Example #2: Criterion C

Few candidates go beyond being descriptive and provide a detailed account including reasons or causes for why the project had an impact on them, so why it mattered. 

Example

Level: 7

The student addresses several ways of how completing the project has had an impact on them, and these are described well. In the second paragraph of this section in the report, there’s a passage addressing to have "developed a systematic approach". Here the student points at a reason for this benefitting them in the future to better manage their academic and job career. It’s quite minimal, but this is making the account an explanation, since the student included reasons for why this impact on themselves and their learning matters.

Candidates are often successful in going back to their success criteria to review their completed product. Most candidates also manage to generate a final, complete product. To reach the higher levels of Cii, candidates need to evaluate (making an appraisal by weighing strengths and limitations) their product by systematically going through each of their stated success criteria. Simply describing their product, even if doing so in alignment with the aspects of the success criteria, will not qualify as an evaluation according to the command term definition. 

Another commonly observed fault in Cii is to present results from a survey without further analysis of that data, which will not account for as an evaluation either. Candidates should be guided to not just present results from a survey or the views of others. If candidates choose to survey others for opinions on the quality of their product, at a minimum the candidate has to interpret that data to make an appraisal of the product’s quality, by weighing up strengths and limitations. 

Example

Level: 6 

In a table format, the product is systematically evaluated against the criteria, weighing up strengths and limitations in two different columns labeled “What went well” and “Even better if”. Although, two of the four criteria are lacking in evaluation since they don’t take into consideration both strengths and limitations. There is only one photo of the dispenser as evidence and the claims made in the evaluation are partially supported with examples when the student describes the product in various aspects of the criteria.