Tags: Infirmier Anesthesiste En BelgiqueOptus Business Phone PlansFamous Personal EssaysWhat Are Fallacies In Critical ThinkingEssay Help AustraliaPhonics Homework
70-74 Shows a clear awareness of the salient points and an ability to discuss them analytically and incisively.Evidence of undoubted quality in the use of secondary sources or evidence, but not sustained across the entire range.
Provides a reasonably structured account but with some signs of confusion; may contain errors of fact or interpretation.
The writing lacks fluency and may be clumsy in places.
In recent posts, we’ve discussed tips on developing high-quality multiple-choice exams.
Multiple-choice questions are an efficient way to assess student learning across a wide range of learning objectives.
45-49 A partial response to the question, which makes little sustained attempt to develop a coherent answer to the question or only does so in a haphazard manner.
A poorly developed argument, based on very limited reading.More descriptive than analytical, without the kind of critical reflection characteristic of answers in higher mark bands.Shows some understanding of strands in historiography where this is relevant.Evidence of strength in some areas may compensate for weaknesses in others.A well argued and perceptive response to the question, based on wide reading.The evidence may be misremembered, vague or insufficient to constitute a serious response, containing errors of fact or interpretation. 0 Indicates work either not submitted or unworthy of marking.Some evidence of structure, but it is likely to be muddled or unclear. A mark in this range may reflect: failure to address the question set; insignificant or no argument. 55-59 A relevant response to the question showing a reasonable level of general competency and knowledge according to most criteria, but with weakness in some areas.Some use of relevant examples and some appreciation of different arguments and interpretations.Well written, with few technical errors and a sense of style.A mark in this range recognises intelligent and thoughtful engagement with the subject, a strong grounding in the topic, and the presentation of a coherent argument with an awareness of nuance and complexity, although not all of these elements need be equally strong.