recorded.

8

General Submission Requirements For all written assessments:

Assignments must be electronically generated and you must keep an electronic copy of your assignment.

Appropriate referencing should take place throughout your assignment, utilising the Harvard Referencing System. Useful information and advice can be obtained via the University’s website at:

General Guidance for Academic Skills, including referencing: http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/ls/support/academicskills/#intro Full Harvard Referencing Guide: http://www.eshare.edgehill.ac.uk/1133/1/HR_guide_RevisedDec2011.pdf

In-text authors and dates of publication, the work you include in your reference list and any appendices you attach are not included within the word count. Direct quotations from other sources are included within the word limit. Appendices are not marked and for information only.

Assignments are expected to adhere to guidance regarding the recommended wordage and failure to do so may influence the final grade awarded.

You are responsible for stating the word count when submitting your assignment.

The marking criteria for a range of assessments at Level 6 are attached in Appendix B of this handbook. The appropriate marking criteria would be dependent on the assessment type negotiated.

Confidentiality and academic malpractice regulations apply to all assessments.

Please note if you are unable to submit your assignment due to sickness or other exceptional mitigating circumstances, it will be necessary for you to apply to the Head of Department for an extension or to submit an exceptional circumstances form along with appropriate evidence (e.g. a medical certificate/independent evidence).

The details of the external examiner responsible for the assessment of this module can be found within the Health Student Wiki at: https://go.edgehill.ac.uk/wiki/display/health/External+Examiners+-+Student+Info

Additional requirements for presentations and Viva Voce assessments:

You are required to provide a hardcopy of your presentation and notes on the day of your presentation.

Ensure you arrive at least 15 minutes before the start time.

http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/ls/support/academicskills/#intro

http://www.eshare.edgehill.ac.uk/1133/1/HR_guide_RevisedDec2011.pdf

https://go.edgehill.ac.uk/wiki/display/health/External+Examiners+-+Student+Info

9

Additional requirements for OSCE assessments:

Ensure you arrive at least 30 minutes before the start time.

It is essential you bring your library ID card with you. If for any reason you cannot provide your library card you must provide other photo identification. Failure to do so will result in your exclusion from the examination.

You must not enter the examination room until instructed to do so by the invigilator.

Student uniforms must be worn when undertaking an OSCE. CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT There should be no reference within your assessed work to any name or identifying information relating to patients/clients or any staff member of any organisation. Inclusion of such information will result in a failed submission. Where it is relevant to state name of any organisation then the information should be supported by reference to published documents that are available to the general public and form approved official documentation relating the operation and provision of that organisation. It would be considered relevant to include the name of an organisation when:

Discussing/debating/analysing published data relating to the performance of that organisation.

Discussing/debating/analysing published and approved policy and strategy of that organisation.

Discussing/debating/analysing published research/evaluations/audit/opinion, which relates to and names that organisation.

10

APPENDIX A

Negotiated Learning Agreement Student Name: Student Number: Module Tutor: Tutor email Address: Module Code: Module Title: Level: Credits: Commencement Date of Module: Work Based Mentor/Facilitator (if applicable):

Liaison Tutor (if applicable):

Employer (if approval required): Programme Title: Brief Outline of Proposed Study: (To be completed by student. To include brief description of area of work

focused upon in relation to the study with contextual information setting the scene for the study. Student should include what they hope to gain from this study and identify whether this incorporates present work development).

Learning Outcomes: (To be completed by module tutor in partnership with the student, following discussion of brief

outline. Please add commentary as appropriate to clarify/justify any omissions/additions to the learning outcomes as a result of module tutor assessment eg the brief outline was too ambitious for amount of credit).

Commentary: By the end of the module the student will be able to:

11

Proposed Assessment Strategy: (To be negotiated by student and module tutor. These need to give

comprehensive details of assessment; be linked to the module learning outcomes; provide wordage/equivalence; identify marker of practice assessment, if applicable).

