0-29

Failing

30-39

Limited

40-49 Adequate

50-59 Sound

60-69 Good

70-79

Excellent

80-89

Outstanding

90-100

Exceptional

Knowledge and application of comparative methodology theory to healthcare systems analysis. 

Little or insufficient knowledge base and application of comparative

methodology, with

insufficient analysis and evaluation.

Non – submission Wrong assignment answered.

Limited knowledge base and application of comparative methodology, with narrow analysis and evaluation. Limited research skills are shown, and there are significant problems with the report's structure or limited accuracy in expression.

Adequate knowledge base and application of comparative research methodology

may have some

specific information but generic in areas with some omissions. Adequate research skills are shown and management of learning resources. 

Sound knowledge base and application of comparative research methodology, (some generic also present) with some autonomy in research but needs to be more consistent. Sound accuracy in expression and sound management of resources.

Good knowledge base and application of comparative research methodology, likely to be specific to the health system. Good management of learning resources with consistent selfdirected research. 

Excellent knowledge base and application of comparative research methodology and is consistently specific to health systems. Excellent management of learning resources with consistent selfdirected research. 

Outstanding knowledge base by exploring and analysing comparative research methodology with

evident originality and autonomy of research skills. The work will exceed the assessment brief in many areas, demonstrate intellectual originality.

Exceptional knowledge base of comparative research methodology with extraordinary originality and autonomy. Exceptional management of learning resources

with a high regard for

autonomy and

exploration that clearly exceeds the assignment brief. Exceptional structure with highly accurate expression. 

40 marks

0-11 

12-15 

16-19 

20-23 

24-27 

28-31 

32-35 

36-40 

0-29

Failing

30-39

Limited

40-49 Adequate

50-59 Sound

60-69 Good

70-79

Excellent

80-89

Outstanding

90-100

Exceptional

Evidence of critical and comparative analysis of the health care workforce challenges and impacts on service delivery specific in the UK and Germany. 

Evidence of actionable strategies for

recommendations on the health workforce challenges.

Insufficient analysis with little evidence of use of learning resources. Work significantly descriptive. Insufficient intellectual skills. The task was not followed, and there was no to minimum inclusion of any theory and or significant

difficulty of expression. For example, no explanation of

Mainly descriptive analysis of the health care workforce challenges, the impact on service delivery in the health system in the UK and Germany.

Difficulties in the use of learning resources little evidence of knowledge of theory and is mainly descriptive with restricted analysis and limited argument. Limited

Adequate knowledge base of the health care workforce challenges, inadequate application of comparative and impacts on service delivery in the UK and Germany. Mainly descriptive with some attempt at comparative analysis. Adequate management of learning resources. Some autonomy in research. Adequate evidence of actionable

strategies for recommendation.

Sound knowledge base of the health care workforce challenges, sound

application of critical comparative analysis and the impacts on service delivery.

Demonstrates some

similarities and differences in the UK and Germany.  Adequate management of learning resources. Some autonomy in research. Sound evidence of actionable

Good knowledge base of the health care workforce challenges, good application of critical comparative analysis and impacts on service delivery in the UK and Germany.

Demonstrates ability to analyse data and theory/models to identify similarities and differences in both countries.  Good evidence of actionable strategies

Excellent knowledge base of the health care workforce challenges, excellent application of critical comparative analysis and impacts on

service delivery in the UK and

Germany. Exploring and analysing the similarities and differences with evident originality and autonomy. Demonstrates ability to analyse relevant data with synthesis to relevant theory

Outstanding knowledge base of the health care workforce challenges, in-depth critical comparative analysis of impacts on service delivery in the UK and

Germany. Exploring and analysing the similarities and differences with

evident originality and autonomy. The data presented is highly relevant and exceeds the requirement of the

Exceptional knowledge base of the health care workforce challenges, sophisticated critical and comparative of the impacts on service delivery in the UK and Germany with

extraordinary originality and autonomy. Demonstrate exceptional analysis of data exploring and analysing with extraordinary originality and autonomy.

theory/model. Inappropriate or no evidence of actionable strategies for recommendations.

evidence of actionable strategies for recommendations.

strategies for recommendations.

for recommendations.

consistently.

Excellent evidence of actionable strategies for recommendations.

assessment brief. Outstanding evidence of actionable strategies

for recommendations.

Exceptional evidence

of actionable strategies for recommendations.

50 marks

0-14  

15-19  

20-24

25-29  

30-34

35-39  

40-44  

45-50  

0-29

Failing

30-39

Limited

40-49 Adequate

50-59 Sound

60-69 Good

70-79

Excellent

80-89

Outstanding

90-100

Exceptional

Demonstration of academic skills.

