Assessment criteria for ED4068
| % Mar k |
Knowledge LO1 ,2, 3 |
Thinking LO 4, 5 |
Subject based and practical skills for life and work (general skills) LO 6, 7 |
| 80- 100 % |
In-depth knowledge of contemporary debates on inclusion in education. Thorough use of relevant legislation and policy to evidence thinking and approaches. Relevant academic literature has been used effectively and critically to generate and support ideas. |
Evidence of a high level of independent and critical thinking in relation to SEND and intersectionality and inequality discourse and demonstrate originality in the application of theory and legislation when examining approaches to the range of practices and provision for Children and Young People with SEND. |
Reference list reflects a high level of independent academic reading relevant to the module. There is evidence of sustained critical evaluation and interpretation. Engages with relevant ethical, cultural and social issues in relation to inclusion. Citations to references are comprehensive and accurate throughout. Reference list accurately formatted. Style of writing lends itself to academia. |
| 70- 79% |
Wide ranging knowledge of contemporary debates on inclusion in education. Relevant academic literature has been used to generate and support ideas which demonstrate the range of perspectives across society. |
Evidence of critical thinking in relation to inclusive practices with regard to SEND and intersectionality and inequality. Evidence of consideration where inequality has influenced change. Accounts for ethical, cultural and social issues. |
Use a wide range of academic sources from the module and evidence of independent reading. There is sustained evaluation and/or interpretation of sources and evidence of critical thinking. The citations to references and reference list are comprehensive and accurate throughout. Style of writing lends itself to academia. |
AssignmentTutorOnline
| 69- 69% |
Knowledge of contemporary debates on inclusion in education. A range of relevant academic literature has been used to support ideas. |
Emerging evidence of critical thinking in relation to with regard to SEND and intersectionality and inequality within inclusive contexts. Accounts for relevant ethical, cultural and social issues. |
Reference list reflects evidence of engagement with a range of academic reading from module and beyond. There is evidence of evaluation and/or interpretation of sources throughout. Engages with relevant ethical, cultural and social issues. The citations to references and reference list are accurately formatted but there may be a few errors. |
| 50- 59% |
Demonstrates understanding of contemporary debates on inclusion in education. Literature has been used to support ideas. |
Demonstrates understanding of SEND and intersectionality and inequality in relation to inclusion. Accounts for ethical, cultural and/or social issues (mainly from one perspective). |
Reference list and citations in text evidences engagement with academic reading from module throughout the assignment. There is some attempt to evaluate/interpret the sources of information. Engages with ethical, cultural and/or social issues (mainly from one perspective). Citations to references are formatted accurately but they may have minor errors. List of references is mainly accurate in format but may have errors. |
| 40- 49% |
Learning outcomes are met. Demonstrates some understanding of contemporary debates on inclusion in education but mainly summarises facts. |
Learning outcomes are met. Demonstrates some understanding of SEND and intersectionality and inequality in relation to inclusion. Mentions either ethical, cultural and/or social issues. |
Learning outcomes are met. Reference list and citations in text evidence some evidence of academic reading relevant to the module. The writing is descriptive. Mentions either ethical, cultural and/or social issues. Citations to references and the reference list include some errors. |
| 30- 39% |
LEARNING OUTCOME NOT FULLY MET Limited evidence of knowledge of contemporary debates on inclusion in education. There may be misconceptions. |
LEARNING OUTCOME NOT FULLY MET Limited evidence of knowledge SEND and intersectionality and inequality in relation to inclusion. There is no reference to ethical, cultural and/or social issues. |
LEARNING OUTCOME NOT FULLY MET Reference list and citations in text reflect limited evidence of academic reading from the module. There is no reference to ethical, cultural and/or social issues. Citations to references and the list of references are often inaccurately formatted. |
| 20- 29% |
LEARNING OUTCOME NOT MET Very limited evidence of knowledge or understanding of contemporary debates on inclusion in education. There are misconceptions and inconsistencies. |
LEARNING OUTCOME NOT MET Very limited evidence of knowledge or understanding of SEND and intersectionality and inequality in relation to inclusion. No ethical, cultural and/or social issues have been mentioned. There are misconceptions and inconsistencies. |
LEARNING OUTCOME NOT MET Reference list reflects very limited evidence of engaging with recommended academic reading. No ethical, cultural and/or social issues have been mentioned. Citations to references and the list of references are inaccurately formatted. |
| Belo w 20% |
LEARNING OUTCOME NOT MET There is no evidence of knowledge or understanding of contemporary debates on inclusion in education. |
LEARNING OUTCOME NOT MET There is no evidence of knowledge or understanding of SEND and intersectionality and inequality in relation to inclusion. No ethical, cultural and/or social issues have been mentioned. |
LEARNING OUTCOME NOT MET There is no evidence of any recommended academic reading in the reference list. No ethical, cultural and/or social issues have been mentioned. The reference list is incorrectly formatted. |