There are 7 criteria. Each one has a weight in marks. The weights add up to 100.
For each criterion, your work is placed in one of five bands. Each band shows the marks for that criterion and what the lecturer is looking for.
Excellent (70–100%)Excels in this area.
Very Good (60–69%)Performs in a consistently competent and confident way.
Satisfactory (50–59%)Performs at an adequate level but has scope for development.
Needs Work (40–49%)Performs somewhat less than adequately and needs development.
Unsatisfactory (0–39%)Performs considerably less than adequately and needs development.
Criterion 1
Review of Skills Development Since Week 7 (LO1 and LO2)
Weight: 20 marks
Excellent
70–100%
14–20 marks
Provides a comprehensive, insightful, and well-supported review of skills development. Demonstrates substantial growth in counselling skills with clear evidence from practice experiences. Shows excellent understanding of learning gained and its application.
Very Good
60–69%
12–13 marks
Provides a detailed review of skills development with clear evidence of progress. Demonstrates good awareness of learning and professional growth, supported by relevant examples.
Satisfactory
50–59%
10–11 marks
Provides an adequate review of skills development. Some evidence of progress is presented, although discussion tends to be descriptive.
Needs Work
40–49%
8–9 marks
Provides a limited review of skills development. Evidence of learning is vague, incomplete, or inconsistent.
Unsatisfactory
0–39%
0–7 marks
Provides little or no meaningful review of skills development. Minimal evidence of learning or growth is demonstrated.
Criterion 2
Analysis of Progress Against Week 7 Development Plan (LO1 and LO2)
Weight: 25 marks
Excellent
70–100%
18–25 marks
Critically evaluates progress against all development goals. Clearly identifies achievements, challenges, barriers, and areas requiring further development. Uses specific evidence to demonstrate learning and achievement.
Very Good
60–69%
15–17 marks
Analyses progress against most development goals. Demonstrates good understanding of achievements and areas for improvement, supported by examples.
Satisfactory
50–59%
13–14 marks
Discusses progress against some goals but analysis lacks depth. Connections between goals and outcomes are evident but underdeveloped.
Needs Work
40–49%
10–12 marks
Makes limited reference to the development plan. Discussion is largely descriptive with little evaluation.
Unsatisfactory
0–39%
0–9 marks
Fails to meaningfully evaluate progress against stated goals. Limited or no engagement with the development plan.
Criterion 3
Reflection on Feedback Received and Used (LO3)
Weight: 15 marks
Excellent
70–100%
11–15 marks
Demonstrates sophisticated reflection on feedback received from tutors and peers. Clearly explains how feedback was accepted, interpreted, and applied to improve practice. Shows high levels of self-reflection.
Very Good
60–69%
9–10 marks
Demonstrates thoughtful reflection on feedback and provides evidence of how feedback informed learning and practice.
Satisfactory
50–59%
8 marks
Identifies feedback received and demonstrates some application of learning, though reflection remains limited.
Needs Work
40–49%
6–7 marks
Mentions feedback but shows little evidence of reflection or implementation.
Unsatisfactory
0–39%
0–5 marks
Little or no evidence of engaging with or applying feedback.
Criterion 4
Reflection on Peer Learning and Giving Feedback (LO4)
Weight: 10 marks
Excellent
70–100%
8–10 marks
Demonstrates excellent understanding of peer learning. Critically reflects on both giving and receiving feedback, showing sensitivity, professionalism, and awareness of collaborative learning processes.
Very Good
60–69%
7 marks
Reflects effectively on peer learning experiences and demonstrates understanding of constructive feedback processes.
Satisfactory
50–59%
6 marks
Discusses peer learning experiences adequately but reflection lacks critical depth.
Needs Work
40–49%
4–5 marks
Limited discussion of peer feedback experiences and learning gained from group.
Unsatisfactory
0–39%
0–3 marks
No meaningful discussion of peer learning or feedback experiences.
Criterion 5
Self-Awareness and Reflection on Personal Process (LO5)
Weight: 15 marks
Excellent
70–100%
11–15 marks
Demonstrates exceptional self-awareness and critical reflection. Explores strengths, limitations, emotional responses, and self-management strategies with considerable insight. Identifies realistic goals for future growth.
Very Good
60–69%
9–10 marks
Demonstrates good self-awareness and reflection. Identifies strengths, challenges, and areas for future development with reasonable insight.
Satisfactory
50–59%
8 marks
Demonstrates adequate self-awareness. Reflection is evident but tends to focus on description rather than analysis.
Needs Work
40–49%
6–7 marks
Reflection lacks depth and insight. Limited evidence of self-awareness or personal growth.
Unsatisfactory
0–39%
0–5 marks
Minimal or no evidence of self-reflection or understanding of personal process.
Criterion 6
Analysis of Counselling Practice Experience (LO6)
Weight: 10 marks
Excellent
70–100%
8–10 marks
Provides insightful analysis of counselling practice experiences, considering the client's experience, counsellor's experience, therapeutic process, and working alliance. Effectively links experience to counselling theory and research.
Very Good
60–69%
7 marks
Provides a clear analysis of practice experiences and demonstrates good understanding of counselling processes and skills.
Satisfactory
50–59%
6 marks
Provides an adequate discussion of practice experiences with some evidence of analysis.
Needs Work
40–49%
4–5 marks
Discussion remains largely descriptive. Analysis of counselling practice is limited or superficial.
Unsatisfactory
0–39%
0–3 marks
Little or no analysis of counselling practice experiences.
Criterion 7
Academic Writing, Structure and Presentation
Weight: 5 marks
Excellent
70–100%
5 marks
Exceptionally well organised and professionally presented. Writing is clear, coherent, and concise. Excellent academic style with virtually no grammatical, spelling, or punctuation errors.
Very Good
60–69%
4 marks
Well-structured and clearly written. Minor language errors do not detract from overall quality.
Satisfactory
50–59%
3 marks
Adequately organised and generally clear. Some issues with grammar, structure, or academic style.
Needs Work
40–49%
2 marks
Weak organisation and frequent language errors reduce clarity and impact.
Unsatisfactory
0–39%
0–1 marks
Poorly organised and difficult to follow. Significant errors impede understanding.
Notes on the source
Only spelling and typing slips were fixed. Gaps and unclear values in the lecturer's rubric are shown, not guessed.
Typed from the lecturer's rubric (Oct 2026). Check the official copy on Canvas if in doubt.