crystal's capers

Assignment Brief

M Level Assignment for GTP 2008-2009: guidance and marking criteria

This assignment is assessed at M level

You will write one 5000 word Assignment.

Some additional detail for Primary/Secondary is contained in a separate document.


In conjunction with your tutor choose a focus for a classroom-based investigation of a teaching/learning event.

Describe the event in detail and analyse the pedagogical decisions made in planning and implementing this event. Discuss also the learning outcomes the event led to. The analysis must take a critical approach and take account of what is known about pedagogy and learning in the subject in question. It must also illustrate your high level engagement with the appropriate literature.



More detail of this assignment will be provided.

You will be made aware of the range of support and support materials available for students working at this level.

The submission date for this assignment will be the end of the school summer term half term break.


Marking Criteria
The criteria by which your assignment will be marked include:
 Your familiarity with a range of reading relevant to the focus of your assignment.
 The clarity of your account of the investigation you undertook and the nature of the data you obtained.
 The relevance and insightfulness of your discussion of the implications of your topic for teaching and learning in the subject and context that you have chosen.
 Your use of English, style and presentation.

Whichever topic you choose, your assignment should include material from the literature, where you demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of relevant reading, and material from your investigation and/or your critical thinking about the topic. The second of these is really important, as you would not expect to obtain a good mark for the assignment if all you had done was describe the teaching event and regurgitated material that you had read.

You have some leeway in deciding on the proportions of the assignment that you devote to each of these two elements, depending on what interests you and what kind of investigation you have carried out. However, all assignments must include both dimensions, and will be marked in accordance with the criteria given above.

Assignment Structure
To help you in planning your assignment, here is a possible structure, with some indicative word lengths, for an assignment which is based on an investigation. You do not have to follow this slavishly if you have good reasons for structuring your work differently.

Introduction (500 words approx.) An introduction to the topic you have chosen and an outline that explains what the reader will find in your essay.
Section 1 (1000 words approx.) A summary of some of the key issues relevant to your topic, drawing on several sources in the literature about it. Refer to any key debates or areas of controversy related to the topic.
Section 2 (1000 words approx.) An account of the teaching, including the learning outcomes, that you carried out, including the rationale for the methods you used, any problems you encountered and the main stages that you went through.
Section 3 (1000 words approx.) An analysis of your findings, and how these relate to existing literature. Possible explanations for any differences between your results and those found by others. Things which confirmed your expectations and anything which surprised you. Things you would do differently another time, or an account of how you would develop this investigation if you had the opportunity.
Section 4 (1000 words approx.) A discussion of any implications of both the existing literature and your own investigation for processes of teaching and learning in the subject and context of your work.
Conclusion (500 words approx.) A synthesis of the most important aspects of the topic you have researched, relating these to the aims and objectives of the course.


The assignment is marked and moderated by university tutors. You will be awarded a grade rather than just pass. Where an assignment does not reach the pass standard at M level (grades A-C) it will be second marked by a member of the appropriate team and you will receive detailed feedback on what you would have to do in order to improve it. Remember: Masters Level Assignments are looking at assessment of your ability to understand, apply and critically evaluate aspects of educational theory and practice.

Time management and preparation are crucial for this assignment. Masters Level Assignments demand different skills from other tasks. You should make the most effective use as possible of the support and help built into the course. In the assignment you need to show evidence of clear and critical argument and analysis, demonstrating understanding of the issues and a coherent structure. The assignment must be properly referenced, and an appropriate range of resources should be used. Make sure you read the instructions and criteria carefully and adhere to them when you complete your work. If you are in any doubt about any aspects of this work seek advice. All ‘M’-level assignments must be submitted through Reception.

