REPORT
marksheet for Supervisors of

Individual Study 2 -- Level 4/M
(2009/10)

Name and ID Number of Student

Preamble

The Supervisor should return a signed, printed, filled out version of this form to the Module Coordinator, containing justifications of the marks assigned that refer to the criteria expressed below. Forms without justifications are liable to rejection.

The overall mark for the report is a content mark modified (in the way indicated below) by a style mark.

Caution concerning differences from Individual Study 1

Please note carefully that the marking criteria differ in places from those for Individual Study 1 reports. Most notably, there are greater requirements on originality. The places in the text where there are differences are underlined.

REPORT CONTENT

Please give a mark for content according to the following guidelines.
Like-numbered items in the different mark ranges are about the same issues.
Upper case shows deviations from higher mark ranges.

I: 70% and above

In this mark range the report should demonstrate that the student has sound and thorough knowledge, and deep understanding, of the chosen topic, including a good appreciation of how it fits into the broader context of the subject in question.
The report should show evidence of comprehensive study of the relevant literature.
The report should include a deep and thorough critical review of the literature covered.
The report should show that the student appreciates what the current open problems and research questions are.
The report should show evidence of a considerable amount of original thinking, both in the critical review and in well-supported suggestions/proposals for future work (e.g., on how the current open problems might be approached).
A mark of 85% or more may be merited if the student actually effects new, substantial developments in the field.

II(1): 60-69%

Same as for I.
(The report should demonstrate that the student has sound and thorough knowledge, and deep understanding, of the chosen topic, including a good appreciation of how it fits into the broader context of the subject in question.)
Same as for I.
(The report should show evidence of comprehensive study of the relevant literature.)
As with I, the report should include a critical review of the appropriate literature,
But it only needs to be MODERATELY deep and thorough.
Same as for I.
(The report should show that the student appreciates what the current open problems and research questions are.)
The report should show evidence of SOME original thinking, both in the critical review and in SENSIBLE suggestions/proposals for future work (e.g., on how the current open problems might be approached).

II(2): 50-59%

In this range the report should show that the student has a REASONABLE degree of knowledge and understanding of the topic, without fundamental confusions, and SOME appreciation of how it fits into a broader context.
The report should show evidence of FAMILIARITY WITH AT LEAST THE KEY PAPERS in the topic.
Critical review may be LACKING OR POOR.
It should be evident that the student has SOME appreciation of open problems in the area.
Evidence of original thinking is NOT NEEDED except for the purposes of a critical review if suppplied.
In particular, suggestions about how to solve open problems are not required.

III: 40-49%

In this range the report should show that the student has SOME knowledge and understanding of the topic.
However, the knowledge and understanding may contain FUNDAMENTAL CONFUSIONS.
The report should show evidence that at least SOME of the key papers have been read.
Same as for II(2).
(Critical review may be lacking or poor.)
Evidence of appreciation of open problems is NOT EXPECTED.
Same as for II(2).
(Evidence of original thinking is not needed except for the purposes of a critical review if suppplied. In particular, suggestions about how to solve open problems are not required.)

(Note: the above differs from Individual Study 1 in that in range I it requires a "deep and thorough" critical review rather than just a "good" review, requires the suggestions for further work to be well-supported, requires a "considerable amount" of original thinking (not just: original thinking), and has a stiffer criterion for getting above 85%. Also, the II(1) range requires some original thinking.)

MARK FOR REPORT CONTENT: ........ %

JUSTIFICATIONS OF THAT MARK
(please refer to the particular issues in the above scheme):

REPORT STYLE

Consider the extent to which the report

is clear and well-structured
shows a high standard of English, including spelling, punctuation, etc.
uses recognized citation and bibliography styles

and then make

COMMENTS ON THE STYLE, SUPPORTING THE ADJUSTMENT BELOW
(please make specific points about the style, not just blanket statements):

AND THEN ...

OVERALL MARK FOR REPORT

Please adjust the Content mark you gave above up or down by taking into account the quality of the report style, under the following constraints:

Change the mark by at most 5.
Do not cross the boundary from F up into III under any circumstances.
Do not cross the boundary from II(1) up into I under any circumstances.
Do not cross the boundary from III down into F unless the style is extremely bad.

NB: The above constraints do allow a I to be reduced into II(1) because of poor style.

OVERALL REPORT MARK: .... %

Supervisor's Signature:

Date:

Module Coordinator's signature after his/her moderation of the above marking: