Overall Aesthetics (This refers to the look of the slides, not the information presented.)   Out of 10

Overall Visual Appeal

Background makes the presentation hard to read. Graphics are confusing and not related to words. Too much movement in the slides. Many slides hard to read.

Appropriate background. There are too few graphic elements. Appropriate background. Some slides hard to read.

Appropriate background. Appealing graphic elements are included appropriately. Slides are easy to read and movement and sounds are used effectively.

Score

Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling  Out of 10

Readability of the Slides

Many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Bullet format is not consistent or clear. Too much information on many slides.

Some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Bullet format is not consistent on a few slides. Too much information on two or more slides.

No errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Bullets are consistent and clear. Information is clear and concise on each slide.

Score

Flow of Presentation and Analysis   Out of  60

Presentation

Skills

Little care taken in presentation of the information to camera

Good attention to the presentation and messaging offered

Excellent presentations skills and focus offered on the materials presented

Score

Analysis Offered

Limited analysis of the data used

Adequate analysis using available data

Excellent analysis using the available data

Score

Supporting Research   Out of  20

Referencing

Limited use of academic peer reviewed and quality practitioner sources

Good use of academic peer reviewed and quality practitioner sources

Excellent use of available resources including academic peer reviewed and quality practitioner sources

Score

(Maximum of 100 Points May be Awarded)         Total Points

Criteria and Weighting

To obtain 70% or above:

To obtain 60% or above:

To obtain 55 – 59%:

To obtain 50% - 54%:

To obtain a Fail grade of between 49 - 40 %:

To obtain a substantial fail of between 39 - 0%:

Reflection piece

Depth of reflection – 45%

Demonstrates an excellent level of reflection, with deep, insightful analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection goes beyond surface-level descriptions, showing critical engagement with the material and drawing meaningful conclusions.

Shows a good level of reflection, with a thoughtful analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection is detailed but may not fully explore all aspects or draw as deep conclusions as higher levels.

Displays a reasonable level of reflection, with some analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection may be more descriptive than analytical, and conclusions may be somewhat superficial.

Demonstrates a basic level of reflection, with minimal analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection is mostly descriptive, with limited critical engagement or meaningful conclusions.

Displays limited reflection, with little analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection is overly descriptive, lacking depth and critical engagement.

Demonstrates little to no reflection, with no meaningful analysis of personal experiences and learning. The reflection is purely descriptive or missing.

Integration of Theory and Practice – 30%

Excellent integration of relevant theories and concepts into the reflection. Theoretical insights are skillfully applied to personal experiences, demonstrating a strong understanding of their practical implications.

Good integration of relevant theories and concepts, with some application to personal experiences. There may be minor gaps in understanding or application, but overall the theory is used effectively.

Reasonable integration of relevant theories and concepts, though the application to personal experiences may be inconsistent or superficial. Some understanding of theory is demonstrated.

Basic integration of theories and concepts, with limited application to personal experiences. There may be gaps in understanding or relevance to the reflective content.

Poor integration of theory, with little or no application to personal experiences. Understanding of relevant concepts is weak or missing.

No integration of theory, with no application to personal experiences. The reflection lacks any theoretical basis.

Clarity and Coherence (10%)

The reflective piece is excellently structured and coherent, with a clear and logical flow of ideas. Writing is clear, concise, and free of errors, making the reflection easy to follow.

The reflective piece is well-structured and generally coherent, with a logical flow of ideas. Writing is clear, though minor errors may be present, and the reflection is mostly easy to follow.

The reflective piece has a reasonable structure, though some ideas may be disjointed or lack clarity. Writing is mostly clear but may contain some errors that affect readability.

The reflective piece has a basic structure, but ideas may be poorly organized or unclear. Writing may be unclear in places, with errors that impact readability.

The reflective piece lacks a clear structure, making it difficult to follow. Writing is unclear, with frequent errors that significantly impact readability.

The reflective piece is disorganized and incoherent, with little to no logical flow. Writing is unclear and riddled with errors, making it very difficult to follow.

Critical Thinking and Self-Awareness (10%)

Shows excellent critical thinking and self-awareness, with a deep understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, and growth. Reflection demonstrates a willingness to challenge assumptions and consider alternative perspectives.

Demonstrates good critical thinking and self-awareness, with a thoughtful understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, and growth. Some consideration of alternative perspectives is evident.

Displays reasonable critical thinking and self-awareness, with some understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, and growth. There may be limited consideration of alternative perspectives.

Shows basic critical thinking and self-awareness, with minimal understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, and growth. Reflection may lack depth in considering alternative perspectives.

Displays limited critical thinking and self-awareness, with little understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, and growth. The reflection does not challenge assumptions or consider alternative perspectives.

Shows little to no critical thinking or self-awareness, with no understanding of personal strengths, weaknesses, or growth. The reflection is shallow and lacks any consideration of alternative perspectives.

Quality of expression in English – 5%

Quality of expression in English

Spelling, grammar, punctuation and vocabulary meet the minimum standard for this study level of accuracy and clarity.  Written expression has very few errors in standard UK English spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Vocabulary choice shows an accurate understanding of the meaning of a wide range of specialist terms in the context of the subject. The specialist terms used may include those where the meaning is still being developed, or where the meaning is changing; or where the meaning is not agreed by all subject experts. There is also a broad and varied general vocabulary chosen so that nuances of meaning can be expressed concisely and to reflect the most current thinking in the subject area. Sentences are grammatically correct and express arguments and ideas through using both short, simple sentences and longer, compound sentences that allow the writer to bring facts or ideas together in a logical way. Expression is appropriate to the form. of the assessment (for example, the use of bullet points and captions instead of sentences).

meets the Tech Prof threshold criterion wholly (gain 5 points)

meets the Tech Prof threshold criterion partly (3 points)

does not meet the Tech Prof threshold criterion (0 points)