Very weak

academic

referencing skills; Harvard referencing not followed or missing. Major omissions of many references. The hierarchy of sources is not evident.

Major difficulties with report structure. Demonstrated weak academic skills with many omissions or wrong references throughout. Little reference to the hierarchy of sources.  

Some difficulties with report structure, expression and academic skills. Demonstrated adequate academic skills and may have omissions and incorrect referencing. Harvard style is followed but not consistent. Adequate reference to the hierarchy of sources.  

Some parts are correctly structured in the report. Mainly accurate expression in some parts and acceptable level of academic skills. 

Demonstrated sound academic skills and has some omissions and some incorrect referencing. Harvard style mostly followed with some lapses. There is some evidence of referencing the hierarchy of sources.

Accurate report structure and expression. Demonstrated good academic skills have minor omissions. Mainly consistent throughout with Harvard style. Demonstration of the hierarchy of sources. 

Excellent academic skills with no omissions throughout. Harvard referencing is consistent throughout and have some

originality of sources that exceed the assessment criteria and clearly demonstrate the hierarchy of sources.

Outstanding report structure.

Demonstrated outstanding academic skills with no omissions throughout. Harvard referencing is consistent with obvious originality of sources that exceeds the assessment expectations.  

Exemplar report structure and professional expression. Demonstrated exceptional academic

skills and has extraordinary originality and autonomy of sources. 

10 marks

0-2

3

4 

5

6 

7 

8 

9-10 

Level 6 is characterised by an expectation of students’ increasing autonomy in relation to their study and developing skill sets.  Students are expected to demonstrate problem solving skills, both theoretical and practical. This is supported by an understanding of appropriate theory; creativity of expression and thought based in individual judgement; and the ability to seek out, invoke, analyse and evaluate competing theories or methods of working in a critically constructive and open manner. Output is articulate, coherent and skilled in the appropriate medium, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism.

Mark Bands

Outcome

Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s

Generic Learning Outcomes (Academic Regulations, Section 2)

Knowledge & Understanding

Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and

Transferable Skills

90-

100%

Achieves module outcome(s)

Exceptional information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with extraordinary originality and autonomy.  Work may be considered for publication within ARU

Exceptional management of learning resources, with a higher degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. Exceptional structure/ accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Exceptional team/practical/professional skills.  Work may be considered for publication within ARU

80-

89%

Outstanding information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with clear originality and autonomy

Outstanding management of learning resources, with a degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. An exemplar of structured/accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. 

Outstanding team/practical/professional skills  

70-

79%

Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problemsolving in theory/ practice/ethics of discipline with considerable originality

Excellent management of learning resources, with degree of autonomy/research that may exceed the assessment brief. Structured and creative expression. Excellent academic/ intellectual skills and practical/team/ professional/ problem-solving skills  

60-

69%

Good knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problemsolving in theory/ practice/ethics of discipline with some originality

Good management of learning resources, with consistent self-directed research. Structured and accurate expression. Good academic/intellectual skills and team/practical/ professional/problem solving skills  

50-

59%

Sound knowledge base that supports some analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/practice/ethics of discipline

Sound management of learning resources.

Some autonomy in research but inconsistent.

Structured and mainly accurate expression. Sound level of academic/ intellectual skills going beyond description at times. Sound team/practical/professional/problem-solving skills

40-

49%

A marginal pass in

module outcome(s)

Adequate knowledge base with some omissions at the level of ethical/ theoretical issues. Restricted ability to discuss theory and/or or solve problems in discipline

Adequate use of learning resources with little autonomy. Some difficulties with academic/ intellectual skills. Some difficulty with structure/ accuracy in expression, but evidence of developing team/practical/professional/ problemsolving skills

30-

39%

A marginal fail in

module

outcome(s)

Satisfies default

qualifying mark

Limited knowledge base.  Limited understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline

Limited use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams.

Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Still mainly descriptive. General difficulty with structure/ accuracy in expression. Practical/ professional/problem-solving skills that are not yet secure

20-

29%

Fails to achieve module

outcome(s)

Qualifying mark not satisfied

Little evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline/ ethical issues.  Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline

Little evidence of use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams. Little evidence of academic/ intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Significant difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Little evidence of practical/professional/ problem-solving skills

10-

19%

Deficient knowledge base. Deficient understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Major difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline

Deficient use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Deficient input to teams. Deficient academic/intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Major difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Deficient practical/professional/problem-solving skills

1-

9%

No evidence of knowledge base; no evidence of understanding of discipline/ethical issues.  Total inability with theory and problem solving in discipline

No evidence of use of learning resources. Completely unable to work autonomously. No evidence of input to teams. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Work wholly descriptive. Incoherent structure/accuracy and expression. No evidence of practical/professional/ problem-solving skills

0%

Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes