Assessment Criteria

Exceptional

80+

Excellent

70-79

Good

60-69

Satisfactory

50-59

Fair with significant weaknesses

40-49

Poor with fundamental weakness

Less than 40

Communication

Communicates effectively the aims, objectives and relevance of the research project. (LO1)

The work is exceptionally well communicated and goes well beyond the expectations of this level

Excellent with few significant errors

Aims and Objectives well communicated with only minor issues.  The relevance of the work is clear, but some aspects may require some further elaboration

Aims and objectives are stated and sufficiently clear but may require further refinement. The general relevance of the work is understood but not necessarily fully articulated in the context of the study

Aims and objectives are apparent but may not be sufficiently coherent or logical.  The broader relevance of the work may not be understood or weakly articulated

The aims and objectives remain vague, and the work suffers from a lack of focus or clear sense of direction. The broader relevance is not considered or articulated

Method

Selected, collected, analysed and interpreted evidence from multiple sources in accordance with sound principles of research and investigation. (LO4)

The execution is virtually flawless and demonstrates competence beyond the level of study

The work draws upon an extensive range of sources and uses these effectively following sound principles of research and investigation

The work draws upon a wide range of sources and uses these appropriately following the main principles of research and investigation. There will be minor omissions or insufficient triangulation or cross-referencing

The work draws upon sufficient source material to substantiate arguments. However, further data could have been collected and/or analysed to provide a fuller and more balanced investigation. The work has followed the basic principles of investigation

Although the work has collected and analysed evidence the sources need enhancing and the interpretation is deficient in some ways.  The work has not consistently followed the key principles of research design

There is insufficient evidence and the analysis lacks sophistication with virtually no interpretation.  Key principles of investigation have not been followed

Synthesis

Synthesised and critically evaluated different sources of knowledge in order to articulate logical and cogent argumentation (LO5)

The work is exceptional, and the powers of criticality and synthesis go well beyond the standards expected at this level

The work demonstrates criticality and powers of syntheses. The argumentation is logical and coherent. There are strong arguments of advocacy as well as discovery

The work does synthesise to a large extent and critically evaluate key sources of knowledge.  This is robust but not fully developed. The argument is coherent and evidenced, but with a stronger emphasis on discovery than advocacy

The work tends to summarise quite extensively what is known about the topic rather than integrating the various sources into a more coherent and logical argument.  The evidence base is sufficient but needs to be better deployed. Argumentation is emergent rather than developed

The work tends to present a summary of a somewhat constrained knowledge set. There may be some critical comments, but these are not evaluative. Arguments are under-developed

The work is a summary of a limited knowledge base.  There is a limited basis from which to develop either synthesis or evaluation. No argumentation is evidenced

Evaluation

Critically evaluated and applied appropriate theoretical and methodological approaches in ways which augmented understanding of the topic (LO6)

The work is exceptional and extends our knowledge in a manner which goes well beyond expectation at this level

The work is appropriately situated, critically evaluates and applies existing frameworks and knowledge domains in a manner that demonstrates a sophisticated understanding and capacity to augment current knowledge

The key conceptual, theoretical and methodological frameworks are reviewed and applied to the specific topic/project There is some critical evaluation of these frameworks

The work identifies and outlines appropriate approaches but, does not assess their relative merits nor build an evaluation of their utility to the aims of the project

Although the work identifies and reviews key approaches, there are significant gaps.  The focus is on accessible material rather than that which challenges convention

There is limited engagement with conceptual, methodological or theoretical approaches that could inform the work. There is insufficient engagement with contemporary approaches, controversy or debate

Reflection

Critically reflected on the research practice and intellectual arguments underpinning the work, particularly in the context of contemporary debates in management or business. (LO7)

The work is exceptional and exceeds the level of reflexivity normally expected at this level

The work is reflective and evaluates its contribution within the context of wider debates, whether academic or in terms of entrepreneurial, business and management praxis. The work demonstrates justifiable self- confidence