Approved for referral to External Examiner Chair: Date: Approved by External Examiner: Date:

12

APPENDIX B Instructions for Online Submission

TURNITIN Ensure front cover sheet is attached and completed prior to submission. Follow the following steps to submit your assignment through Turnitin. 1. Access http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/ 2. Login using your username and password 3. Access Learning Edgehill 4. Access the Module Area 5. Access Module Assessment Area 6. Click on Turnitin Drop Box 7. Complete form add Module Code 8. Click on Browse button to locate your assignment that is saved 9. Double click the file name to start load process 10. Select the upload button 11. Confirm content 12. Click submit You will receive an e-mail to your university account to confirm your assignment is submitted. Save a copy. Non-submission will result in a fail grade being recorded. Access and view feedback through Turnitin You will receive an e-mail to your university account informing you that your grade and feedback is available for view. Follow the following steps to view your grade and feedback: 1. Access http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/ 2. Login using your username and password 3. Access Learning Edgehill 4. Access the Module Area 5. Access Module Assessment Area 6. Access Turnitin 7. Click on your Assignment title 8. View Grade and Feedback 9. Click reply to comment on feedback

Save a copy of the assignment and store on the F Drive Contact the Module Lead to report problems encountered with submitting the assignment through Turnitin and viewing your feedback.

http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/

http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/

13

APPENDIX C Marking Criteria All Level 5 marking criteria are appended to this handbook for your information. The appropriate marking criteria should be selected to match your negotiated assessment strategy.

14

Assignment Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5

Weighting 75% 25%

Descriptor

Grade

Relevant knowledge and understanding

Application of theory to practice (If relevant)

Level of analysis

Level of investigation and use of supporting evidence

Structure presentation and grammar

90-100%

(Distinction)

Deep knowledge of the topic, explicitly related to comprehensive knowledge of the discipline(s). Utilises excellent questioning approach to reach an insightful structured conclusion.

Deep knowledge and understanding and application of theories and principles to practice.

Excellent analysis and synthesis of elements of the argument, including contrary views with excellent reflection.

Extensive evidence /references used effectively and cited accurately. Draws from a wide range of relevant sources to support discussion.

Excellent structure and standard of presentation. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

80-89%

(Distinction)

Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding of the topic. Clear understanding of the explicit links to some aspects of the wider field.

Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding and application of theories and principles to practice.

High level of ability to analyse and reflect critically, using a range of perspectives.

Evidence/ references used effectively and cited accurately. Draws from a range of relevant sources to support discussion.

Well-structured and high standard of presentation. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

70-79%

(Distinction)

Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding of the topic. Ability to accurately use terminology.


Demonstrates the good use of analytical skills and the process of reflection.

Evidence/ references used effectively and cited accurately. Utilises relevant material to support discussion.

Clearly and logically presented. Grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

60-69%

(Merit)

Good knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Ability to accurately use terminology.

Applies theories and principles to situations and practice in comprehensive manner.

Demonstrates analysis of key issues and the ability to use reflective skills, where appropriate.

Evidence/ references used effectively to support discussion and cited accurately.

Clearly structured and presented. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

50-59%

(Pass)

Sound, partially implicit, knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Ability to use terminology.

Applies theories and principles to situations/ practice.

Demonstrates some analysis of key issues and use of reflective skills, where appropriate.

Demonstrates a developing ability to use evidence/ references effectively and accurately.

Well structured, presented and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

40-49%

(Pass)

Lacks depth and breadth in coverage of the subject matter. Meets assessment outcomes at threshold level.

Identifies fact and principles and applies them to situations/ practice.

Developing some ability to analyse key issues and use of reflective skills, where appropriate, but a tendency to be descriptive.

Broad evidence of reading/ investigation. Some use of references and sources cited.

Generally satisfactory presentation and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

15

Assignment Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5 continued …

Weighting 75% 25%

Descriptor

Grade



Level of analysis



30-39%

(Fail)

Basic implicit knowledge of some relevant topic issues. Partial understanding. Assessment outcomes are not met.

Demonstrates limited application of theory to practice.

Limited evidence of analysis.

Limited reading/ investigation. Incomplete use of references. Majority of sources not cited.

Spelling and grammatical errors. Limited logical progression. Some inappropriate use of language.

20- 29%

(Fail)

Inadequate knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Some factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.

Demonstrates little application of theory to practice.

Little evidence of analysis.

Insufficient reading/ investigation. Incomplete use of references. Most sources not cited.

Many spelling and grammatical errors. Very limited logical progression. In the main inappropriate use of language.

10-19%

(Fail)

Inadequate knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Several factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.

No application of theory to practice.

No evidence of analysis.

Lacks evidence of reading/ investigation. Incomplete use of references. Most sources not cited.

Many spelling and grammatical errors. Disorganised – lacks logical progression and inappropriate use of language.

