Component

Fail

(<40)

Third

(40–49)

2:2

(50–59)

2:1

(60–69)

First

(70–79)

Double First

(80–100)

What the tutor is looking for

Level of reflection (depth).

40%

Critical position and rationale is not explained.

Limited critical position and rationale is explained.

Critical position and rationale is explained.

Critical position and rationale is explained. Aim, topic and scope are introduced, rationale is explained.

Critical position and rationale are well-explained, and the aim, topic, and scope are introduced clearly. The reflection is thoughtful and demonstrates a solid understanding of the design process or concept, with relevant connections made to the broader context. There is evidence of critical thinking, but it might lack the complexity and depth.

exceptional, with a nuanced and sophisticated rationale that demonstrates a deep and comprehensive understanding of the topic. The critical position is not only explained but thoroughly analysed, and the scope and aims are detailed with clarity and precision. The student shows the ability to challenge assumptions and offer original interpretations, providing an advanced level of insight into the design process or concept.

Is there a clear and critical reflection on the theoretical concepts related to the topic? Has the student demonstrated an understanding of these concepts within the context of the subject matter? Has the reflection made connections to broader theories or real-world applications, with a well-reasoned analysis of their relevance and impact?

Personal Growth, Development, and Originality

40% 

Limited growth and creativity.
Few areas for improvement identified.

Some growth and creativity.
Some areas for improvement suggested.

Noticeable growth and creativity.
Clear areas for improvement with basic strategies.

Significant growth and creativity.
Presents original insights with practical strategies..

significant growth and creativity in their approach. Clear areas for improvement are identified, and practical strategies for development are presented.

The work exhibits groundbreaking originality and exceptional personal growth. There are new, unique insights and creative strategies that reflect deep engagement with the subject matter. The student demonstrates a high degree of independence and innovation, presenting novel ideas that significantly contribute to the field. Their approach to problem-solving and design is highly creative, and the strategies proposed are insightful and forward-thinking.

Has the student reflected on their personal growth and development throughout the process? Are there original insights presented, along with clear strategies for improvement? Has the student demonstrated creativity and applied new ideas, showing how their learning journey has informed and evolved their approach to design or problem-solving?

Clarity, Organisation, and Use of Evidence

20%

Language obstructs communication. Word count issues. Evidence may be irrelevant or insufficient.

Clear language, some word count issues. Evidence lacks depth or relevance.

Clear, descriptive language and structured response. Some word count issues. Relevant evidence enhances analysis.

Very clear, descriptive language and structured response. All within word count. Evidence shows relevance and depth.

The language is clear and descriptive, and the response is well-structured. The student meets the word count and effectively organizes their ideas. The evidence used is relevant and supports the analysis

The writing is clear, concise, and sophisticated, with a flawless structure. The student’s ideas are logically organized and presented in a highly engaging manner. The evidence used is rich, relevant, and deeply integrated into the analysis, adding substantial depth and relevance to the argument. The sources are critically engaged with, and the integration of evidence supports a well-developed, cohesive, and compelling argument. The work exceeds expectations in clarity, depth, and academic rigour.

Has the student’s reflection been presented with clarity and logical organisation? Is the writing structured in a way that enhances the argument and stays within the word count? Has the student effectively integrated relevant and sufficient evidence to support their reflection, demonstrating a clear connection between theory and practice?

Component

Fail

(<40)

Third

(40–49)

2:2

(50–59)

2:1

(60–69)

First

(70–79)

Double First

(80–100)

Originality & innovation

communicated in the selection and application of design thinking tools for the project research and development that is included in the portfolio submission  30%

Minimal or no engagement with design thinking tools; little to no evidence of an attempt to address the design challenge. There is no original response to the brief.

Basic application of design thinking tools with limited evidence of attempting to address the design challenge. The response lacks originality, showing minimal effort to go beyond the brief.

A good understanding of design thinking tools applied to the design challenge. There is a reasonable attempt to incorporate originality in the response, though it may lack depth or innovative solutions.

Strong understanding and application of design thinking tools to address the design challenge. The work demonstrates a good level of originality and a thoughtful response to the brief.