The work is confident and demonstrates a sound understanding of the limitations of the research conducted and can position the findings within the contexts of wider debates.  Positionality may not be fully analysed

The work focuses on outlining strengths and limitations without necessarily engaging in critical self-reflection.  Some reflection is applied to the work undertaken; there may be a lack of confidence or overconfidence in the project. The work doesn't explore all the lessons learnt

There is no critical self-reflection, rather there is a focus on some strengths and limitations. The reflection tends to be broad rather than applied to the specificities of the individual project

The work identifies some issues, but these represent a partial reflection on research practice. There is very little engagement with wider debates around business and management practice

Conclusions

Proposed practical and appropriate resolutions via conclusions and recommendation, to demonstrate the benefit of the work undertaken. (LO8)

The work is exceptionally insightful in terms of how the implications and relevancy of the work are understood and articulated

The work proposes fully appropriate and practical resolutions via conclusions and recommendations, to demonstrate the benefit of the work undertaken

The work reaches valid conclusions and makes relevant recommendations.  The full implications of the work may not be articulated completely but what is proposed is evidence based

The work reaches an overall conclusion but lacks specific and/or considered recommendations or practical resolutions.  Not all recommendations follow from the evidence

The conclusions are weakly articulated and limited.  Where recommendations are made, they may not reflect evidence or be practical. The work does provide sufficient basis for more robust conclusions

The conclusion tends to be summative rather than integrative.  The nature of the findings is not fully appreciated or understood in the context of existing debates or business and management practice

Ethics and Sustainability

Critically applied ethical and sustainability principles to the chosen area of study (LO9)

The work demonstrates exceptional knowledge and critical understanding of ethical and sustainability principles such that it goes well beyond the standards expected at this level

The work demonstrates in-depth knowledge and critical understanding of ethical and sustainability principles. The work identifies in detail and critically evaluates differing interests and viewpoints of various stakeholders with exemplary clarity and ethical insight

The work demonstrates a sound knowledge and understanding of ethical and sustainability principles.  The work critically evaluates differing interests and viewpoints, but this could be further developed

The work demonstrates a sufficient knowledge and understanding of ethical and sustainability principles. The work evaluates differing interests and viewpoints of various stakeholders but lacks critical insight

The level of knowledge and understanding of ethical and sustainability principles is not quite at the level expected. There is limited or no attempt to evaluate differing interests and viewpoints of various stakeholders

There is evidence that some knowledge of ethical and sustainability principles has been accumulated but this is very limited and there are significant gaps and fundamental weaknesses or misunderstandings.

Presentation

Presentation and organisation of the project.

The work is exceptionally well presented, and the organisation exceeds that expected at this level

The work fully complies with presentation guidelines and conventions

Overall, the presentation is of a high standard but with a few minor amendments required to bring it up to full compliance

The presentation meets the pass standard but contains several errors and deviation from the guidelines and conventions

The work is not quite up to the standard expected.  There are numerous errors- whilst these detract from the text they could have been easily rectified by re-working or editing the work

There are significant weaknesses in presentation and the work does not really meet expectations and falls short of convention in several important respects. These errors would require significant reworking of the text

Levels of Achievement

AoL Core Competency

(Non-Weighted)

Proficient exceptional

Proficient distinction

Proficient merit

Proficient pass

Not yet proficient

Not proficient

AoL CC1 Sustainability Application

Combine frameworks associated with sustainability to formulate innovative strategies and policies

Selects well-chosen frameworks with strong justification. Combines frameworks effectively and with originality in the formulation of strategies and polices. Strategies and policies are original, innovative, likely to be effective and are well justified

Selects well-chosen frameworks with strong justification. Combines frameworks effectively and with originality in the formulation of strategies and polices. Strategies and policies are original, innovative, likely to be effective and are well justified