1-9%

(Fail)

No knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Many factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.



No supporting evidence.

No logical structure. Incomplete sentences. Incomprehensible content.

0% Late submissions without relevant permission. Evidence of academic malpractice as defined by Institutional Policy. Major breach of confidentiality. Evidence of unsafe/harmful or discriminatory practice or presentation of misinformation. Failure to generate assignment electronically.

NB: All work submitted is expected to adhere to guidance regarding the recommended wordage. Failure to do so is likely to influence the final grade awarded.

16

Examination Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5

Weighting 90% 10%

Descriptor Grade



Level of analysis

Level of * investigation and use of supporting evidence


90-100% Thorough knowledge of the topic, explicitly related to wide ranging knowledge of the discipline(s). Utilises an excellent questioning approach to reach an appropriate structured conclusion. Excellent understanding of the wider implications. Specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria met.

Thorough knowledge and understanding demonstrated, with excellent application of theories and principles to practice.

Demonstrates excellent analytical skills, drawing effectively on a wide range of relevant perspectives to develop a clear line of persuasive discussion.

Please refer to the specific assessment guidance to determine whether the examination requires the use of supporting references and texts. If appropriate: Excellent use of key texts and a wide range of relevant resources, cited accurately. Draws from a wide range of perspectives.

Excellent structure; work is logically developed, relevant, clear and legible throughout. Appropriate use of language and grammar. Work is presented in accordance with the examination guidelines. Comprehensive answers are provided for all the examination questions.

80-89% Thorough knowledge and an explicit understanding of the topic. Very good understanding of the wider implications. Demonstrates the ability to reach a structured conclusion. Specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria met.

Thorough knowledge and understanding clearly demonstrated. Excellent application of theories and principles to practice.

Demonstrate excellent analytical skills, drawing effectively on a wide range of relevant perspectives to develop a discussion.

Please refer to the specific assessment guidance to determine whether the examination requires the use of supporting references and texts. If appropriate: Excellent use of key texts and a range of relevant resources/ evidence cited accurately. Draws from a wide range of perspectives.

Very well structured, clear, relevant and legible. Appropriate use of language and grammar. Work is presented in accordance with the examination guidelines. Comprehensive answers are provided for all the examination questions.

70-79% Thorough knowledge and clear understanding of the topic. Demonstrates the ability to reach a structured conclusion. Accurate use of terminology within the appropriate context. Good understanding of the wider implications. Specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria met.

Thorough, knowledge and understanding demonstrated and a very good application of theories and principles to practice.

Demonstrates a very good use of analytical skills and the ability to inform their approach by drawing on a range of perspectives.

Please refer to the specific assessment guidance to determine whether the examination requires the use of supporting references and texts. If appropriate: Key texts and a range of relevant resources/ evidence used effectively and cited accurately.

Clearly and logically presented. Work is clear, relevant and legible. Appropriate use of language and grammar. Work is presented in accordance with the examination guidelines. Answers all examination questions in full.

17

Examination Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5 continued …

Weighting 90% 10%

Descriptor Grade



Level of analysis



60-69% Good knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Good attempt to reach a logical conclusion. Mostly accurate use of terminology. Some acknowledgement of the wider implications. Specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria met.

Good knowledge and application of theories and principles to situations and practice.

Demonstrates a good level of analysis of the key issues.

Please refer to the specific assessment guidance to determine whether the examination requires the use of supporting references and texts. If appropriate: Appropriate key texts/ evidence used effectively, and mostly cited accurately.

Clearly structured with relevant answers. Language and grammar used appropriately. Work is presented in accordance with examination guidelines. Generally all examination questions are answered in full.

50-59% Good general knowledge and understanding of the topic issues. Attempts made to reach a logical conclusion. Some ability to use terminology. Specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria met accurately.

Demonstrates knowledge and understanding. Applies theories and principles to practice.

Demonstrates some analysis of key issues.

Please refer to the specific assessment guidance to determine whether the examination requires the use of supporting references and texts. If appropriate: Demonstrates a developing ability to use key texts/evidence effectively and accurately.

Overall structure is clear with core elements completed. Language and grammar are generally used appropriately. There are some part/unfinished elements. Work is presented in accordance with the examination guidelines.

40-49% Some knowledge and understanding of the topic area. A developing ability to use appropriate terminology. Little evidence of a conclusion or conclusion inappropriate. Specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria met at threshold.

