Criteria 

Excellent  

Very Good  

Good 

Satisfactory 

Weak 

1) The organisation is clearly presented and the link to its sustainability strategy/goals is well articulated

The organisation is very carefully selected with interesting/unusual/ challenging sustainability agendas. Excellent concise summary of the organisation and its operations

Very carefully selected

interesting organisation.

Very good clear description of the organisation’s sustainability

goals and general

operations

Thoughtful

well justified choice of an organisation with a well stated sustainability agenda/

challenge.

Good clear description of organisational operations

Reasonable if rather obvious choice of organisation. Some justification given of choice given and competent description of the organisation

Uninspired/random choice of organisation.

Little justification for choice and little or no link to sustainability strategy. Vague and/or incomplete description of the organisation

2) Intervention design is strategically aligned to the organisation’s sustainability strategy/objectives and organisational training needs

Excellent, fully detailed creative and imaginative

intervention design.

Fully in alignment with sustainability agendas and wider organisational strategy

Design underpinned by and justified in terms of a comprehensive TNA strategy

Very good, interesting intervention design. Very clearly underpinned by a clear TNA strategy and strategic organisational needs

Good attempt at developing an informed and competent intervention design.

Clear evidence that TNA was conducted and good alignment to organisational needs.

A reasonable attempt at intervention design with some attempt at alignment to organisational strategy.

Some evidence that a TNA was conducted and has influenced the design, although details rather vague in places.

Some attempt at implementation design albeit rather lacking in imagination, details and justification.

Little evidence of TNA nor alignment to organisational sustainability agendas or wider strategy.

3) The delivery plan is clear and contextually appropriate with a well justified evaluation plan

Excellent, fully detailed creative and imaginative

delivery plan showing clear understanding of contextual and cultural context. Full understanding of possible issues and clear contingency plan.

Excellently presented and justified comprehensive evaluation plan.

Very good, detailed, well thought through contextually and culturally appropriate delivery plan with understanding of potential problems and solutions to them.

Well justified wide-ranging evaluation plan.

Good attempt at developing an appropriate and competent delivery plan.

Good appropriate evaluation plan

A reasonable attempt at developing a delivery plan showing some understanding of contextual and cultural issues and resulting issues.

Evaluation plan in place

although details might be vague in places.

Some attempt at developing a delivery plan albeit lacking in details and justification. Little consideration of cultural and contextual issues.

Evaluation plan attempted but lacking in depth and details.

4) The budget is well-presented and justified and the case for resources clearly made

Excellent, fully detailed, comprehensive well-presented and clearly presented budget. Thorough, well evidenced case presented with links clearly made to organisational strategy

Very good, very clearly presented budget with few omissions.

Compelling case for support with some links to organisational strategy.

A competent, well put together budget with a few omissions. Justification for expenditure generally well presented for supporting organisational needs.

A reasonable budget but lacks clarity and justification.

Some attempt at aligning the case for support to organisational

strategy.

Budget weakly constructed and presented. Numerous omissions. Justifications lacking or unclear.

Case for support rather half-hearted and/or missing supporting evidence.

5) Critical engagement with the existing literature and understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of chosen activities and learning approaches clearly demonstrated.

Excellent critical engagement with a wide range of literature and resources (many self-sourced).

Thorough knowledge of strengths and weaknesses of chosen approaches and activities fully articulated and balanced.

Very good critical engagement with a range of literature and evidence of reading beyond course materials.

Very good realisation of the strengths and weaknesses of chosen approaches and activities and clear attempts to balanced them.

Good engagement with literature and resources with some evidence of criticality and wider reading.

Clear efforts to complement and balance strengths and weaknesses of different activities and approaches.

A reasonable attempt at engagement with course materials and resources but with little criticality or evidence of further reading.

Some attempts to critique chosen approaches.

Some attempt at engagement with course materials and resources but generally uncritical and descriptive. No or little attempt to reach beyond the course materials.

Chosen approaches unjustified and non-critically applied.

6) Critical understanding of the key skills and roles needed by HRD practitioners in order to realise the intervention, along with CPD implications.

Extremely comprehensive

analysis of all key skills and roles needed. Excellent justification   given for choice of most challenging skills/roles demonstrating excellent understanding of the challenges of the specific organisational context. Detailed and clear suggestions given for CPD.

Comprehensive

analysis of key skills and roles and roles required and well linked to the

specific organisational context. The most challenging skills/roles clearly justified and sensible suggestions given for CPD.

Good identification of key skills and roles needed. Some analysis of the demands of the organisational context. Some challenging skills/roles identified, and good suggestions given for CPD.

Able to identify some of the key skills and roles needed but some omissions.

Attempts an analysis of the demands of the organisational context and gives some suggestions for CPD

albeit incomplete in places.

Little attempt to identify the key skills and roles needed.

Very little attention paid to the demands of the organisational context and/or suggestions given for CPD

not given or very cursory.

7) Structure and logic of answer/argument; overall standard of presentation and written expression.

Answer exemplary in terms of logic and structure of answer/ argument. Will normally show greatest skill and judgement in synthesising various strands of argument in the conclusion. Tone is appropriate and consistent. Language is academic and writing is clear, concise, and persuasive. Major arguments are effectively made, and ideas always relate back to main line of argument.

Answer is clearly

structured with

clear and consistent logic of argument. There

may be some minor

errors. Will normally

have strong and

consistent conclusions that provide insight into

the issue. Tone is appropriate and

consistent.

Language is academic and writing is clear and

concise. Thoughtful

progression of ideas

and details. Major arguments are effectively made

Structure of answer and logic of argument is generally sound but with some errors and/or unevenness. Conclusions here may be more inconsistent and/or summary-like; and/or less insightful. Tone is appropriate, language is academic, and writing is clear and effective, with few lapses. Very little or no unclear sentence phrasing. The progression of ideas could be more thoughtful. Most of the time ideas are connected well and relate back to main arguments.

Clear attempt to structure the answer and develop logical arguments, but likely to be unconvincing and/or confused. Will normally have made a clear attempt to conclude piece, but this may be confused, inconsistent and/or lack insight. Contains informal language or conversational tone. Writing style. could be more effective. Some unclear sentence phrasing. Could weave main ideas more effectively into an overarching argument in response to the question(s) posed.

Answer cannot be readily followed, with illogical claims made. Answer has no clear structure. Conclusions may be absent, perfunctory or too confused to demonstrate reasonable attainment. Non-academic writing style, lacking in clarity, precision, and/or persuasiveness. Error- ridden in terms of spelling or grammar. Poor syntax, making sentences and paragraphs difficult to understand.