微信客服：xiaoxionga100
微信客服：ITCS521
程序代写案例-H1
时间：2022-05-21
Marking:
H1
8-‐-‐-‐10
(80-‐-‐-‐100%)
H2A
7.5
(75-‐-‐-‐79%)
H2B
7
(70-‐-‐-‐74%)
H3
6.5
(65-‐-‐-‐69%)
PASS
5-‐-‐-‐6
(50-‐-‐-‐64%)
FAIL
less
than
5
(<50%)
WRITING ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Criterion 1: Conceptual understanding of task
Weighting: 50%
What is written: theory, ideas, content of response Criterion 2: Structure/organisation/task completion Weighting: 30% How task is presented & completed; genre or task type; logic, flow, intra-‐-‐-‐ text links
Criterion 3: Evidence of research and citation
Weighting: 20% Referencing; conventions in use of external sources and citation
Outstanding (H1)
Demonstrates very high level of abstract thought; may demonstrate extended thinking on the topic
Presents an in depth understanding of and engagement with theoretical perspectives and their application to practice
Offers a highly systematic synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research evidence
Demonstrates a very high level of critical engagement consistently and appropriately
Identifies patterns or trends in literature and analyses the information retrieved
Writer’s voice and high level of independent thinking are clearly evident; recognises own biases and cultural context
Outstanding (H1)
Ideas presented in coherent (logical) and cohesive (linked) manner
Completes all required aspects of task to an exemplary standard
Text response organised and sequenced appropriate to genre (e.g. clear paragraphing; use of headings or sections where appropriate)
Conciseness of ideas evident; response falls within designated word count range
The message is very clear, the reader finds the writing easy to follow; errors in expression rare and non-‐-‐-‐distracting; content relevant
Outstanding (H1)
Uses diverse sources of information highly appropriate to the task
Provides evidence of systematic research and uses ‘classic’/pivotal works of scholarship with high academic currency in the discipline
Provides relevant and contemporary evidence collected discriminately from a wide range of appropriate sources
Systematically applies academic referencing conventions appropriately and accurately in text and post text; in text citations match Reference List
Required number of references is evidenced (may go beyond required reference minimum)
Systematically integrates source information; evaluates and synthesises information retrieved with own thoughts and voice
Very high standard (H2A)
Demonstrates abstract thought; may have attempted extended thinking, but not always successfully
Presents detailed understanding of theoretical perspectives and their application to practice
Offers a detailed synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research evidence
Demonstrates a consistent level of critical engagement
Displays writer’s voice and independent thinking within the assignment
Very high standard (H2A)
Ideas presented in coherent and cohesive manner with minor inconsistencies or gaps
Completes required aspects of task, though some parts may have been more detailed or more balance could have been evident
Organised appropriate to genre; minor errors may be evident
Conciseness of ideas generally evident
The message is mostly clear, the reader can follow the message; errors in expression minimal and almost always non-‐-‐-‐distracting
Very high standard (H2A)
Uses a range of information appropriate to the task
Provides evidence of research and uses ‘classic’/pivotal works of scholarship with high academic currency in the discipline
Provides relevant evidence collected discriminately from a range of sources
Applies academic referencing conventions mostly appropriately and accurately both in text and post text; minor inaccuracies may be evident
Required number of references is evidenced
Integrates source information throughout the assignment mostly successfully; evaluation and synthesis with own voice mostly successful
High standard (H2B)
Demonstrates some degree of abstract thought, though may not always be successfully handled
Presents a strong understanding of theoretical perspectives and application to practice; minor gaps may be evident
Offers a mostly detailed synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research evidence
Demonstrates a consistent level of critical engagement, though may have offered more
Displays writer’s voice and some independent thinking, though this could have been more evident
High standard (H2B)
Ideas presented in generally coherent and cohesive manner, though inconsistencies evident
Completes required aspects of task though some parts need to have been more detailed or clearly more balanced
Writing organised appropriate to genre; though some minor gaps may be evident
Conciseness of ideas evident, though parts may be verbose or ‘padded out’
The message is clear for the most part, the reader can follow the message though there is sometimes strain; errors are evident and at times distracting; some content may be not relevant
High standard (H2B)
Uses a range of sources of information appropriate to the task, though may not have included some ‘classic’/pivotal references
Provides consistent evidence of research, though could have been more diverse
Provides relevant evidence collected from a range of sources, though may overly rely on a limited range
Applies academic referencing conventions appropriately and accurately both in text and post text, though some mistakes are evident (e.g. a missing page reference for a direct quote; punctuation errors)
Required number of references is evidenced
Integrates source information in the assignment with some inconsistencies; at time writer’s voice may be overshadowed by external authors’ ideas, and evaluation may not always be evident
Marking: H1 8-‐-‐-‐10 (80-‐-‐-‐100%) H2A 7.5 (75-‐-‐-‐79%) H2B 7 (70-‐-‐-‐74%) H3 6.5 (65-‐-‐-‐69%) PASS 5-‐-‐-‐6 (50-‐-‐-‐64%) FAIL less than 5 (<50%)
WRITING ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Criterion 1: Conceptual understanding of task Criterion 2: Structure/organisation/task completion Criterion 3: Evidence of research and citation
Sound work (H3)
Abstract thought evident, but needed to be more so
Presents a degree of understanding of theoretical perspectives and their application to practice, though needs more development
Offers some synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research evidence, though this may have been more evident
Demonstrates some critical engagement
Writer’s voice present, but not overly strong; limited independent thinking evident
Sound work (H3)
Ideas mostly presented in coherent and cohesive manner, though inconsistencies clearly evident in logic and links between sections
Completes required aspects of task, though some parts are missing or not well developed
Organised mostly appropriate to genre, though some inconsistencies, errors or gaps may be evident (e.g. missing elements)
Conciseness of ideas evident, though there is a clear lack of balance between sections (some may be short while others are long)
Overall, the message is clear and the reader can follow the message, though there is sometimes clear strain; errors evident and distracting in parts
Sound work (H3)
Uses readings mostly appropriate to the task, though does not include some ‘classic’/pivotal or required references
Provides evidence of research, though needed to be more diverse
Provides some evidence collected from a number of sources; though may be overly reliant on one or two sources
Applies academic referencing conventions generally appropriately and consistently both in text and post text though errors are evident
Required number of references is evidenced
Attempts to integrate some source information in the assignment but not always successfully; voice is subordinate in parts to external ideas, evaluation of information lacking
Satisfactory work (PASS)
Absence of abstract thought; or may be attempted but not overly successful
Presents some degree of understanding of theoretical perspectives and application to practice though there are clear gaps in understanding
Offers limited synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research evidence
Demonstrates limited critical engagement
Writer’s voice not at all strong, and independent thinking not evident enough
Satisfactory work ( PASS)
Clear issues with coherence and cohesion; at times logic not evident or links between sections not well-‐-‐-‐established
Completes some required aspects of task adequately, though some parts are unsatisfactory
Organised approximate to genre; though inconsistencies, errors or gaps are clearly evident (e.g. missing elements or sections) and affect overall quality of response
Response needed to be more concise
Overall, the message is evident, however, reader finds it hard to follow in parts; errors evident and distracting; sections of content may not be relevant to task
Satisfactory work (PASS)
Uses limited sources of information, mostly appropriate to the task, though texts lacking relevancy may have been used
Provides limited evidence of research – gaps clearly evident
Provides limited evidence collected from a narrow range of sources
Academic referencing conventions inconsistently applied both in text and post text; errors are frequent
Required number of references is not evidenced; may be short
Integrates limited source information in the assignment; voice is frequently subordinate to external ideas; claims made may be unsubstantiated or not evaluated
Unsatisfactory work is any work graded at less than 50% (see below** for grading guide) and may display clear evidence of the following
Unsatisfactory work (FAIL)
Abstract thought not evident
Attempts at presenting theoretical perspectives and their application to practice not successful; or links between two areas not clear or not made at all
Synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research not in evidence
Demonstrates limited or no critical engagement
Writer’s voice and independent thinking not evident
Unsatisfactory work ( FAIL)
Major issues with coherence and cohesion; logic not evident or hard to follow; links between sections not clear – writing lacks flow
Task not completed or displays major gaps in required elements
Organised somewhat according to genre; though major errors or gaps are clearly evident (e.g. missing sections) and effect quality of writing
Conciseness of ideas not evident; contains clearly irrelevant material
Overall, message is not evident; very hard to follow message; errors distract reader significantly; whole sections of content are not relevant
Unsatisfactory work (FAIL)
Evidence of reading minimal, and not appropriate or relevant to the task
Very limited evidence of research – major gaps clearly evident
Not enough evidence collected from sources of information
Academic referencing conventions not applied both in text and post text; errors are frequent; in text citations do not match Reference List; understanding of the role and form of external citation not evident
Required number of references is not evidenced
