ASSESSMENT GRID FOR RELIGIOUS STUDIES/THEOLOGY LEVEL 1. Degree Class Grade Knowledge and Understan ding.

. Lower Second 2930-39 40-49 50-59 Inadequat Little Basic Broad e knowledge relevant awareness, knowledge of the knowledge but wide of the essential of the gaps in essential concepts, essential knowledge concepts, principles concepts, of the principles and principles essential and procedure and concepts, procedure s. Little procedure principles s. No evidence s. Limited and evidence of reading, evidence procedures. of reading. poor of reading. Reasonable Lacks understan evidence of understan ding of reading. ding of question. question. Argument Argument Limited Reasonable s not weakly ability to ability to developed developed develop develop and simply and mostly lines of lines of descriptive descriptive argument argument . Very . and make and make poor Observatio sound sound observatio ns crude judgement judgements ns. and s in in Illogical superficial. accordanc accordance and no Own views e with with basic real sign not given basic religious/the of thought. or badly religious/th oNo presented. eological awarenes Logic poor, logical theories and s of with little theories concepts. religious/t sign of and Some heothought. concepts. analysis and logical Little Tendency questioning significanc awareness to describe of e. of with limited assumptions religious/th analysis or . Own views eo-logical attempt to expressed significanc sum up. but the e. Own views views of given but others not not very recognised. coherently. Reasonable Not always awareness Fail Fail Third Upper Second 60-69 Sound knowledge of the essential concepts, principles and procedures. Some key points missed or not considered in depth. Clear evidence of reading. Sound ability to develop lines of argument and make sound judgements in accordance with basic religious/theo logical theories and concepts. Evidence sensibly used, but with omissions or errors. Own views clear and analysis is consistent. Good awareness of the religious/theo logical implications First 70+ Clear understanding of the essential concepts, principles and procedures and their significance within Religious Studies/Theology. Comprehensive, detailed knowledge and use of reading material.

Analysis, Methods and Evaluation

Demonstrates an impressive ability to develop valid and detailed lines of argument and make sound judgements in accordance with basic religious/theological theories and concepts. Clear evidence of independent thought. Analysis has a very good religious/theological awareness. Aware of the danger of making assumptions although there may be a limited awareness of alternative viewpoints. Analysis is sharp and perceptive.

supported by evidence. Limited awareness of religious/th eo-logical significanc e.

of wider religious/the o-logical significance.

of the findings.

Communic A lot of ation errors in (written) spelling, punctuatio n and grammar. Expressio n incoherent .

Many errors of spelling and punctuatio n and grammar. Expression is obscure or simplistic. Organisati Disorganis Badly Some on. ed with no organised attempt at rationale. with little organisatio Mostly rationale n. Not waffle. for what is selective considered enough in . Too choosing much material. waffle. Limited specificatio n of aims and objectives. Referencin No Little use Reference g and references of s not bibliograph . references always y Bibliograp Bibliograp well-used. hy absent. hy absent Basic or bibliograph incomplete y. .

Frequent errors of spelling, punctuatio n and grammar. Expression muddled and unclear.

Several errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar. Style lacks coherence and may be simple. Broadly logical, but with some confusion. There may be some repetition.

Largely free of gross errors. Expression mainly clear but may be limited.

Clear, accurately and appropriately expressed. Very few errors.

Clear, logical structure. Aims clearly set out and followed through.

Clear progressive development. Sections reinforce one another, with a challenging conclusion.

Referencing used, but not complete. Bibliography given, but with some errors and not complete.

References used in the text, but room for improvement . Reasonable bibliography, but with a few errors or

References are well integrated into the flow of the text. Full and effectively used bibliography, with no errors.

Working With Others (where relevant).

Poor attendanc e.

Does not participate in group discussion s and cooperate effectively with team members

Can perform assigned tasks in a group setting, interacting with team members.

Can perform tasks in a group setting interacting effectively with team members.

omissions. Works as a participant or leader of a group and clearly contributes to the achievement of objectives.

Interacts effectively within a group demonstrating appropriate initiative, negotiation and leadership skills.

