TMA III by Hamilton Ramirez Giraldo
Submission date: 31-May-2018 04:09PM (UT C+0100) Submission ID: 90135388 File name: 16250_Hamilton_Ramirez_Giraldo_T MA_III_45994_239098703.docx Word count: 2356 Character count: 20797
TMA III ORIGINALITY REPORT
12
%
SIMILARIT Y INDEX
8%
1%
10%
INT ERNET SOURCES
PUBLICAT IONS
ST UDENT PAPERS
PRIMARY SOURCES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Submitted to IBC Academy St udent Paper
www.bgta.no Int ernet Source
Submitted to Business College of Athens St udent Paper
dtbnguyen.blogspot.com Int ernet Source
Submitted to University of South Australia St udent Paper
Submitted to Liverpool John Moores University St udent Paper
Submitted to World Maritime University St udent Paper
m.scirp.org Int ernet Source
sealaw-usa.com Int ernet Source
2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% <1% <1%
10
Submitted to Blackpool and The Fylde College, Lancashire
<1%
St udent Paper
11 12
Submitted to Grand Canyon University St udent Paper
Submitted to Chester College of Higher Education
<1% <1%
St udent Paper
13 14 15
repozitorij.unizd.hr Int ernet Source
Submitted to Southampton Solent University St udent Paper
Submitted to Illinois Eastern Community Colleges
<1% <1% <1%
St udent Paper
16 17 18 19
astronomy-links.net Int ernet Source
en.wikipedia.org Int ernet Source
help.marinetraffic.com Int ernet Source
Submitted to American Intercontinental University Online St udent Paper
www.eia.gov
<1% <1% <1% <1%
20
21
Int ernet Source
<1%
Submitted to Holy Cross College
<1%
St udent Paper
Exclude quotes
Of f
Exclude bibliography
Of f
Exclude matches
Of f
TMA III GRADEMARK REPORT FINAL GRADE
GENERAL COMMENTS
/100
Instructor
PAGE 1 PAGE 2 PAGE 3 PAGE 4 PAGE 5 PAGE 6 PAGE 7 PAGE 8 PAGE 9
RUBRIC: STANDARD DIPLOMA GRADE MARKING
INT RODUCT ION (5%)
0 /5
0/5
Introduction: Structure EXCELLENT (5)
Introduction clearly and concisely establishes the background to the work, its aim and objectives, methodology and approach.
GOOD (4)
Introduction establishes the issue to be addressed and the approach that has been taken, however there is room f or some improvement.
MODERATE (3)
An acceptable attempt, but leaves room f or improvement in establishing context, aim, objectives and approach.
POOR (2)
Minimal attempt to establish a concise introduction and lacks a clear aim and objectives and/or details of methodology.
INADEQUATE (1)
Introduction does not establish what the work is trying to achieve or how it sets out to accomplish this. Does not provide an acceptable basis f or the rest of the work.
MAIN BODY (15%)
0/5
Main Body: Structure EXCELLENT (5)
Excellent structure. Appropriate heading and subheading. Paragraphs linked and contain single topics. Demonstrates clear and logical progression through the work.
GOOD (4)
Paragraphs mostly appropriately structured and linked with logical use of evidence and argument. Sections have headings and subheading with clear progression of points.
MODERATE (3)
Some structure to the report with some headings and subheadings. Paragraphs generally contain a single topic although some f ragmented or too long. Structural improvement required.
POOR (2)
Poor structure of heading and subheadings. Paragraphs show some arrangement into related ideas but topic is unclear. Many paragraphs f ragmentary or overly long. Progression poor.
INADEQUATE (1)
Paragraph topics are unclear and there is little structure f or ideas. Paragraphs of ten f ragmented or overly long. No discernible structure or progression of points making it dif f icult to understand.
CONCLUSION (15%)
0/5
Conclusion (and Recommendation): Structure EXCELLENT (5)
Excellent concise conclusion which ref ers to the aim and objectives in the introduction, brief ly summarises the f indings and presents an overall conclusion (and recommendations if appropriate).
