Heriot Watt University
Department of Economics
School of Management &Languages
Assessment Sheet
Microeconomics 1 (C21AA1/C21OA1)
Student Name:
Time Penalty:
Essay Number:
Grade:
Presentation
Legible
Well Structured
Clear Diagrams
Stayed Within Word
Limit
No Repetition
Content
Answered Question
Focused on
Question
Good Explanation
Sufficient Detail
Sources
Correct Citation of
References
Adequate
Acknowledgement
of Sources
Comment
Tutor:
Itemised Rating Scale
Excellent VG Good Poor VP
Untidy
Difficult to Read
Poor Diagrams
Exceed Limit
Repetition of
Points
Failed to Answer
Question
Irrelevant
Discussion
Poor
Explanation
Insufficient
Detail
Incorrect Ref.
Inadequate
Ack.
Date:
Course/Assignment:
Tutor:
Author:
Excellent
Introduction
Development of Essay
Validity of Argument
Insight and originality
Subject Relevance
Use of sources
Use of illustrations/analysis
Conclusion
Demonstrated Understanding
Spelling, Grammar, Syntax
Overall Presentation
Strengths of Essay
Weaknesses of Essay
Other comments
Good
Satisfactory
Weak
Very Weak
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
……….
University of Glasgow - Department of Economics
COURSEWORK FEEDBACK FORM
Due date:
Course:
Matric #:
Late penalty:
Mark:
Final Mark:
(with penalty deducted where
appropriate)
Ratings
Please Note: These ratings should be read and interpreted in conjunction with the
Honours descriptors as set out in the Department’s Undergraduate Handbook.
Structure, Approach and Argument
Essay focuses on question set
Key points are identified
Topic covered in depth
Coherent and appropriate analysis
Critical evaluation
Essay has little relevance to question
Essay rambles and lacks continuity
Superficial treatment of topic
Lacking in coherent analytical content
Uncritical account
Use of Diagrams and/or Algebra where appropriate
Accurate
Used effectively
Clearly explained
Poor, inaccurate
Weak or absent
Inadequately explained
Sources and their use
Good knowledge of literature
Uses representative evidence
Correct citations
Insufficient use of literature
Inadequate use of evidence
Citations incorrect or missing
Style and presentation
Fluent writing
Succinct
Well organised and presented
Clumsy expression
Unnecessarily repetitive
Untidy, careless and messy
Comments:
Copies of this form can be printed from the Department’s web site.
Peer Assessment Feedback Form ISC 2003/4
Completed By _________________________about____________________________
Please complete the following table about one of your group collaborators. The mark awarded
should be a whole number between 0 and 20. The forms will be collected during the first
revision class.
Worth 20
Mark
Justification
Worth 0
for mark
Regular attendance at group meetings
Attended all meetings, stayed to
Missed several, most of
agreed end, working within
meetings, always or often
timescale, active and attentive,
late, left early, digressed,
prepared to be flexible about
giggled, day-dreamed or
meeting times
gossiped most of the time
Contribution of ideas for the task
Thought about the topic in advance
Didn't come prepared. Didn't
of the meeting, provided workable
contribute any ideas.
ideas which were taken up by the
Tended to reject others'
group, built on others' suggestions,
ideas rather than build on
and were prepared to test out ideas
them
on the group rather than keep quiet
Researching, analysing and preparing material for the task
Did what you said would do,
Did no research. Didn't do
brought materials, did an equal
what promised to do. Didn't
share of the research and helped to
manage workload. Didn't
analyse and evaluate the material
get involved with the task
and allowed others to
provide all the material
Contribution to the cooperative group process
Left personal differences outside
Did not take initiative,
the group, willing to review group
waited to be told what to do.
progress and tackle conflict in the
Always took the same role
group, took on different roles as
(leader, joker etc)
needed, kept group on track, willing
regardless of
and flexible but focused on the task
circumstances, created
conflict, and was not
prepared to review group
processes
Supporting and encouraging group members
Keen to listen to others,
Sought only to complete the
encouraged participation, enabled
task, spoke over others and
a collaborative learning
ignored their opinions, kept
environment, sensitive to issues
ideas and resources to
affecting group members,
themself. Insensitive to
supported group members with
individuals' needs and did
special needs
not contribute to the
learning process
Practical contribution to end product
Willing to try new things. Not
Not willing to take on any
hogging the tasks, made a high
task, did not take any
level of contribution, took own
responsibilities, was
initiative, was reliable and produced
unreliable so others felt the
a high standard work/presentation
need to keep checking up,
and made a limited, poor
quality contribution
Adapted from Heathfield M, 1999
Total =