HCARE Postgraduate Level 7 Theory Rubric
100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 0
Outstanding Exceptional Superior Exemplary Excellent Advanced Comprehensive Very Good Satisfactory Pass Limited Weak Unsatisfactory Insufficient Poor Deficient Lacking Incomplete Inadequate
good
- Accuracy in the interpretation and examination of knowledge at the forefront of the discipline or area of practice (with topic considered of value in organisational terms / research field if applicable)
Knowledge - Critical understanding of the professional, cultural, social, ethical and legal dimensions of a chosen subject
20% - Demonstration of intellectual curiosity through original thinking and creative presentation of complex ideas
- Critical evaluation and reflection of professional practice supported by appropriate source material
- Critical knowledge of research techniques and ability to design and execute research (if applicable)
- Ability to critique and use theory
Analysis - Critical appraisal of the rigor and impact of research, policy and/or scholarship findings in the chosen area of study
30% - Presentation of balanced, rational and critical arguments, supported with comprehensive evidence / literature, some of which is at the frontier of the field or area of study
- Ability to critically defend or challenge research / policy findings and propose new hypotheses if necessary
- Ability to make critical judgements in the absence of complete data
- Recognition of relationships between different knowledge sources
Synthesis - Demonstration of independent critical thinking through constructing coherent arguments and balanced discussions
20% - Ability to summarise key issues and generate evidence-based solutions and conclusions, supported by relevant facts and credible sources
- Assignment style and use of literature to support developing arguments
- Critical appraisal of the value attributed to the findings from current research and/or advanced scholarship relating to the chosen topic
Evaluation - Critical evaluation of supporting theory
20% - Originality and creativity when considering implications of research/scholarship, tackling and solving problems, and presenting new approaches / perspectives
- Ability to present a considered conclusion, including a clear and robust sustainability plan (if applicable)
- Ability to present work with no grammatical or punctuation errors, and declaration and adherence to stipulated word count limits
Presentation - Consistency in the use of a Harvard style of referencing
10% - Compliance with data protection and confidentiality and anonymity regulations
- Ability to interact effectively through the use of excellent communication, via all media, resulting in clarity of expression; written and spoken
Descriptor Guide
Outstanding (100%) - a critical work of the highest level, routinely questions and challenges effectively, content meets all requirements, no errors or omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Exceptional (95%) - highly critical, consistently questions and challenges to a high degree, sustained quality in nearly all areas, no errors or omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Superior (90%) - highly critical, frequently questions and challenges, content meets most requirements, minimal errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Exemplary (85%) - critically considered, often questions and challenges, content meets nearly most requirements, minimal errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Excellent (80%) - a critical approach, regularly questions and challenges, brief met to a very high standard, minor errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Advanced (75%) - a critical work, occasionally questions and challenges, brief met to a very high standard, minor errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Comprehensive (70%) - a mostly critical approach, coherent, some questioning and challenge evident, brief met to a high standard, few errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Very good (65%) - mostly a critically considered work, overall brief met to a very good standard, few errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Good (60%) - some critically considered work evident, brief met to a good standard, some errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Satisfactory (55%) - brief met, critical insight evident, occasionally descriptive and abstract at times, many errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Pass (50%) - a pass, sufficient critical insight demonstrated, though often descriptive and abstract in parts, many errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Limited (45%) - brief not quite met, critical analysis too superficial and descriptive, many errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Weak (40%) - brief not met, critical analysis lacks the required depth, descriptive, numerous errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Unsatisfactory (35%) - superficial critical analysis, a mostly descriptive account, abstract in parts, numerous errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Insufficient (30%) - work lacks critical insight, descriptive, structure and focus lacking, numerous errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Poor (25%) - insufficient critical analysis, irrelevant content, unstructured, extensive errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Deficient (20%) - inappropriate critical analysis, work lacks structure and focus, extensive errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Lacking (15%) - missing or minimal relevant content, descriptive, inaccuracies evident, extensive errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Incomplete (10%) - unfinished or significant sections missing, major inaccuracies, extensive errors, omissions, or gaps in knowledge
Inadequate (0%) - unfinished, work submitted late, or non-submission in the absence of extenuating circumstances