The weightings for each element within this table will vary between pieces of work. The final mark represents the overall balance of these elements

ASSESSMENT GRID FOR RELIGIOUS STUDIES/THEOLOGY LEVEL 2. Degree Class Grade Knowledge and Understand ing. Lower Second 2930-39 40-49 50-59 Inadequat Little Basic Broad e understan relevant awareness, understan ding of the understan but wide ding of the wellding of the gaps in wellestablishe wellunderstandin establishe d establishe g of the welld principles d established principles and principles principles and knowledge and and knowledge . Little knowledge knowledge. . No evidence : limited Reasonable evidence of reading, evidence evidence of of reading. poor of reading. reading. Lacks understan understan ding of ding of question. question. Arguments not developed and simply descriptive . Very poor observatio ns. Illogical and no real sign of thought. No awareness of religious/th eo-logical significanc e. Argument weakly developed and mostly descriptive . Observatio ns crude and superficial. Own views not given or badly presented. Logic poor, with little sign of thought. Little awareness of religious/th eo-logical significanc e. Fail Fail Third Upper Second 69-69 Sound understandin g of the wellestablished principles and knowledge. Some key points missed or not considered in depth. Clear evidence of wide reading. First

Analysis, Methods and Evaluation

70+ Clear understanding of the wellestablished principles and knowledge and its significance within Religious Studies/Theolog y. Comprehensive, detailed knowledge and use of reading material, some of which are research articles. Limited Reasonable Sound ability Demonstrates ability to ability to to develop an impressive develop develop lines of ability to develop lines of lines of argument valid and argument argument and make detailed lines of and make and make sound argument and sound sound judgements make sound judgement judgements in judgements in s in in accordance accordance with accordanc accordance with basic basic e with with basic religious/the religious/theolog basic religious/the o-logical ical theories and religious/th o-logical theories and concepts. Clear eo-logical theories and concepts. evidence of theories concepts. Evidence independent and Some sensibly thought. concepts. analysis and used, but Analysis has a Tendency questioning with a few very good to describe of omissions or religious/theolog with limited assumptions errors. Own ical awareness. analysis or . Own views views clear Aware of the attempt to expressed and analysis danger of sum up. and but the is consistent. making Own views views of Good assumptions given but others not awareness and is aware of not very always of the alternative coherently. recognised. religious/the viewpoints.

Not always supported by evidence. Limited awareness of religious/th eo-logical significanc e.

Reasonable awareness of wider religious/the o-logical significance.

ological implications of the findings.

Analysis is sharp and perceptive.

Communica Frequent tion errors of (written) spelling, punctuatio n and grammar. Expression muddled and unclear. Organisatio n. Disorganis ed with no rationale. Mostly waffle.

Many errors of spelling and punctuatio n and grammar. Expression is obscure or simplistic. Badly organised with little rationale for what is considered . Too much waffle.

Several errors in spelling, punctuatio n and grammar. Style lacks coherence and may be simple.

Largely free of gross errors. Expression mainly clear but may be limited.

Clear, Literate, concise accurately and academic in and style. appropriately expressed. Very few errors.

Referencin g and bibliograph y

No references . Bibliograp hy absent.

Some attempt at organisatio n. Not selective enough in choosing material. Limited specificatio n of aims and objectives. Little use Reference of s not references always Bibliograp well-used. hy absent Basic or bibliograph incomplete y. .

Broadly logical, but with some confusion. There may be some repetition.

Clear, logical structure. Aims clearly set out and followed through.

Clear progressive development. Sections reinforce one another, with a challenging conclusion.

Referencing used, but not complete. Bibliography given, but with some errors and not complete.

References used in the text, but room for improvement . Reasonable bibliography, but with a

References are well integrated into the flow of the text. Full and effectively used bibliography, with no errors. Includes research

Working Poor With Others attendance (where . relevant).

Does not participate in group discussion s and cooperate effectively with team members

Can perform assigned tasks in a group setting, interacting with team members.

few errors or omissions. Can perform Works as a tasks in a participant or group setting leader of a interacting group and effectively contributes with team effectively to members. the achievement of objectives.

articles. Interacts effectively within a group demonstrating appropriate initiative, negotiation and leadership skills. Shows group support skills.

The weightings for each element within this table will vary between pieces of work. The final mark represents the overall balance of these elements.