Demonstrates a developing ability to apply theory and principles to practice. Some knowledge and understanding.

Developing an ability to analyse key issues but with a tendency to be descriptive.

Please refer to the specific assessment guidance to determine whether the examination requires the use of supporting references and texts. If appropriate: Broadly refers to key texts/ evidence.

Core elements attempted with some inaccuracies/ errors. Language and grammar are generally used appropriately. Generally satisfactory structure. There are some part/unfinished questions. Work is presented in accordance with the examination guidelines.

30-39% Limited evidence of sufficient knowledge or understanding. Core knowledge not demonstrated. Work does not reach a conclusion. Little use of appropriate terminology. Specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria are not met.


Largely descriptive with little evidence of analysis.

Please refer to the specific assessment guidance to determine whether the examination requires the use of supporting references and texts. If appropriate: Limited use of key texts/ evidence. There are some inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

Poorly structured work with some irrelevant and inaccurate material included. Text tends to be disjointed. Paper is incomplete with some core elements not attempted. Work is not presented in accordance with the examination guidelines.

18

Examination Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5 continued …

Weighting 90% 10%

Descriptor Grade



Level of analysis



20-29% Inadequate knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Some factual errors. Specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria are not met.

Demonstrates insufficient application of theory to practice.

Very descriptive approach with no evidence of any attempt to analyse.

Please refer to the specific assessment guidance to determine whether the examination requires the use of supporting references and texts. If appropriate: Insufficient use of any key texts/evidence. There are inconsistencies and inaccuracies throughout the work texts.

Little evidence of any structure to the work. Some questions are not attempted, core elements are not completed. Text is disjointed and unclear. Many examples of inaccurate and irrelevant material included. Work is not presented in accordance with the examination guidelines.

10-19% Inadequate knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Several factual errors. Specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria are not met.



Please refer to the specific assessment guidance to determine whether the examination requires the use of supporting references and texts. If appropriate: Lacks evidence of reading and use of any supportive material.

Very little evidence of any structure to the work. Questions are not attempted and the core elements are not completed. Text is difficult to follow and disjointed. High levels of irrelevant and inaccurate material included. Work is not presented in accordance with the examination guidelines.

1-9% No knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Many factual errors. Specified learning outcomes and assessment criteria are not met.


Purely descriptive with unsubstantiated claims.

Please refer to the specific assessment guidance to determine whether the examination requires the use of supporting references and texts. If appropriate: No supporting material included.

No evidence of any structure. Content is not comprehensible, relevant and accurate. Paper is incomplete with no attempt to answer the questions set. Work is not presented in accordance with the examination guidelines.

0% Non arrival for the examination without prior permission granted. Examination policy re permitted times of entry and exit from the examination are not adhered to. Evidence of academic malpractice as defined by Institutional Policy. Major breach of confidentiality. Evidence of unsafe/harmful or discriminatory practice or presentation of misinformation. Writing throughout is illegible and cannot be read by the markers.


19

Poster Presentations – Marking Criteria: Academic level 5 Weighting 90% 10%

Descriptor

Grade

Required elements

Impact

Text, title, captions, labels,

headings & subheadings

Content Graphics, illustrations,

images

90-100%

(Distinction)

All required elements included & balanced as well as significant additional relevant information. Relevant knowledge and understanding applied to practice. Exceptional evidence of independent thought and creativity.

Layout exceptionally pleasing in terms of design, layout and neatness; Visually attractive; Colour/contrasts used effectively; Alignment/spacing of elements well thought out.

Clear/logical/coherent; Spelling & punctuation correct; Aim precisely defined; Font size/format appropriate; Author’s name included. Excellent use of headings & subheadings.

Succinct, effective & accurate information; Exceptional evidence of analysis/ interpretation/ reasoning; Comprehensive references used & listed; Accurate use of Harvard referencing system. Meets learning outcomes.

Poster is in focus & easily viewed from 4-6 feet away; Relevant, Captures key issues/ concepts; Labels/captions succinctly describe important concepts.

80-89%

(Distinction)

All required elements included & balanced as well as relevant additional information. Demonstrates explicit knowledge and understanding.

Excellent layout, aesthetically pleasing in terms of design, layout and neatness; Visually attractive; Colour/contrasts effectively used; Alignment/spacing of elements well thought out.

Excellent standard that demonstrates clear & logical; Spelling & punctuation correct. Aim clearly defined; Font size/format appropriate; Author’s name included.

