Assignment Description

For this assignment you are required to undertake a structured literature search to identify credible sources of information

The literature review requires you to critically evaluate literature relating to the risk perception of

1. Advice on avoiding farmed salmon because of contamination with Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).
The literature review should be organised to address the following key points communicating at an appropriate level (Level 7):
Analysis of the key actors involved and their perception of risk related to the hazard under consideration (farmers, governmental and non-governmental)

Assessment Criteria

Descriptor

% Band*
Knowledge of the subject and effective literature search
(ELO 1) Analysis,
(application of knowledge to synthesis the arguments, and reflection of critical thinking)
(ELO 2) Presentation, structure and communication
(ELO 3)
40% 40% 20%
Outstanding
100-90 Exceptional subject knowledge displaying comprehensive review of literature in depth and breadth. Significant engagement with current approaches/issues. Exceptionally robust and critical account of subject matter. Arguments are logical and coherent.
Insightful and imaginative conclusions drawn from the evidence. Exceptionally well presented. Clear and coherent structure. Clearly and lucidly expressed.
Excellent
89-80 Considerable depth and breadth of subject knowledge and review of literature demonstrated. Engagement with current approaches/issues. Highly robust and critical account of subject matter. Arguments are logical and coherent. Insightful and original conclusions drawn from the evidence Excellently presented. Clear and coherent structure. Clearly and coherently expressed.
Very good
79-70 Significant relevant subject knowledge and review of literature demonstrated. Awareness of current approaches/issues displayed. Sound evidence of critical examination of subject matter. Arguments are logical and coherent. Sound and original conclusions drawn from the evidence Very well presented. Clear and coherent structure. Clearly expressed.
Good
69-60 Sound subject knowledge and review of literature demonstrated. Some awareness of current approaches/issues. Satisfactory evidence of critical examination of subject matter. Arguments are logical but lack some coherence. Sound conclusions drawn from the evidence Well presented. Good structure. Well expressed.

Satisfactory
59-50 Satisfactoryand accurate subject knowledge and review of literature. Some awareness of current approaches/issues but superficial treatment. Some critical thinking displayed in synthesis of the arguments. Able to consider ideas with an open mind and draws appropriate but limited conclusions. Reasonably well presented. Suitable structure and well expressed.
Unsatisfactory
49-40 Unsatisfactorysubject knowledge and review of literature displayed but limited in detail and/or accuracy. Limited critical thinking displayed in synthesis of the arguments. Responds to familiar questions but fails to grasp complexity of issues.Few conclusions drawn Unsatisfactory. Unsatisfactory structure. Basic expression.
Inadequate
39-30 Inadequatesubject knowledge and review of literature displayed. Important inaccuracies and/or omissions. Very little critical thinking displayed in synthesis of the arguments. Limited ability to recognise complexity of issues.Inappropriate or no conclusions drawn. Incomplete response to tasks posed. Inadequate presentation. May lack a suitable structure and only basic expression.
Poor
29-20 Little subject knowledge and review of literature displayed. Considerable inaccuracies and/or omissions. Very little critical thinking displayed in synthesis of the arguments. Simplistic responses to issues. No attempt to draw conclusions. Incomplete response to the task Poorly presented.
Very poor
19-10 Very poor subject knowledge and review of literature. Very limited attempt in synthesis of the arguments. No evidence of analysis and no conclusions drawn. Does not address the task. Very poorly presented.
Extremely poor
9-0 Extremely poor subject knowledge and review of literature. / No attempt. Insufficient volume of work. No serious attempt. No development of arguments. Does not address the task. / No attempt. Extremely poorly presented. / No attempt.

*The %Band indicates the distribution of marks for the entire work

Assessment grid for 100% marking (the maximum marks than can be obtained for individual descriptors under each key point of the literature review)

Analysis of the key actors involved and their perception of risk related to the hazard under consideration (100%)
Knowledge of the subject and effective literature search (40%) 40%
Analysis (application of knowledge to synthesis the arguments, and reflection of critical thinking) (40%) 40%
Presentation, structure and communication (20%)
20%