Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria
Introduction
*****delete***Identify the learning outcomes for this module, i.e. knowledge, skills and attributes to be developed through completion of this module. Outcomes should be referenced to the relevant QAA benchmark statements and the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (2008). The SEEC Credit Level Descriptors for Further and Higher Education 2003 and Queen Mary Statement of Graduate Attributes should also be used as a guiding framework for curriculum design.
The examples which follow come from level 6 modules in the School of Business and Management and the Department of English.*****
Learning Outcomes
Example 1
Academic Content
- Apply advanced theories of global supply chain management and global value chains to examine the internationalisation of production in the primary sector and its upstream supply chains
- Comprehend and analyse the multidimensional nature of global supply chains: articulate how different economic and political forces and actors shape, and are shaped by, their mutual relationship structuring the chains
- Demonstrate a deep understanding of the increasing global nature of production, and the critical relevance of food and natural resources industries to contemporary global business
Disciplinary Skills - able to
- develop the ability to work with a range of theoretical frameworks
- strengthen the ability to apply theory to understand and conceptualise evidenced-based phenomena
- develop analytical skills through independent study and group-based research within seminar activities
Attributes
- develop analytical skills through independent study and group-based research within seminar activities
- produce theoretically-informed and evidence-based analysis of global supply chains case-studies
- enhance critical reading, oral and written communication
- Enhance self-organisational and group working skills
Example 2
By the end of the module, you will be able:
- to speak with authority about the political and literary paranoia of the 1790s
- to think about how both radical and conservative responses to the revolution controversy made use of textual media to promote their position
- to reflect on why the events of the French Revolution came to have such an impact on literary expression in the 1790s and beyond
- to consider the complex (and occasionally antagonistic) relationship between political expression and literary genre
Assessment Criteria
*** An example of Assessment Criteria used in the History Department is shown in the table below. In this case the student would also be directed to further information concerning marking criteria contained in the ‘Study Skills and Essay Writing’ booklet.
|
Percentage |
Degree Class |
Exam Grade |
Description (for further guidance and does not constitute an official statement of School or Examination Board policy) |
|
70-100 |
First |
A |
70-100%, generally ‘outstanding’ An essay that scores a first class mark will show an authoritative grasp of the concepts involved in the question, its methodology and factual content. It will select and organise the material with consistent relevance but also with originality, control and |
|
60-69 |
Upper Second |
B |
60-69%, generally ‘Very good/good’ An above average level of understanding organisation and interpretation of the relevant evidence; answers the question asked directly, fully and convincingly; a clear understanding of the historical concepts involved and lucid presentation of the material. |
|
50-59 |
Lower Second |
C |
50-59, generally ‘Average’ Competent overall grasp of the material involved in answering the question, but without consistency, directness and fullness that is found in an Upper Second. Focus on the actual question is often inadequate and there may also be a lack of rigour in the selection of material and maintenance of overall relevance. Marks may well have been deducted for sloppy presentation and for inadequate academic apparatus of reference notes and bibliography. |
|
45-49 |
Third |
D |
45-49, generally ‘below average’ Basic knowledge, but insufficient to answer the question, which is likely to be ignored, by-passed or simply answered in a wholly inadequate way. Inability to select material and sustain argument. |
|
40-44 |
Pass |
E |
|
|
0-39 |
Fail |
F |