Succinct, effective & accurate information; Excellent evidence of analysis/ reasoning independent though. Relevant references used & listed; Meets learning outcomes.

Excellent use of materials; Poster is in focus & easily viewed from 4 feet away; Relevant, Captures key issues; Labels/captions clearly describe important concepts.

70-79%

(Distinction)

All required elements included & balanced as well as additional information. Demonstrates a high level of explicit knowledge and understanding.

Layout is of a high standard and is aesthetically pleasing; Visually attractive; Colour used effectively; Alignment/spacing of elements uncluttered.

High standard that demonstrates clear & logical progression. Spelling & punctuation correct; Aim defined; Font size/format appropriate; Author’s name included.

Effective & accurate information; High standard of analysis; Independent thought. Relevant references used & listed; Meets learning outcomes.

High standard of graphics. Poster is in focus & can be viewed from 4 feet away; Relevant, Captures key issues; Labels/captions describe important concepts.

60-69%

(Merit)

All required elements included and balanced. Demonstrates a good level of knowledge and understanding.

Good layout pleasing; Attractive use of colour/contrasts; Alignment/spacing of elements uncluttered.

Logical; Spelling & punctuation generally correct; Aim defined; Font size/format clear; Author’s name included.

Accurate information; Evidence of good analysis; References used & listed; Meets learning outcomes.

Good use of graphics; Poster is in focus & can just be viewed from 4 feet away; Relevant issues; Labels/captions identify important concepts.

50-59%

(Pass)

All required elements included and generally balanced. Evidence of knowledge and understanding.

Layout satisfactory; Colour/contrasts used; Satisfactory; Alignment/spacing of elements neat.

Clear; Minor spelling & punctuation errors; Aim superficially defined; Font size/format clear; Author’s name not included.

Accurate information; Some analysis; References used & listed; Meets learning outcomes.

Poster is in focus but not easily viewed from 4 feet away; Some relevant issues; Labels/captions identify some concepts.

20

Poster Presentations – Marking Criteria: Academic level 5 continued….

Weighting 90% 10%

Descriptor

Grade

Required elements

Impact

Text, title, captions, labels, headings & subheadings

Content Graphics, illustrations, images

40-49%

(Pass)

All required elements included. Limited evidence of knowledge and understanding.

Acceptably attractive; Some use of colour/contrasts; Generally neat.

Clear; Several spelling & punctuation errors; No aim; Font size/format clear; Author’s name not included.

Information generally accurate; Limited references used & listed; Meets learning outcomes.

Some blurring and not easily viewed from 3 feet away; Some relevant issues; Labels/captions identify some concepts.

30-39%

(Fail)

Some required elements included. Limited knowledge and understanding

Not attractive; Little/excessive use of colour/contrasts; Neatness poor

Not clear; Spelling & punctuation errors; No aim; Font size/format too small; No author’s name

Some inaccuracies of information; Poor referencing; Learning outcomes not fully met

Generally blurred and not easily viewed from 2 feet away; Some irrelevant issues; Poor quality graphics Labels/captions poorly identify some concepts

20-29%

(Fail)

Few required elements included. Knowledge and understanding not evident

Not attractive; Poor use of colour/ contrasts; Not neat

Not clear; Spelling & punctuation errors; No aim; Font size/format; No author’s name

Inaccuracies of information; No referencing; Learning outcomes not met

Generally blurred and not easily viewed; Irrelevant issues; Few labels/captions

10-19%

(Fail)

Significant elements missing Knowledge and understanding not evident

Not attractive; Poor use of colour/ contrasts; Not neat

Little or no text Significant inaccuracies of information; No referencing; Learning outcomes not met

Lack of clarity and not easily viewed; Irrelevant issues; No labels/captions

1-9%

(Fail)

No required elements included Knowledge and understanding not evident

Not attractive; No use of colour/ contrasts; Messy

No text Major inaccuracies of information; No referencing; Learning outcomes not met

Significant lack of clarity; Irrelevant issues; No labels/captions

0 Failure to present without prior permission Evidence of academic malpractice as defined by Institutional Policy Major breech of confidentiality.


21

Presentation Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5

Weighting 65% 35%

Descriptor

Grade



Level of analysis


Structure and organisation of presentation

90-100%

(Distinction)

Deep knowledge of the topic, explicitly related to comprehensive knowledge of the discipline(s). Utilises excellent questioning approach to reach an insightful structured conclusion.

