PYB374 Human Factors and Safety: Laboratory Report Marking Criteria (2300 words, 40% weighting in final grade)

Grade

7

6

5

                    4                    

  3                           

2

  1

Mark

10                                 9

8

7

6                          5

 4

3         2

 1

ABSTRACT (5%)

1. Abstract

·  Fluent, clear, concise description of the study and its findings, including relevant information on aim/hypotheses, sample, design, procedure and conclusion

·  The aim, method, and findings are clearly described, there may be some lack of conciseness or clarity on a limited number of aspects

·  The aim, method and findings are evident, but several aspects may lack clarity and some details may be missing

·  The aim method and findings are somewhat unclear, and there are missing details (e.g., aims, sample, design, procedure, and conclusion)

·  The aim, method, and findings are very unclear or missing.

INTRODUCTION (35%)

2. Description literature

·  The relevant literature is clearly and concisely described

·  The relevant literature is clearly described, but there is some omission.

·  The literature is described relatively clearly, but there is some omission or irrelevant detail

·  Important details are missing, or irrelevant details are included, and there is some lack of focus

·  The literature review is very unclear, it lacks important details and includes many irrelevant details

3. Relation of literature to research question

·  Consistently demonstrates application of literature to topic and critical analysis is well integrated

·  Clear relation of literature to topic. Critical analysis/critical thought is clearly displayed.

·  Demonstrates application of literature to topic with some evidence of critical analysis

·  The literature is somewhat related to the research topic, critical analysis is lacking

·  Little or no relation of the literature to the topic, critical analysis is lacking

4. Hypotheses

·  Hypotheses clearly reflect the research aim and the variables being tested and are strongly linked to the literature review

·  Hypotheses reflect the research aim and variables being tested with only minor lack of clarity

·  Hypotheses are somewhat related to the research aim and variables being tested, but there is some lack of clarity

·  Hypotheses are somewhat unclear and their link with the research aim and variables being tested is tenuous

·  Hypotheses are unclear and do not reflect the research aim and the variables being tested

METHOD & RESULTS (20%)

5. Methodology

·  There is a clear, concise description of the methodology, with sufficient detail to permit replication

·  The methodology is described with only minor omissions or irrelevant detail

·  The methodology is described, but there are some omissions or irrelevant detail

·  Significant omissions or irrelevant detail in one or two aspects make replication difficult

·  Significant omissions and lack of clarity make replication impossible

6. Findings

·  Statistical tests are clearly described and demonstrate an understanding of the data, analyses, and conclusions

·  Statistical tests are clearly described with only minor misunderstanding of the data, analyses, or conclusions

·  There is some misunderstanding of the data, analyses or conclusions, some details may be missing

·  Statistical tests are described but lack clarity or important details, there is misunderstanding of some aspect

·  Statistical tests are poorly described and do not demonstrate an understanding of the data, analyses, and conclusions

7. Figures or tables

·  The appropriate use of tables or figures clearly and concisely describes and demonstrates an understanding of the data

·  Data are clearly presented in a table or figure with only minor errors of presentation or understanding

·  Data are presented in a comprehensible form with some errors of presentation and understanding

·  Data is presented in a comprehensible form, although there may be significant errors

·  Data are not presented in a comprehensible form

DISCUSSION (30%)

8. Overview

·  The results are clearly and concisely described and related to the hypotheses and to theory

·  The results are described and related to the hypotheses and theory with only minor lack of clarity or conciseness

·  The results are described and related to the hypotheses but there are minor omissions and lack of clarity

·  The results are described and related to the hypotheses but there are serious omissions and lack of clarity

·  The results are not described or related to the hypotheses

9. Discussion of findings in context of the literature

·  Analytical and clear conclusions well grounded in theory and literature

·  Good development shown in summary of arguments based in theory/literature

·  Evidence of conclusions grounded in theory/literature

·  Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by theory/literature

·  Unsubstantiated/invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation

10. Limitations, future directions

·  Clear and well thought out consideration of limitations and future directions clearly based on the literature

·  Limitations and future directions are well considered with only minor lack of clarity or support from the literature

·  Limitations and future directions are considered, while lacking clarity these are still somewhat based on the literature

·  Some consideration of the limitations and future directions, although these are not based on the literature

·  No consideration of the limitations of the study or future directions for research, or consideration is very unclear

PRSENTATION (10%)

11. Clarity of expression,

format of assignment, referencing

·  Very fluent writing style, and grammar and spelling accurate

·  Assignment is formatted appropriately

·  Referencing is consistently accurate

·  Language fluent, grammar and spelling accurate

·  Assignment is generally formatted appropriately

·  Referencing is mainly accurate

·  Language mainly fluent, grammar and spelling mainly accurate

·  Minor errors in the format of the assignment

·  Referencing is mainly accurate

·  Meaning apparent, but language is not always fluent, grammar and/or spelling contain errors

·  Some substantial errors in the format of the assignment

·  Some attempt at referencing

·  Meaning unclear, grammar and spelling contain frequent errors

·  Minimal attempt to format the assignment appropriately

·  Referencing is absent/unsystematic