Exceptional use of design thinking tools to address the challenge, with a clear and innovative response to the brief. The design work demonstrates strong creativity, originality, and insight.

Outstanding, with a sophisticated rationale showcasing a deep understanding of the topic. The response is nuanced and challenges assumptions, offering original interpretations and innovative approaches that advance the field.

Colour, typography, images & composition demonstrated in the presentation of the design thinking tools and the project outcomes that are included in the portfolio submission   25% 

Poor visual design with little understanding of clarity, balance, or aesthetics. There is a weak or incomplete awareness of market and audience expectations.

Limited sense of clarity and balance in design elements. A basic understanding of market and audience expectations is evident, but the design lacks cohesion.

Good sense of clarity and aesthetics, with balanced use of design elements. The design shows a reasonable understanding of audience expectations and is functional.

Very good clarity and balance, with thoughtful composition. The visual design strongly reflects an understanding of market and audience expectations and is aesthetically compelling.

Outstanding use of design elements, with excellent clarity, aesthetics, and balance. The visual design demonstrates a high level of awareness of market and audience expectations, showing creativity and attention to detail.

Exceptional originality and insight, with groundbreaking creative strategies and deep engagement with the subject. The design displays innovation that significantly contributes to the field, reflecting deep understanding and forward-thinking design solutions.

Execution & production of the outcome(s) demonstrated in the presentation of the project outcomes that are included in the portfolio submission

10%

Poor quality of project deliverables with little to no evidence of professional standards. The design lacks knowledge of audience needs and does not meet expectations.

Limited attempt to produce project deliverables of acceptable professional standards. Some consideration of audience needs is shown, but the quality is basic and lacks refinement.

Adequate quality of outcomes that meet basic professional standards. The deliverables show satisfactory knowledge of audience needs but may lack some finishing touches or detailed understanding.

High-quality outcomes that reflect professional standards. The work is well-designed, with a good understanding of audience needs, and demonstrates solid execution.

Outstanding quality of project deliverables, clearly meeting or exceeding professional standards. The work is well-crafted and designed with a deep understanding of audience needs.

The work exceeds all expectations in terms of quality, professionalism, and insight into audience needs. The deliverables demonstrate exceptional craftsmanship and sophistication in responding to user requirements.

Reflective account

demonstrated in the written account of the project’s development and the use of service tools included in the portfolio submission 25% 

The project narrative is poorly developed with minimal critical analysis. Insights and decisions are lacking, and the reflection is superficial with no clear evaluation of the design process.

The project narrative presents a basic level of critical analysis. Some insights and decisions are discussed, but the reflection is limited and lacks depth or consistency in evaluating the design process.

A useful project narrative with satisfactory critical analysis. Insights and decisions are appropriately covered throughout the process, though the reflection could be more detailed or refined.

The project narrative is strong and demonstrates good critical analysis. Key insights and decisions are clearly articulated, and the reflection on the design process is thoughtful and well-rounded.

Excellent project narrative with a clear and thorough critical analysis. The narrative consistently demonstrates deep insights and evaluations of decisions, reflecting on all stages of the design process.

A highly effective narrative that combines original insights and critical analysis throughout. The work shows a sophisticated and comprehensive understanding of the design process, with exceptional reflection on decisions and outcomes.

Design, structure & presentation demonstrated in the written account of the project’s development and the use of service tools included in the portfolio submission 10%

The quality of design, structure, and presentation is poor. Written content lacks clarity, and referencing is incorrect or missing.

Basic quality of structure and presentation. Written content may be unclear or disorganised, with limited clarity and referencing errors.

Satisfactory design, structure, and presentation. Written content is generally clear, with some issues in clarity, expression, or referencing.

Very good structure, presentation, and written content. The work is well-organised, with clarity in expression and correct referencing.

Outstanding design, structure, and presentation. The writing is clear, concise, and well-organised with excellent referencing and a professional finish.

The presentation is flawless. The structure is exceptionally clear and logically organised. The writing is sophisticated and highly engaging, with perfect clarity of expression and flawless referencing.