Masters level assignments will be marked and graded according to Masters criteria below. The Masters level criteria include a concern with such issues as: comprehension and analysis of educational issues, including research and knowledge as well as practice in schools; content and coverage of the issues discussed; presentation and organisation of material.
Masters level assignments will be marked and moderated. If agreement on whether an assignment should pass cannot be reached between the two markers the assignment will be referred to the GTP Co-ordinator, who will review the grades and may request a third marker. All failed assignments and a sample of passed assignments at each grade will be seen by External Examiners.
Marks will be given according to the following scale:
 80+ An outstanding piece of work, showing total mastery of the subject-matter, with a highly developed ability to analyse, synthesise and apply knowledge and concepts. All objectives of the set work are covered, and there is evidence of critical reflection, originality of thought and creativity. The work is free of errors with a very high level of technical competence. Ideas are expressed with fluency.
 70-79 An excellent piece of work, showing a high degree of mastery of the subject-matter, with a very well-developed ability to analyse, synthesise and apply knowledge and concepts. All major objectives of the set work are covered, and there is evidence of critical reflection. The work is free of all but very minor errors, with a high level of technical competence. Ideas are expressed with fluency.
 60-69 A good piece of work, showing a sound and thorough grasp of the subject-matter, though lacking in the breadth and depth required for a first-class mark. A good attempt at analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge and concepts, but more limited in scope than that required for a mark of 70+. Most objectives of the work set are covered and there is some evidence of critical reflection. Work is generally technically competent. Ideas are expressed with clarity, with minor exceptions.
 50-59 A fair piece of work, showing a grasp of major elements of the subject-matter but possibly with some gaps or areas of confusion. Only the basic requirements of the work set are covered. The attempt at analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge and concepts is superficial, with a heavy reliance on course materials. Work may contain some errors, and technical competence is at a routine level only. Little critical reflection. Some confusion in expression of ideas.
 40-49 Not of a passable level for a postgraduate programme. A poor piece of work, showing some familiarity with the subject-matter, but with major gaps and serious misconceptions. Only some of the basic requirements of the work set are achieved. There is little or no attempt at analysis, synthesis or application of knowledge, and a low level of technical competence, with many errors. Inability to reflect critically on an argument or viewpoint. Ideas are poorly expressed and structured.
Below 40 Work not of passable standard, with serious gaps in knowledge of the subject-matter, and many areas of confusion. Few or none of the basic requirements of the work set are achieved, and there is an inability to apply knowledge. Technical competence is poor, with many serious errors. The level of expression and structure is very inadequate. The student has failed to engage seriously with any of the subject-matter involved.


Grade
Subject Knowledge Analysis and Critique Presentation
A*/A

(Mark of 80 or above = A*;
70 -79 = A)
Demonstrates a highly developed understanding of relevant concepts, theories and/or research methodologies. A wide range of relevant sources, which are well understood, are deployed to support arguments. Recognises the demands of the question providing a well-focused, relevant answer. Sets sources and viewpoints in a wide context and makes a comprehensive assessment of issues involved. Displays awareness of methodological and theoretical considerations. High levels of ability to analyse, synthesise and apply knowledge and concepts. Detailed examination of issues with reasons for conclusions clearly indicated. Persuasively argued with main issues convincingly evaluated. Some originality of thought and creativity. Material is very well-organised and the structure complements the content. A high level of written communication with very few errors of spelling, grammar and syntax. Mastery of referencing conventions with very few errors or omissions. Appropriate length.
B

(Mark of 60 - 69) Sound and thorough grasp of relevant concepts, theories and/or research methodologies although lacking in depth at some points. The work is supported by references to a good range of relevant sources which are used in a relevant way. Recognises the demands of the question providing a focused, relevant answer which brings out useful points and substantiates them. A good attempt at analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge and concepts. Appreciates main issues and able to make appropriate critical points. Perceptive commentary on evidence and materials used. Well-structured work displaying attention to the logic and development of the piece. A clear written style. Spelling, grammar and syntax are generally good. Most features of the referencing system are used correctly. Appropriate length.
C

(Mark of 50 - 59)

Pass Mark
50 Understanding of main concepts, theories and/or research methodologies is fair but lacks depth and/or breadth. There may be some gaps or areas of confusion. An adequate range of relevant source materials is used. Although the demands of the question have been recognised, only the basic requirements are covered and there may be some irrelevant material.
The attempt at analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge and concepts is competent but lacks depth and breadth. Sensible commentary on evidence and materials used though some points may be unsubstantiated. A generally satisfactory overall structure although it may lack balance in parts or fail to integrate some material. An adequate written style which is not impaired by the occasional errors of spelling, grammar and/or syntax. The recommended referencing system is used but with some errors and omissions. Control of length may be less secure.
D

(Mark of 40 – 49) Some evidence of reading but understanding of the subject matter is limited. The work displays major gaps in knowledge, serious misconceptions and/or factual inaccuracies. Introduction of basic concepts and effort made to relate them to the demands of the question which have been only partially understood. Mainly descriptive with much irrelevance and unsubstantiated conclusions. No sustained analysis and an inability to apply knowledge and synthesise material. Uncritical exegesis. Weak structure. Expression of ideas is sometimes confused or unclear. Communication may also be impaired by errors of spelling, grammar and/or syntax. Referencing marred by frequent errors and omissions. May exceed or fail to meet length requirements.
E

(Mark below 40) Few relevant sources used. Serious gaps and/or errors in knowledge and understanding indicate that the student has failed to engage seriously with the subject matter. The question may have been ignored or badly misunderstood. Few or none of the basic requirements of the study have been achieved. Superficial treatment of the topic much of which is descriptive, irrelevant and unsubstantiated. Lacks appropriate critical or theoretical framework. Unstructured presentation, lacking coherence. Expression of ideas is poor. Communication may also be impaired by frequent errors of spelling, grammar and/or syntax. The recommended referencing system has not been mastered. Length requirements not met.