Pass 50-59 The structure and focus are evident and relevant to the assignment task. There is evidence of engagement with pertinent issues. Key authors and major debates are clearly presented and there is evidence of suitable basic reading. The work explores and analyses issues, but is not strong on presenting synthesis or evaluations. The work is mainly descriptive, but has achieved all the learning outcomes. Some repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate. Some evidence of personal learning and development identified with examples drawn from the module. But some aspects are descriptive or superficial

Merit 60-69 The work demonstrates a capacity to express views based on sound argument and solid evidence in an articulate and concise way, and, where relevant, to put forward and make use of criteria for the judgment of theories and issues. There is evidence of effective engagement in a critical dialogue relating to professional practice, a clearly presented overview of an area of concern, and a comparative review of key authors, rival theories and major debates. The work demonstrates a willingness to question and to explore issues and to synthesize theoretical perspectives and practical application within a given professional context. Some small repeated errors in grammar or syntax. Possibly failure to apply Harvard referencing standard correctly in places. Clear evidence of good reflection and the effect of the module on personal development. Some examples given but areas of the reflection may be inappropriate or irrelevant

Distinction 70-100 A fine standard of work. The work varies from very good (70-79%), excellent (80-89%) to outstanding (in excess of 90%). Aspects of this work are of a standard which could be considered for future publication in a professional journal. The work demonstrates a high level of originality with challenges to current theory and/or practice and specific, and examples of contestability. There is evidence of mature synthesis of theoretical exemplars, underpinning principles and practical interpretation. No obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax. The work demonstrates engagement in an academic debate which presents clear evidence of a considered (possibly deep) understanding of the professional issues studied, the approach adopted and the position taken. The work fully considers the complexity of the context in which it is situated and the impinging external factors; it takes cognisance of differing perspectives and interpretations and recognises dilemmas. Ideas are presented in a succinct manner and conclusions and/or reflections are well reasoned.