Deep knowledge and understanding and application or theories and principles to practice.

Excellent analysis and synthesis of elements of the argument including contrary views with excellent reflection.

Extensive evidence/ references used effectively and cited accurately. Draws from a wide range of relevant sources to support discussion.

Well structured and high standard of presentation. Effective use of materials and group dynamics. Excellent communication skills. Excellent time management.

80-89%

(Distinction)

Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding of the topic. Clear understanding of the explicit links to some aspects of the wider field.


High level of ability to analyse and reflect critically using a range of perspectives.


Well structured and high standard of presentation. Effective use of materials. Excellent communication skills. Excellent group dynamics. Very good time management.

70-79%

(Distinction)

Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding of the topic. Ability to accurately use terminology.


Demonstrates the good use of analytical skills and the process of reflection.


Well-structured and high standard of presentation. Effective use of materials. Manages time well. Very good communication skills.

60-69%

(Merit)

Good knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Ability to accurately use terminology.

Applies theories and principles to situations and practice in comprehensive manner.



Clear structure and organisation of presentation observed. Demonstrates an ability to use materials and manage time. Good communication skills.

50-59%

(Pass)

Sound, partially implicit, knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Ability to use terminology.

Applies theories and principles to situations/ practice.



Presentation demonstrates overall structure and organisation. Demonstrates an ability to use materials. Developing ability to manage time. Good communication skills.

40-49%

(Pass)

Lacks depth and breadth in coverage of the subject matter. Meets assessment outcomes at threshold level.

Identifies fact and principles and applies them to situations/ practice.


Broad evidence of reading/investigat-ion. Some use of references and sources cited.

Presentation demonstrates overall structure and organisation. Developing ability to use materials. Awareness of time management. Satisfactory communication skills.

22

Presentation Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5 continued …

Weighting 65% 35%

Descriptor

Grade



Level of analysis


Structure and organisation of presentation

30-39%

(Fail)

Basic implicit knowledge of some relevant topic issues. Partial understanding. Assessment outcomes are not met.


Limited evidence of analysis.

Limited reading /investigation. Incomplete use of references. Majority of sources not cited.

Presentation demonstrates overall structure and organisation. Limited use of materials. Awareness of time management. Limited communication and management of group dynamics.

20-29%

(Fail)

Inadequate knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Some factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.

Demonstrates little application of theory to practice.

Little evidence of analysis.

Insufficient reading/ investigation. Incomplete use of references. Most sources not cited.

Lack of structure and organisation. Limited use of materials. Limited communication skills. No management of group dynamics or awareness of time.

10-19%

(Fail)

Inadequate knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Several factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.



Lacks evidence of reading/ investigation. Incomplete use of references. Most sources not cited.

Lack of structure and organisation. Limited use of materials. Limited communication skills. No management of group dynamics or awareness of time.

1-9%

(Fail)

No knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Many factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.




No structure or organisation. No use of materials. Incoherent communication. No management of group dynamics or awareness of time.

0% Failure to present without prior permission granted. Evidence of academic malpractice as defined by Institutional Policy. Major breach of confidentiality. Evidence of unsafe/harmful or discriminatory practice or presentation of misinformation.


23

Reflective Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5

Weighting 75% 25%

Descriptor Grade


Application of reflection to practice

Level of analysis



90-100% Deep knowledge of the topic, explicitly related to comprehensive knowledge of the discipline(s). Utilises excellent questioning approach to reach an insightful structured conclusion.

Deep knowledge and understanding, analysis and application or theories and principles of reflection to practice. Well developed application of a reflective model with a strong rationale for choice. Demonstrates perspective transformation and the ability to problem solve. A detailed action plan is evident. Work is characterised by an ability to deconstruct and reconstruct the experience. Strong evidence of learning through the reflective process and reflective skills. Evidence of some original thinking and a creative approach.

Excellent analysis and synthesis of elements of the argument including contrary views with excellent levels of reflection.

Extensive evidence/ references used effectively and cited accurately. Draws from a wide range of relevant sources to support discussion.

Excellent structure and standard of presentation. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

80-89% Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding of the topic. Clear understanding of the explicit links to some aspects of the wider field.

