Issues in Nutrition – Assessment Criteria – Task 1 (Narrative Review) Criteria

Issues in Nutrition – Assessment Criteria – Task 1 (Narrative Review)
Criteria & Weighting
First
(Excellent)
Upper Second
(Very Good)
Lower Second
(Good)
Third
(Sufficient)
Fail
(Insufficient)
85 – 100%
70 – 84%
60 – 69%
50 – 59%
40 – 49%
20-39%
0-19%
Ability to communicate effectively and appropriately (20%)
Excellent communication; performance deemed to be beyond expectation. Work may achieve or be close to publishable or commercial standard.
Excellent communication; performance deemed beyond expectation of the level.
Strong communication skills.
Communication shows clarity but structure may not always be coherent.
Communication/ presentation is generally competent but with some weaknesses.
Communication shows limited clarity, poor presentation, structure may not be coherent.
Weak technical & practical competence hampers ability to demonstrate/communicate achievement of outcomes.
Selection, discussion, critical analysis and referencing of appropriate and pertinent research (80%)
Exceptional breadth & depth of knowledge & understanding of the area of study; evidence of extensive & appropriate selection & critical evaluation/ synthesis/ analysis & of reading/research beyond the prescribed range, in both breadth & depth, to advance work/direct arguments. Exceptional demonstration of relevant skills.
Excellent knowledge & understanding of the area of study as the student is typically able to go beyond what has been taught; evidence of extensive & appropriate selection & critical evaluation/ synthesis/analysis of reading/ research beyond the prescribed range, to advance work/ direct arguments. Excellent demonstration of relevant skills.
Very good knowledge & understanding of the area of study as the student is typically able to relate facts/concepts together with some ability to apply to known/ taught contexts; evidence of appropriate selection & critical evaluation of reading/ research, some beyond the prescribed range, may rely on set sources to advance work/ direct arguments; demonstrates autonomy in approach to learning. Very good demonstration of relevant skills.
Good knowledge & understanding of the area of study balanced towards the descriptive rather than critical or analytical; evidence of appropriate selection & evaluation of reading/research, some may be beyond the prescribed range, but generally reliant on set sources to advance work/direct arguments. Good demonstration of relevant skills, though may be limited in range.
Knowledge & understanding is sufficient to deal with terminology, basic facts & concepts but fails to make meaningful synthesis; some ability to select & evaluate reading/research however work may be more generally descriptive; general reliance on set sources to advance work; arguments may be weak or poorly constructed; adequate demonstration of relevant skills over a limited range.
Insufficient knowledge & understanding of the area of study; some ability to select & evaluate reading/research however work is more generally descriptive; fails to address some aspects of the brief; uses set sources to advance work; arguments may be weak/poor or weakly/poorly constructed; demonstration of relevant skills over a reduced range.
Highly insufficient knowledge or understanding of the area of study; understanding is typically at the word level with facts being reproduced in a disjointed or decontextualised manner; fails to address the outcomes addressed by the brief; typically ignores important sources in development of work & data/evidence inappropriately used.