Fails to integrate source information in the assignment; voice is not evident; claims are unsubstantiated and not evaluated
WRITING ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Criterion 1: Conceptual understanding of task
Weighting: 50%
What is written: theory, ideas, content of response Criterion 2: Structure/organisation/task completion Weighting: 30% How task is presented & completed; genre or task type; logic, flow, intra-‐-‐-‐ text links
Criterion 3: Evidence of research and citation
Weighting: 20% Referencing; conventions in use of external sources and citation
Outstanding (H1)
Demonstrates very high level of abstract thought; may demonstrate extended thinking on the topic
Presents an in depth understanding of and engagement with theoretical perspectives and their application to practice
Offers a highly systematic synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research evidence
Demonstrates a very high level of critical engagement consistently and appropriately
Identifies patterns or trends in literature and analyses the information retrieved
Writer’s voice and high level of independent thinking are clearly evident; recognises own biases and cultural context
Outstanding (H1)
Ideas presented in coherent (logical) and cohesive (linked) manner
Completes all required aspects of task to an exemplary standard
Text response organised and sequenced appropriate to genre (e.g. clear paragraphing; use of headings or sections where appropriate)
Conciseness of ideas evident; response falls within designated word count range
The message is very clear, the reader finds the writing easy to follow; errors in expression rare and non-‐-‐-‐distracting; content relevant
Outstanding (H1)
Uses diverse sources of information highly appropriate to the task
Provides evidence of systematic research and uses ‘classic’/pivotal works of scholarship with high academic currency in the discipline
Provides relevant and contemporary evidence collected discriminately from a wide range of appropriate sources
Systematically applies academic referencing conventions appropriately and accurately in text and post text; in text citations match Reference List
Required number of references is evidenced (may go beyond required reference minimum)
Systematically integrates source information; evaluates and synthesises information retrieved with own thoughts and voice
Very high standard (H2A)
Demonstrates abstract thought; may have attempted extended thinking, but not always successfully
Presents detailed understanding of theoretical perspectives and their application to practice
Offers a detailed synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research evidence
Demonstrates a consistent level of critical engagement
Displays writer’s voice and independent thinking within the assignment
Very high standard (H2A)
Ideas presented in coherent and cohesive manner with minor inconsistencies or gaps
Completes required aspects of task, though some parts may have been more detailed or more balance could have been evident
Organised appropriate to genre; minor errors may be evident
Conciseness of ideas generally evident
The message is mostly clear, the reader can follow the message; errors in expression minimal and almost always non-‐-‐-‐distracting
Very high standard (H2A)
Uses a range of information appropriate to the task
Provides evidence of research and uses ‘classic’/pivotal works of scholarship with high academic currency in the discipline
Provides relevant evidence collected discriminately from a range of sources
Applies academic referencing conventions mostly appropriately and accurately both in text and post text; minor inaccuracies may be evident
Required number of references is evidenced
Integrates source information throughout the assignment mostly successfully; evaluation and synthesis with own voice mostly successful
High standard (H2B)
Demonstrates some degree of abstract thought, though may not always be successfully handled
Presents a strong understanding of theoretical perspectives and application to practice; minor gaps may be evident
Offers a mostly detailed synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research evidence
Demonstrates a consistent level of critical engagement, though may have offered more
Displays writer’s voice and some independent thinking, though this could have been more evident
High standard (H2B)
Ideas presented in generally coherent and cohesive manner, though inconsistencies evident
Completes required aspects of task though some parts need to have been more detailed or clearly more balanced
Writing organised appropriate to genre; though some minor gaps may be evident
Conciseness of ideas evident, though parts may be verbose or ‘padded out’
The message is clear for the most part, the reader can follow the message though there is sometimes strain; errors are evident and at times distracting; some content may be not relevant
High standard (H2B)
Uses a range of sources of information appropriate to the task, though may not have included some ‘classic’/pivotal references
Provides consistent evidence of research, though could have been more diverse
Provides relevant evidence collected from a range of sources, though may overly rely on a limited range
Applies academic referencing conventions appropriately and accurately both in text and post text, though some mistakes are evident (e.g. a missing page reference for a direct quote; punctuation errors)
Required number of references is evidenced