Thorough, explicit knowledge, understanding and analysis of reflection, with application of theories and principles to practice. A reflective framework is identified and applied consistently with a sound rationale for choice. Demonstrates some perspective transformation and there is evidence of learning and action planning. Adopts a creative, problem solving approach with evidence of reflective skills.

High level of ability to analyse and reflect critically drawing on a range of perspectives.


Well-structured and high standard of presentation. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

70-79% Thorough, explicit knowledge and understanding of the topic. Ability to accurately use terminology.

Thorough, explicit knowledge, understanding of reflection with analysis and application of reflective theories and principles to practice. Identifies and uses a reflective model throughout. A rationale for choice is discussed. Identifies and analyses key issues from the experience. Evidence of learning through the reflective process with explicit action planning. Evidence of some key insights.

Demonstrates the good use of analytical skills in the process of reflection.


Clearly and logically presented. Grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

24

Reflective Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5 continued …

Weighting 75% 25%

Descriptor Grade



Level of analysis



60-69% Good knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Ability to accurately use terminology.

Applies theories and principles to situations and practice in comprehensive manner. Evidence of a sound understanding of refection and analysis of key issues. A reflective framework identified and applied with some limitations. A rationale for choice identified but requires some development. Evidence of learning through the reflective process and action planning. Some key insights identified but not developed.



Clearly structured and presented. Relevant and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

50-59% Sound, partially implicit, knowledge and understanding of topic issues. Ability to use terminology.

Applies theories and principles of reflection to situations/practice, with some analysis of key issues from the experience. A reflective framework identified and applied with some weaknesses. A rationale for choice included but at a superficial level. Evidence of some learning and identification of some insight, but this needs further development. Action planning present but under developed. Some elements of descriptive narrative included.



Well structured and-presented and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

40-49% Lacks depth and breadth in coverage of the subject matter. Meets assessment outcomes at threshold level.

Identifies fact and principles of reflection and applies them to situations/practice. A reflective framework identified but with many weaknesses in its application, a rationale for choice may not be included or is poorly articulated. There is some ability to analyse the key issues arising from the experience with the inclusion of sections of narrative description. Underdeveloped action planning.


Broad evidence of reading/ investigation. Some use of references and sources cited accurately.

Generally satisfactory presentation and grammatically sound. Appropriate use of language. Presented in accordance with assignment guidelines.

25

Reflective Marking Criteria: Academic Level 5 continued …

Weighting 75% 25%

Descriptor Grade



Level of analysis



30-39% Basic implicit knowledge of some relevant topic issues. Partial understanding. Assessment outcomes are not met.

Demonstrates limited application of the theory of reflection to practice. A reflective framework identified with major weaknesses in its application. A rationale for choice, if included, is simplistic or poorly articulated. Makes some attempts to identify key issues but tends to descriptive narrative. Identification of any learning tends to be weak. Some vague links made to action planning.

Limited evidence of analysis and reflective skills.

Limited reading/ investigation. Inaccurate and/or incomplete use of references. Majority of sources not cited.

Spelling and grammatical errors. Limited logical progression. Some inappropriate use of language.

20-29% Inadequate knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Some factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.

Demonstrates little application of the theory of reflection to practice. No evidence of the use of a reflective framework. Little evidence of any understanding of reflection. No action planning or learning evident. Work is a descriptive.

Very little evidence of analysis and weak reflective skills.

Insufficient reading/ investigation. Inaccurate and/or incomplete use of references. Most sources not cited.

Many spelling and grammatical errors. Very limited logical progression. In the main inappropriate use of language.

10-19% Inadequate knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Several factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.

No application of theory to practice. No understanding of reflection evidenced or fails to identify a reflective model. Work is descriptive, with no action planning or learning.


Lacks evidence of reading/ investigation. Inaccurate and/or incomplete use of references. Most sources not cited.

Many spelling and grammatical errors. Disorganised – lacks logical progression and inappropriate use of language.

1-9% No knowledge or understanding of topic issues. Many factual errors. Assessment outcomes are not met.

No application of theory to practice. No understanding of reflection evidenced or attempt made to identify a reflective model. Work is descriptive with no action planning or learning.



No logical structure. Incomplete sentences. Incomprehensible content.

0% Late submissions without relevant permission. Evidence of academic malpractice as defined by Institutional Policy. Major breach of confidentiality. Evidence of unsafe/harmful or discriminatory practice or presentation of misinformation. Failure to generate assignment electronically.


Negotiated Learning

Documents

Transcript of Negotiated Learning