ASSESSMENT GRID FOR RELIGIOUS STUDIES/THEOLOGY LEVEL 3. Degree Class Grade Knowledge and Understand ing. Lower Second 2930-39 40-49 50-59 Inadequat Little Basic Broad e systematic understan awareness, systematic understan ding of the but wide understan ding of the key gaps in the ding of the key aspects of systematic key aspects of knowledge understandin aspects of knowledge . Limited g of the key knowledge . Little evidence aspects of . No evidence of reading. knowledge. evidence of reading, Reasonable of reading. poor evidence of Lacks understan reading. understan ding of ding of question. question. Fail Fail Third Upper Second 60-69 Sound systematic understandin g of the key aspects of knowledge. Some key points missed or not considered in depth. Clear evidence of wide reading, including the use of research articles. Reasonable Sound ability ability to to develop develop lines of lines of argument argument and make and make sound sound judgements judgements in in accordance accordance with basic with basic religious/the religious/the ologic-al o theories and logical concepts. theories and Evidence concepts. sensibly Some critical used, but analysis and with a few questioning omissions or of errors. assumptions Own views . Own views clear and expressed analysis is and views of critical and others consistent. First 70+ Clear systematic understanding of the key aspects of knowledge and its significance within Theology/Religiou s Studies. Comprehensive, detailed knowledge and use of a wide range of reading material including research articles.

Analysis and Methods Evaluation

Arguments not developed and simply descriptive . Very poor observatio ns. Illogical and no real sign of thought. No awareness of religious/th eo logical significanc e.

Argument weakly developed and mostly descriptive . Observatio ns crude and superficial. Own views not given or badly presented. Logic poor, with little sign of thought. Little awareness of religious/th eo logical significanc

Limited ability to develop lines of argument and make sound judgement s in accordanc e with basic religious/th eo logical theories and concepts. Tendency to describe with limited critical analysis or attempt to sum up.

Demonstrates an impressive ability to develop valid and detailed lines of argument and make sound judgements in accordance with basic religious/theologic al theories and concepts. Clear evidence of independent thought. Analysis has a very good religious/theologic al awareness. Clearly aware of limitations and alternative viewpoints and is fully aware of the danger of making assumptions.

e.

Own views given but not very coherently. Not always supported by evidence. Limited awareness of religius/the ological significanc e.

recognised. Reasonable awareness of wider religious/the o-logical significance.

Good awareness of the religious/the ological implications of the findings.

Analysis is critical, sharp and perceptive.

Communica Frequent tion errors of (written) spelling, punctuatio n and grammar. Expression muddled and unclear. Organisatio n. Disorganis ed with no rationale. Mostly waffle.

Many errors of spelling and punctuatio n and grammar. Expression is obscure or simplistic. Badly organised with little rationale for what is considered . Too much waffle.

Several errors in spelling, punctuatio n and grammar. Style lacks coherence and may be simple.

Largely free of gross errors. Expression mainly clear but may be limited.

Clear, Literate, concise accurately and academic in and style. appropriately expressed. Very few errors.

Referencin g and bibliograph y

No references . Bibliograp hy absent.

Some attempt at organisatio n. Not selective enough in choosing material. Fails to specify aims and objectives clearly. Little use Reference of s not references always Bibliograp well-used. hy absent Basic or bibliograph incomplete y. .

Broadly logical, but with some confusion. There may be some repetition.

Clear, logical structure. Aims clearly set out and followed through.

Clear progressive development. Sections reinforce one another, with a challenging conclusion.

Referencing used, but not complete. Bibliography given, but with some errors and not

References used in the text, but room for improvement . Reasonable bibliography,

References are well integrated into the flow of the text. Full and effectively used bibliography, with no errors. Includes a wide

complete.

Working Poor With Others attendance (where . relevant).

Does not participate in group discussion s and cooperate effectively with team members

Can perform assigned tasks in a group setting, interacting with team members.

but with a few errors or omissions. Includes research articles. Can perform Works as a tasks in a participant or group setting leader of a interacting group and effectively contributes with team effectively to members. the achievement of objectives.

range of research articles.

Interacts effectively within a group demonstrating appropriate initiative, negotiation and leadership skills. Shows group support skills to an advanced level.

The weightings for each element within this table will vary between pieces of work. The final mark represents the overall balance of these elements.