DENT6436: Clinical Endodontics IV

HD

High distinction

85 - 100

Awarded when you demonstrate the learning outcomes for the unit at an exceptional standard, as defined by grade descriptors or exemplars outlined by your faculty or school.

DI

Distinction

75 - 84

Awarded when you demonstrate the learning outcomes for the unit at a very high standard, as defined by grade descriptors or exemplars outlined by your faculty or school.

CR

Credit

65 - 74

Awarded when you demonstrate the learning outcomes for the unit at a good standard, as defined by grade descriptors or exemplars outlined by your faculty or school.

PS

Pass

50 - 64

Awarded when you demonstrate the learning outcomes for the unit at an acceptable standard, as defined by grade descriptors or exemplars outlined by your faculty or school.

FA

Fail

0 - 49

When you don’t meet the learning outcomes of the unit to a satisfactory standard.

AF

Absent fail

0 - 49

When you haven’t completed all assessment tasks or met the attendance requirements.

CN

Cancelled

No mark

When your enrolment has been cancelled.

DC

Discontinued not to count as failure

No mark

When you discontinue a unit under special circumstances (outlined in clause 92 of the Coursework Policy), after the relevant census date.

Result code

Result name

Mark range

Description

HD

High distinction

85 - 100

With an insightful, comprehensive, and satisfactory treatment of all the task requirements this work conveys an advanced understanding of the complexities of knowledge in the applied context. The work systematically and critically addresses the issues under discussion. There is evidence of an excellent understanding of the inter-relationships between knowledge components and how the components relate as a system. Critical insights and knowledge use take the argument beyond that introduced in the unit. It reveals a capacity to use new insights to critically reflect on, to analyse, or to solve problems. It reflects the author’s ability to use these insights to hypothesise, theorise and generalise what has been learnt to new and novel contexts. The work has been written and presented to an exemplary academic standard.

DI

Distinction

75 - 84

With a comprehensive and satisfactory treatment of all the task requirements this work conveys a strong understanding of the complexities of knowledge in the applied context. It reveals a good understanding of the inter-relationships between different knowledge components. The work demonstrates a good capacity to critically reflect on, to analyse, or to solve problems. It reflects the author’s ability to compare and contrast different situations; explain and interpret patterns of behaviour; and analyse situations utilising a variety of conceptual tools in an integrated and systematic fashion. The work has been written and presented to a very high academic standard.

CR

Credit

65 - 74

All the task requirements are satisfactorily addressed with the majority treated comprehensively. There is a sound understanding of discrete knowledge components but there is not a comprehensive understanding of the systemic interrelationships between these different components. The work demonstrates a sound capacity to effectively and critically reflect on, to analyse, or to solve problems. There is evidence of being able to use knowledge content to identify, list, classify, enumerate and interpret in a meaningful way. The work is written and presented in a satisfactory manner and the writing is clear, citations used appropriately, grammatically correct and accurate in terms of spelling, suitably referenced and presented. Some significant improvements needed to meet a standard suitable for publication

PS

Pass

50 - 64

All the task requirements addressed satisfactorily though the majority have not been addressed in a comprehensive manner. The work conveys a basic understanding of various knowledge components. It utilises only one, or a few of these in a discrete way to address the requirements of the task. Little recognition is given to the relationships between components. The work demonstrates a limited capacity to use knowledge components to critically reflect on, to analyse, or to solve problems. The work conveys a modest capacity to apply knowledge to the analysis or solution of a particular problem or dilemma. The work is presented with sufficient coherence and clarity for the reader to understand the ideas and arguments being proposed. Improvements to writing such as structure, grammar and referencing are required to meet academic writing standards

FA

Fail

0 - 49

Not all task requirements addressed in a satisfactory manner. The work conveys little evidence of understanding the knowledge base. It fails to demonstrate a satisfactory grasp of the field of knowledge covered in the unit. The work conveys little evidence of the capacity to recognise when or how to apply different knowledge components in effectively and critically reflecting on, analysing, or solving problems. Few connections are appropriately drawn between relevant components and the problems, behaviours, or circumstances to which they are to be applied. The work demonstrates little understanding or appreciation of standards required for academic writing. Improvements in terms of clarity, grammar, spelling, quotations, referencing or presentation are required to achieve an acceptable standard

A (76 - 100)

Exemplary

B (61 - 75)

Competent

C (50 - 60)

Developing

Fail

Dimensions:

Overall Understanding

Shows a deep/robust understanding of the topic with a fully developed argument per the categories below

Shows a limited understanding of the topic, not quite a fully developed argument per the categories below

Shows a superficial understanding of the topic, argument not developed enough per the categories below

Shows no understanding of the topic and no argument per the categories below

Argument

Clearly articulates a position or argument

Articulates a position or argument that is incomplete or limited in scope

Articulates a position or argument that is unfocused or ambiguous

Does not articulate a position or argument

Evidence

Presents evidence that is relevant and accurate

Presents sufficient amount of evidence to support argument

Presents evidence that is mostly relevant and/or mostly accurate

Presents limited evidence to support argument

Presents evidence that is somewhat inaccurate and/or irrelevant, but corrects when prompted

Does not present enough evidence to support argument, but augments when prompted

Presents a lot of inaccurate and/or irrelevant evidence

Doesn’t present enough evidence to support argument, even when prompted repeatedly

Implications

Fully discusses the major implications of the argument or position

Adequately discusses some of the major implications of the position

Discusses minor implications (missing the major ones) OR does not discuss major implications adequately

Doesn’t discuss the implications of the argument or position

Structure

There is logic in the progression of ideas

There are a few areas of disjointedness or intermittent lack of logical progression of ideas

Ideas are somewhat disjointed and/or do not always flow logically, making it a bit difficult to follow

Ideas are disjointed and/or do not flow logically, hence argument is very difficult to follow

Prompting

Did not have to prompt with probing questions at all

Prompted minimally (one or two probing questions)

Prompted a lot (a series of probing questions)