Assessment Criteria are also known as "Rubrics", “Marking Guidelines” or “Level Descriptors”.
Tutors often use a rubric to do their marking and to give feedback.
In these tables, the factors they want to grade are given in the rows down the left hand side while the grades are in the columns across the top.
For each grade, there is a description of what the student has to show to get that mark. The assessor or tutor will look at a number of areas (such as Critical Thinking, Subject Knowledge, etc.), each of which is graded into bands from low to high. Looking at the bands you achieved in the different areas, the person assessing will decide on an overall grade.
Sometimes, tutors give feedback by highlighting the boxes that match your work. If you can understand the description, it is a good way of giving feedback, but sometimes the descriptions are very brief or use technical language that might be unfamiliar to students.
So, let's try to make this kind of table more clear by translating it into everyday English.
We have made a Glossary (a short dictionary) of words that are common in these tables.
Below is a summary of a level descriptors showing some areas that your tutors might be looking for in your assignments.
Low: Needs lots of support to develop research skills.
High: Shows extensive independent relevant research.
Low: Little evidence of understanding. Inaccuracies.
High: Awareness of ambiguity. Understands key aspects with breadth, accuracy and detail.
Low: Little or no evaluation. Very little use of evidence-based arguments.
High: Independent analysis. Evaluation. Synthesis. Evidence-based arguments. Implications.
Low: Little or no exploration. Question/problem unsolved.
High: Autonomous creation. Novel implementation. Adapts to situations.
Low: No engagement with assessment. Little development.
High: Rich, in-depth exploration. Innovative problem solving. Responds to assessment in a way that pushes boundaries. Balance of experimentation and resolution. Highly coherent and innovative.
Low: No application of theory to practice.
High: Practical or technical skills. Correct application of theory to context.
Low: Does not account for needs of audience. Presentation format not used accurately.
High: Clear, persuasive, compelling. Very skillful use of format. Fully accounts for needs of audience.
Low: Little or Incorrect referencing.
High: No errors in referencing. Great attention to detail.
Low: Little evidence of subject area standards. No collaboration with others. Unproductive working alone.
High: Works very well within the discipline. Works effectively.
Low: Insufficient reflection or planning for learning. No awareness of personal strengths and weaknesses.
High: Takes full responsibility for own learning and development. Cycles of evidence-based purposeful analysis and planning.
Low: Little competence in the ethical use and presentation of data.
High: Exceptional competence in ethical use and presentation of data.
