220ITSC Cryptography

relevant, is detailed and sophisticated. Appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout the work. Approach to assessment task is clearly and appropriately theoretically informed.

synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas.

of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner.

70-79%

Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis and/or evaluation and problemsolving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with considerable originality.

Demonstrates a detailed, accurate, theoretical understanding.

Appropriately selected theoretical knowledge is applied to the individual learning outcomes. Makes

excellent use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation relevant to the discipline and applies these effectively. Shows developed ability to appraise alternative theories and/or analytic approaches, where relevant.

Excellent exploration of wider academic sources with evidence of independent learning which may exceed the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with an attempt made at synthesis, leading to interesting ideas.

Excellent answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is entirely relevant and focused with a clear argument/line of reasoning throughout. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic writing style applied throughout. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner.

60-69%

Very good knowledge base that supports analysis and/or evaluation and problemsolving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with some originality displayed.

Makes very good use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation relevant to the discipline. Shows developing ability to compare alternative theories and/or analytic approaches, where relevant.

Very good evidence of wider academic reading and independent learning. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with some evidence of synthesis.

Very good answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is relevant and focused. Discipline specific vocabulary is used and academic writing style applied. Minimal language errors may be present but do not impact on clarity of expression. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is accurate.

50-59%

Good knowledge base that supports some analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline.

Makes good use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Sound descriptive knowledge of key theories with some appropriate application.

Good evidence of academic reading, with attempt at moving beyond the recommended texts.

Interpretation of sources is acceptable with evidence of integration.

Good answer with coherent and logical presentation. The answer is largely relevant but lacks focus at points. There is an attempt at using discipline specific vocabulary and academic writing style. Some language errors are present which impacts on clarity at times. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate.

40-49%

Satisfactory knowledge base demonstrating comprehension and formulation of basic knowledge with some omissions at the level of theoretical understanding.

Limited ability to discuss theory and solve problems within the discipline.

Makes satisfactory but limited use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Selection of theory, if relevant to the assessment outcomes is satisfactory but application and/or understanding is limited.

Satisfactory evidence of academic reading, with minimal attempt to move beyond the recommended

texts. Interpretation of sources is acceptable, but there may be some instances of misunderstanding.

Satisfactory answer with some attempt at coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains some irrelevant material and lacks focus at points. There is minimal use of discipline specific vocabulary and academic writing style is inconsistently applied. Some language errors may be present which impacts on clarity at times. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate but with some errors.

35-39%

(Marginal Fail)

Outcomes not or only

partially met. Restricted knowledge base demonstrated. Limited understanding of discipline. Difficulty with linking theory and problem solving within the discipline.

Attempts at analysis and/or evaluation ineffective and/or uninformed by the discipline. Knowledge of theory inaccurate and/or incomplete. Choice of theory inappropriate. Application and/or understanding very limited.

Limited evidence of reading at an academic level. Sources used may be inappropriate and interpreted poorly. Little evidence of integration.

Answer is attempted but limited. Lack of coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains mainly irrelevant material and lacks focus throughout. Language errors are present and impact on clarity of expression. Academic writing style is not adhered to. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is inconsistent.

0 – 34%

Little or no evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of

discipline. Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving within the discipline.

Absence of relevant theoretical content and/or use of theory, where relevant. Lacks any analysis and/or evaluation.

Inadequate or no evidence of reading at an academic level with poor application of sources and ideas. Answer is likely to include inappropriate

references which are misunderstood and not integrated. Possibility of plagiarism OR no evidence of academic research. Answer may not be research based.

Answer is inadequate with serious flaws in coherence and presentation. Poorly structured with multiple language errors which impact on clarity. Weak application of CU version of Harvard referencing style.