Relevance of Reflections

i. How relevant is the content to the requirements

of the task? ii.
How accurate is the information presented?

Confidence in discussing current Trends in

Computer Science

How confident is the student in exploring different

Trends in Computer Science?

Structure and Coherence

Do the reflections follow and appropriate structure

(i.e. reflective/ report writing)? Is the
information presented coherently?

Evaluative/ analytical skills and support for

claims
To what extent is there evidence of critical
reflection? To what extent are claims supported
by research?
Referencing

To what extent is in-text referencing accurate? To

what exztent is the References' section accurate?

Writing Style
To what extent is the language used
appropriate?
Word Count To
what extent the reflections meet the word limit
requirement?
Poor- Inadequate (0-39)
Poor submission indicated by incomplete answers.
Limited
relevance to the topics in question. Limited evidence of
arguments being supported by research.

Poor submission indicated by incomplete answers. In

inadequate submissions (30-39), a limited understanding
of the areas is shown, for example by not addressing
their importance.

The structure is mostly unclear and ineffective. It lacks

basic cohesive devices. There is no logical relationship
between ideas.

Poor submission. Lack of evidence of critical reflection.

Evidence is is not evaluated for credibility and relevance.
Ideas are not examined against other sources.

No evidence of use of a referencing system.

Inaccuracies in referencing make it difficult to locate
sources.

Very limited part of language used is appropriate for

each task.
Lack of respect to the word limit (significantly shorter or
longer than required).
Adequate (40-49)
Adequate submission indicated by addressing most
points on each reflection. Evidence
of arguments being supported by sources provided in
lectures/tutorials and one additional source which might
lack authority.

Adequate understanding of different trends, but with

difficulty in desribing their importance. An adequate
understanding of alternative viewpoints. Limited evidence
used to support arguments. Uses apprpriate information
from given sources only.

The structure is mostly clear but not always effective.

Characteristics of reflective or report writing are not
always followed. Some cohesive devices are used.
Some content might be repetitive.

Some evidence is evaluated for credibility and relevance.

A limited number of ideas is evaluated against at least
one other source per reflection or what is already known.
Some claims are not supported by evidence.

Evidence of use of a referencing system. Some

inaccuracies in intext-citations or References' section.

The language used is generally appropriate for each task

with some exceptions.
Adequate management of word limit. Some important
points might not be addressed appropriatelly.
Good (50-59)
Good submission indicated by addressing all main
points on each reflection with sound reasoning.
Evidence of arguments being supported by
sources provided in lectures/tutorials and one/two
additional sources which might lack authority.

Good understanding of different trends. Evidence of

analysis of alternative viewpoints. Appropriate evidence
used to support arguments. Uses appropriate
information both from given sources as well as from own
research.

The structure is clear but not always effective.

Characteristics of reflective or report writing are
followed. Some cohesive devices are used, but
cohesion between different sections might be unclear or
repetitive.

Sufficient evidence is evaluated for credibility and

relevance. Some ideas may not be evaluated against
other sources in addition to what is already known.
Some claims may not be supported by adequate
evidence.
Good application of a referencing system. Occasional
inaccuracies in intext-citations or References' section.

The language used is mostly appropriate for each task

with few exceptions.
Good management of word limit. Some important points
might not be proportionally addressed.
Very Good (60-69)
Very good submission indicated by addressing all main points
on each reflection with very good reasoning.
Evidence of arguments being supported by sources
provided in lectures/tutorials and one/two additional
appropriate sources.

Very good understanding of different trends. Sufficient

evidence of analysis of alternative viewpoints. Appropriate
evidence used to support arguments well. Appropriate
information both from given sources as well as from own
research is used to offer a synthesis of different topics.

The structure is clear, appropriate and effective.

Characteristics of reflective or report writing are easy to follow.
Ideas are well organised. There is clear progression of
information and ideas throughout. Cohesive devices are used
well.

Most evidence is evaluated for credibility and relevance. Most

ideas are examined and evaluated against two-three sources
identified through research in addition to what is already
known. Most claims are supported by adequate evidence.

Very good application of a referencing system both in intext-

citations and in References' section.

The language used is appropriate for each task.

Very good management of word limit. Good balance among

points/ sections.
Excellent/ Outstanding (70-100)
Excellent submission indicated by addressing all main points on
each reflection with excellent reasoning.
Evidence of arguments being supported by sources provided in
lectures/tutorials and three appropriate additional sources.
Outstanding submissions demonstrate a thorough approach and
originality of response.

Excellent understanding of different trends presented with

confidence. Excellent analysis of alternative viewpoints. Excellent
evidence used to support well formed arguments. Appropriate
information both from given sources as well as from own research is
used to offer a synthesis of different topics well beyond the taught
material.

The structure is excellent, clear, appropriate and effective.

Characteristics of reflective or report writing are easy to follow. Ideas
are very well organised. There is excellent progression of
information and ideas throughout. All aspects of cohesion are used
in an excellent way.

All evidence is evaluated for credibility and relevance. Ideas are

examined and evaluated against three or more sources identified
through research in addition to what is already known. All claims are
supported by adequate evidence.

Excellent application of a referencing system both in intext-citations

and in References' section.

The language used is excellent/outstanding for each task. Clear,

engaging and cohereent, with an exceptional scholarly writing style.
Excellent/ outstanding management of word limit. The points
addressed are complete and the work is within the word limit.