Weight % 7+ 7 7- High distinction 6+ 6 6- Distinction 5+ 5 5- Credit 4+ 4 4- Pass 3 – Fail / 2 – Fail / 1 – Low Fail Criterion 1: Synthesis and development of the argument (30%) 5% Exceptional interpretation and, application of the risk assessment framework you have chosen for your case study Highly advanced interpretation and application of the risk assessment framework you have chosen for your case study. Advanced interpretation and application of the risk assessment framework you have chosen for your case study. Satisfactory interpretation and application of the risk assessment framework you have chosen for your case study. Interpretation and application of the chosen risk assessment framework does not meet required standard. 15% All key issues were identified and summarised for each step of the risk assessment process, with relevant and insightful conclusions drawn, particularly regarding strengths and weaknesses of the risk assessment method used. All key issues identified and summarised for each step of the risk assessment process, with relevant and appropriate conclusions drawn, particularly regarding strengths and weaknesses of the risk assessment method used. All key issues identified and summarised for each step of the risk assessment process, with reasonable conclusions drawn, particularly regarding strengths and weaknesses of the risk assessment method used. Most of the key issues identified and summarised for each step of the risk assessment process, with relevant conclusions drawn, particularly regarding strengths and weaknesses of the risk assessment method used. Some / few / none of the key issues identified and summarised for each step of the risk assessment process, with irrelevant, inadequate, or no conclusions drawn. 10% Extensive and in-depth research of the hazards that were the focus of the risk assessment Thorough and in-depth research on the hazards that were the focus of the risk assessment. Thorough research is displayed on the hazards that were the focus of the risk assessment Some research on the hazards that were the focus of the risk assessments. Heavy reliance on a few references Limited / insufficient research on the hazards that were the focus of the risk assessment. Criterion 2: Critical analysis (25%) 10% Demonstrates exceptional insight to critical appraisal of concepts. Demonstrates excellent insight to critical appraisal of concepts. Demonstrates good insight to critical appraisal of concepts. Demonstrates satisfactory insight to critical appraisal of concepts. Demonstrates inadequate/poor insight to critical appraisal of concepts. 5% Consistent logical, coherent, progression of ideas. Consistent logical, coherent, progression of ideas. Consistent, logical, coherent, progression of ideas. Generally consistent, logical, coherent, progression of ideas. Arguments, judgements, and/or implications not supported by relevant literature. 10% Insightful arguments, judgements, and implications supported by relevant literature. Some insightful arguments, judgements, and implications are supported by relevant literature. Relevant arguments, judgements, and implications supported by relevant literature. Attempts to place arguments, judgements, and implications in the context of the relevant literature. Key concepts not identified, or incorrectly interpreted or analysed. Criterion 3: Research and referencing (25%) 15% Exceptional range of relevant academic literature/evidence that is highly relevant to the topic, timely and critically evaluated. Very good range of relevant academic literature/evidence that is very relevant to topic and limitations of the studies acknowledged. Good range of relevant academic literature/evidence. Satisfactory range of relevant academic literature/evidence. Little / no relevant academic literature/ evidence used. 10% Correct and consistent style used throughout with no errors. Correct and consistent style used throughout with no errors. Correct and consistent style used throughout with some errors. Generally correct and consistent style used throughout with some errors. Incorrect and/or inconsistent style used (i.e. frequent errors). Criterion 4: Written expression and presentation (20%) 15% Expression is clear and concise. Structural organisation of a very high standard. Expression is clear and concise. Structural organisation of a high standard. Expression mostly clear and concise. Structural organisation of a good standard. Expression mostly clear. Structural organisation of a satisfactory standard. Fails to adequately communicate content. Structural organisation illogical or disorganised. Little evidence content has been understood. 5% Appropriate length. Excellent editing with no errors. Appropriate length. Excellent editing with no errors. Appropriate length. Good editing with some errors. Appropriate length. Satisfactory editing with some errors. Too long/short. Poor editing with many errors.