GOOD
T he conclusion ef f ectively ends the report with valid points made that acceptably
(4)
address the aim and objectives set. Some room f or improvement in structure or style.
MODERATE (3)
A conclusion exists as a separate section but only makes a minimal attempt to conclude ef f ectively. Limited ref erence back to aim and objectives, which may have been inadequately established.
POOR (2)
Conclusion exists, but does not satisf actorily wrap up the f ocus or make clear ref erence back to what the report set out to achieve. May introduce new content not discussed in main body.
INADEQUATE (1)
Conclusion (and recommendations if appropriate) missing, or does not conclude the work.
SUBJECT (25%)
0/5
Subject Content EXCELLENT (5)
Directly and comprehensively addresses the main question or issue. Compelling and accurate evidence pertinent to main argument. Excellent synthesis of knowledge including going beyond standard course reading/research. Relevance of all evidence is clear and excellent reasoning shown.
GOOD (4)
Competently addresses question or issue. Provides evidence of most aspects of main argument. Evidence that reading/research has gone beyond the standard course materials, but relevance of some evidence may be unclear. A grasp of the subject knowledge is shown.
MODERATE (3)
Acceptably addresses the question and topic, but relies on existing insight into the subject without evidence of much f urther reading/research. A moderate grasp of the subject knowledge is shown, but with some gaps.
POOR (2)
Attempts to address main question or issue, but f alls below expectations. Some inf ormation f rom the course has been utilised, but a limited / lack of understanding of meaning or context. Content not clearly conveyed. Weaknesses in provision of evidence f or arguments, or lacking in content.
INADEQUATE (1)
Submission does not address main question or issue, and content may be irrelevant to the topic. Inadequate indication that course content has been understood or knowledge increased by f urther reading / research.
ARGUMENT (20%)
0/5
Argument: Development and Evidence EXCELLENT (5)
Argument is stated explicitly and accurately, being developed in clear, logical steps through the report body.
GOOD (4)
Argument is stated explicitly and accurately, progression of argument is evident and logically developed, but some aspects missing.
MODERATE (3)
Shows more statement rather than ef f ective argument around the topic. May lack clear links to the issue and topic.
POOR (2)
Lacks ef f ective evidence of discussion and argument around the topic. Superf icial treatment of the topic.
INADEQUATE (1)
No discernible discussion or understanding of f act in the report. Evidence inaccurate / questionable. Unf ocused and lacks clarity.
PRESENT AT ION (10%)
0/5
Presentation, Spelling and Grammar EXCELLENT (5)
Fluent with very limited errors and is well set out. Ef f ective use of f igures and tables. Grammatically correct and clearly presented. T echnical terms are used correctly. All inf ormation is accurate and current.
GOOD (4)
Good presentation, but with some room f or improvement. Some limited spelling/grammatical errors but have little impact on the work.
MODERATE (3)
Presentation could be improved. Some grammatical/spelling errors. Readerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to understand work may be compromised by this.
POOR (2)
Presentation needs improvement. Numerous grammatical/spelling errors make the report dif f icult to read in places. T echnical terms may be misused, missing or not explained.
INADEQUATE (1)
Inadequate presentation which detracts f rom the work. Many grammatical/spelling errors and words misused. Makes the report hard to understand.
SOURCES (10%)
0/5
Sources / Ref erencing EXCELLENT (5)
A wide range of sources utilised, including websites, scholarly books, journal articles, periodicals, industry magazines etc. which not explicitly discussed in modules. Ref erencing all correct.
GOOD (4)
Evidence that a good range of sources used f rom outside of module content. Ref erencing is present and mainly correct.
MODERATE (3)
Little ef f ort made to go beyond material presented in modules. Ref erencing is included and mainly correct.
POOR (2)
Poor indication of additional sources and materials beyond the modules being used to produce the work. Ref erencing poor and contains errors.
INADEQUATE (1)
Minimal use of sources provided by modules, beyond the modules or personal experience, or relies exclusively on low quality sources. Inadequate and / or incorrect ref erencing.