SOAD 9110 Marking Guide Assessment 3_Case study assessment and intervention
Criteria
Demonstrated analysis of
critical features of the case
study (20%)
Synthesis of theory/knowledge
and academic literature
relevant to the case study
scenario (25%)
Critical analysis of the case
study by making conceptual
links between
theories/knowledge and case
study information (25%)
High Distinction
Accurately identifies core
features of the case study
inclusive of social, political,
economic context.
Demonstrates analysis of key
issues in case study and
intimately engages with
experiences of the children
and/or parents and the context
within which they live and how
it impacts on their lives. (17-20)
Quality synthesis of core
theories and knowledge
discussed in topic inclusive of
critical theories. Articulation of
a social work ethos,
demonstration of knowledge
and relevant literature
applicable to case study
scenario beyond an
individualistic focus. Sources are
current and relevant.
References provided. (21.5 – 25)
Proficiency at providing a
logical, clear, critique of the
case study information using
core ideas extracted from
selected theories and
knowledge inclusive of broader
contextual issues. Sophisticated
critique of children and their
experiences, parents and factors
impacting on parenting capacity
and parent-child relationships
and issues identified in the
broader context such as power.
(21.5 – 25)
Distinction
Analysis of the core features of
the case study but does not fully
explore the depth and breadth
of the situation. Scope for more
engagement with the
experiences of the children
and/or parents and the broader
social, economic and power
issues that impact on their
wellbeing. (15-16.9)
Identification of theories and
knowledge discussed in topic
however more synthesis of
information and breadth of
knowledge would strengthen
work. Identity with discipline
of social work present and
some engagement with critical
theories inclusive of power.
Evidence of reading
References provided. (18.75 –
21.4)
A logical, clear, analysis of case
study details inclusive of factors
contributing to disadvantage
and oppression using core ideas
extracted from selected
theories and knowledge. Some
areas lacking in depth and
breadth of discussion required.
Some aspects of case study
information lacking and limited
application of resilience matrix.
(18.75 – 21.4)
Credit
Some of the elements of the
case study are defined however
predominantly superficial and
narrow in depth and breadth.
Lack of engagement with the
children and/or parents and
limited understanding of
contextual issues that impact on
their lives. (13 -14.9)
Essay displays some theories
and knowledge discussed in the
topic but is limited in scope and
predominantly descriptive.
Links to the broader mandate of
social work are made but
rudimentary. Wider reading and
more use of refereed academic
resources would strengthen the
discussion.
References provided. (16.25 -
18.5)
Evidence of analysis of the case
study undertaken, and attempts
are made at linking core
theories and knowledge but
there are gaps in the
information. Limitations in the
application of the resilience
matrix. Discussion is
predominantly descriptive and
individualistic lacking a critical
social work theory approach.
(16.25 -18.5)
Pass
There is identification of some
aspects of the case study
however extremely limited.
Little engagement with the
experiences of the children
and/or parents. Description is
predominantly narrow and
lacking in structural
considerations. (10 – 12.9)
Some identification of theories
knowledge discussed in the
topic however extremely limited
lacking in depth of
understanding. Few if any links
made to the broader mandate
of social work. References not
provided or gaps in references
(12.5 -16)
Discussion predominately
descriptive and superficial with
little reference to refereed and
independent publications. Poor
use of resilience matrix and
understanding of the core
concepts. (12.5 -16)
Not
demonstrated/attempted
There is no demonstrated
understanding of the case
study. No engagement with
the experiences of the
children and/or parents. (0 -
9.9)
Does not demonstrate
understanding of core theories
and knowledge and poor use
of references. (0-12.4)
Discussion is purely
descriptive with little or no
use of theories and
knowledge for sense
making of case study. (0-
12.4)
 Intervention plan is informed
by findings of case study
assessment and relevant
literature/knowledge (20%)
Organisation of ideas and
quality of writing expression
(10%)
Intervention plan is informed by
analysis of risk and protective
factors at all levels of social
ecology, strengths based and
informed by relevant and
contemporary literature and
practice evidence that achieves
the safety and wellbeing of the
child. (17-20)
A well-executed, fluently
written piece that adequately
refers to the work of others
and demonstrates a
sophisticated application of
the ideas related to this task.
(8.5-10)
Intervention plan is somewhat
informed by case study analysis
and informed by some literature
however more reading required
and more consideration of
evidence-based approaches that
achieve child safety and
wellbeing. Some aspects of the
intervention plan need further
consideration. (15-16.9)
Work is solidly structured, well
phrased and organised in a
way that ideas flow and are
developed. Work is highly
original and appropriately
acknowledges the works of
others. (7.5 – 8.4)
Evidence of an intervention plan
with some aspects consistent
with case study assessment and
analysis. Some gaps exist.
More links to relevant literature
required to ensure approach is
evidence informed. (13 -14.9)
Work is well organised with
sound and connected
paragraphs. Appropriate
grammar conventions and
adequate referencing are
employed. (6.5 – 7.4)
Intervention plan evident and
limited links to case study
assessment and analysis.
Intervention and actions has
significant gaps and not
adequately informed by
contemporary literature. (10 –
12.9)
Work is organised,
understandable, inclusive and
adequately referenced and
consistent in its approach
however more attention
required to editing and
grammar. (5 – 6.4)
Intervention is not responsive to
the safety and wellbeing needs
of the child and identified
actions require further
consideration and stronger links
to literature. (0 -9.9)
Submission is unstructured
and lacks coherence. Work is
not original or adequately
referenced nor in keeping with
social work convention. (0 –
4.9)