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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|