Integrates source information in the assignment with some inconsistencies; at time writer’s voice may be overshadowed by external authors’ ideas, and evaluation may not always be evident
Marking: H1 8-‐-‐-‐10 (80-‐-‐-‐100%) H2A 7.5 (75-‐-‐-‐79%) H2B 7 (70-‐-‐-‐74%) H3 6.5 (65-‐-‐-‐69%) PASS 5-‐-‐-‐6 (50-‐-‐-‐64%) FAIL less than 5 (<50%)
WRITING ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Criterion 1: Conceptual understanding of task Criterion 2: Structure/organisation/task completion Criterion 3: Evidence of research and citation
Sound work (H3)
Abstract thought evident, but needed to be more so
Presents a degree of understanding of theoretical perspectives and their application to practice, though needs more development
Offers some synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research evidence, though this may have been more evident
Demonstrates some critical engagement
Writer’s voice present, but not overly strong; limited independent thinking evident
Sound work (H3)
Ideas mostly presented in coherent and cohesive manner, though inconsistencies clearly evident in logic and links between sections
Completes required aspects of task, though some parts are missing or not well developed
Organised mostly appropriate to genre, though some inconsistencies, errors or gaps may be evident (e.g. missing elements)
Conciseness of ideas evident, though there is a clear lack of balance between sections (some may be short while others are long)
Overall, the message is clear and the reader can follow the message, though there is sometimes clear strain; errors evident and distracting in parts
Sound work (H3)
Uses readings mostly appropriate to the task, though does not include some ‘classic’/pivotal or required references
Provides evidence of research, though needed to be more diverse
Provides some evidence collected from a number of sources; though may be overly reliant on one or two sources
Applies academic referencing conventions generally appropriately and consistently both in text and post text though errors are evident
Required number of references is evidenced
Attempts to integrate some source information in the assignment but not always successfully; voice is subordinate in parts to external ideas, evaluation of information lacking
Satisfactory work (PASS)
Absence of abstract thought; or may be attempted but not overly successful
Presents some degree of understanding of theoretical perspectives and application to practice though there are clear gaps in understanding
Offers limited synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research evidence
Demonstrates limited critical engagement
Writer’s voice not at all strong, and independent thinking not evident enough
Satisfactory work ( PASS)
Clear issues with coherence and cohesion; at times logic not evident or links between sections not well-‐-‐-‐established
Completes some required aspects of task adequately, though some parts are unsatisfactory
Organised approximate to genre; though inconsistencies, errors or gaps are clearly evident (e.g. missing elements or sections) and affect overall quality of response
Response needed to be more concise
Overall, the message is evident, however, reader finds it hard to follow in parts; errors evident and distracting; sections of content may not be relevant to task
Satisfactory work (PASS)
Uses limited sources of information, mostly appropriate to the task, though texts lacking relevancy may have been used
Provides limited evidence of research – gaps clearly evident
Provides limited evidence collected from a narrow range of sources
Academic referencing conventions inconsistently applied both in text and post text; errors are frequent
Required number of references is not evidenced; may be short
Integrates limited source information in the assignment; voice is frequently subordinate to external ideas; claims made may be unsubstantiated or not evaluated
Unsatisfactory work is any work graded at less than 50% (see below** for grading guide) and may display clear evidence of the following
Unsatisfactory work (FAIL)
Abstract thought not evident
Attempts at presenting theoretical perspectives and their application to practice not successful; or links between two areas not clear or not made at all
Synthesis, interpretation and analysis of research not in evidence
Demonstrates limited or no critical engagement
Writer’s voice and independent thinking not evident
Unsatisfactory work ( FAIL)
Major issues with coherence and cohesion; logic not evident or hard to follow; links between sections not clear – writing lacks flow
Task not completed or displays major gaps in required elements
Organised somewhat according to genre; though major errors or gaps are clearly evident (e.g. missing sections) and effect quality of writing
Conciseness of ideas not evident; contains clearly irrelevant material
Overall, message is not evident; very hard to follow message; errors distract reader significantly; whole sections of content are not relevant
Unsatisfactory work (FAIL)
Evidence of reading minimal, and not appropriate or relevant to the task
Very limited evidence of research – major gaps clearly evident
Not enough evidence collected from sources of information
Academic referencing conventions not applied both in text and post text; errors are frequent; in text citations do not match Reference List; understanding of the role and form of external citation not evident
Required number of references is not evidenced
Fails to integrate source information in the assignment; voice is not evident; claims are unsubstantiated and not evaluated