Selects well-chosen frameworks with strong justification. Combines frameworks effectively and with originality in the formulation of strategies and polices. Strategies and policies are original, innovative, likely to be effective and are well justified

Selects appropriate frameworks with justification. Combines frameworks effectively in the formulation of strategies and policies. Strategies and policies are innovative and likely to be effective; appropriate justification

Frameworks are recognised but not combined or used appropriately to formulate appropriate strategies or policies.  Formulated strategies lack originality or are not based on critical evaluation

Selects inappropriate or irrelevant frameworks; weak or no justification of framework selection. Frameworks are not combined/incorrectly applied in the formulation of strategies and polices. Strategies and policies are inappropriate or likely to be ineffective; weak or no justification

AoL CC2 Sustainability Analysis

Evaluate the barriers to and drivers of sustainable value creation

Evaluation is critical and considers perspectives of different stakeholders. Concept of value creation problematised and debated

Evaluation is critical and considers perspectives of different stakeholders. Concept of value creation problematised and debated

Evaluation is critical and considers perspectives of different stakeholders. Concept of value creation problematised and debated

Evaluation balanced and comprehensive.  Application related to context and value creation

Evaluation incomplete or unbalanced with little consideration beyond generic or broad contexts; lacks specificity in relation to value creation

Identifies some barriers and/or drivers but does not evaluate these in context

AoL CC3 Critical Assessment of Ethical Issues

Assess ethical issues and determine ways in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner

Ethical issues are assessed in depth. Findings are used to determine creative, practical, and well justified suggestions in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner

Ethical issues are assessed in depth. Findings are used to determine creative, practical, and well justified suggestions in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner

Ethical issues are assessed in depth. Findings are used to determine creative, practical, and well justified suggestions in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner

Ethical issues are assessed adequately. Findings are used to determine appropriate and well justified suggestions in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner

Identifies some relevant ethical issues but does not assess these sufficiently. Some suggestions are made but not justified sufficiently or framed in socially responsible management

Ethical issues are not assessed or assessed with little depth. Findings are not used.  Suggestions provided for ways in which resources can be managed in a socially responsible manner are inappropriate or poorly justified.

AoL CC4 Creativity

Create and plan innovative solutions to real world problems

Uses idea-generating techniques to create innovative solutions. Carefully evaluates the quality of ideas and selects the best one. Uses ingenuity and imagination, going outside conventional boundaries, when creating solutions

Uses idea-generating techniques to create innovative solutions. Carefully evaluates the quality of ideas and selects the best one. Uses ingenuity and imagination, going outside conventional boundaries, when creating solutions

Uses idea-generating techniques to create innovative solutions. Carefully evaluates the quality of ideas and selects the best one. Uses ingenuity and imagination, going outside conventional boundaries, when creating solutions

Develops some original solutions but could develop more with better use of idea-generating techniques.  Evaluates ideas but may make only minor changes to the selected one. Shows some imagination when creating and planning solutions, but may stay within conventional boundaries

Stays within existing frameworks; does not use idea-generating techniques to develop solutions. Selects one idea without evaluating the quality of ideas. Reproduces existing ideas; does not create new solutions

Does not recognise or articulate solutions to the problems posed

AoL CC5 Data Analytics

Apply data analytics to tackle and solve demanding problems in original ways

Sophisticated and critical application and interpretation of data analytics to the specific problem(s).  Solutions are evidence based and accompanied by clear caveats

Sophisticated and critical application and interpretation of data analytics to the specific problem(s).  Solutions are evidence based and accompanied by clear caveats

Sophisticated and critical application and interpretation of data analytics to the specific problem(s).  Solutions are evidence based and accompanied by clear caveats

Appropriate analysis of complexity which provides a sufficiently robust evidence base to support decision-making.  Solutions reflect evidence and are original/context specific

Engagement with problem incomplete or overly simplistic. The decisions/solutions not fully connected to data analysis or insufficiently evidenced based.  Some errors in interpretation.  Propo