2010-11 version of Annex 6: Generic Marking Criteria - examples

Faculty of Arts

These are intended as an example of the sorts of criteria which departments should develop for each of the different forms of assessment they use, rather than as a model to be adopted throughout the Faculty. They may of course be used as a model for developing subject-specific marking criteria, drawing also on the relevant sections of Benchmarking Statements and Programme specifications.

FIRST (80+)

KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING

Of the subject being discussed: detailed and accurate, showing the ability to select what is most relevant from a broader range of knowledge. Of relevant secondary literature: detailed and critical, showing evidence of reading widely outside the prescribed bibliography. Of relevant theoretical and methodological issues: detailed and critical, showing clear awareness of how they relate to the question. Of the wider context: detailed and accurate, showing clear understanding of how the topic relates to the wider context and showing the ability to draw on relevant material from other contexts to develop the argument.

ARGUMENT

Approach: analytical, critical, sophisticated, engaging closely with the question and showing appreciation of its wider implications. Structure: rigorously argued and logically structured. Originality: extensive evidence of independent thought. Use of evidence: all points supported with critically-evaluated evidence.

PRESENTATION

Clarity of expression: lucid, elegant, accurate. Spelling and grammar: no errors. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate and sophisticated usage. Academic conventions: exemplary citation and presentation of bibliography.

FIRST (70-79)

KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING

Of the subject being discussed: detailed and accurate, showing the ability to select what is most relevant from a broader range of knowledge. Of relevant secondary literature: detailed and critical, showing evidence of reading outside the prescribed bibliography. Of relevant theoretical and methodological issues: detailed and critical, showing clear awareness of how they relate to the question. Of the wider context: detailed and accurate, showing clear understanding of how the topic relates to the wider context.

ARGUMENT

Approach: analytical, critical, sophisticated, engaging closely with the question and showing appreciation of its wider implications. Structure: generally rigorously argued and logically structured. Originality: evidence of independent thought. Use of evidence: most points supported with critically-evaluated evidence.

PRESENTATION

Clarity of expression: clear, fluent, accurate. Spelling and grammar: no errors. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate and often sophisticated usage. Academic conventions: consistent citation and well presented bibliography.

UPPER SECOND (2.1) (60-69)

KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING

Of the subject being discussed: extensive and accurate. Of relevant secondary literature: clear and generally critical knowledge of works on the set bibliography. Of relevant theoretical and methodological issues: aware of underlying principles and themes, though not always conscious of how they relate to the question. Of the wider context: generally well-informed, though limited understanding of how the topic relates to the wider context.

ARGUMENT

Approach: analytical, generally critical, quite sophisticated, engaging with the question and showing appreciation of some of its wider implications. Structure: generally clearly argued and sensibly structured. Originality: attempts to go beyond the ideas of the secondary literature. Use of evidence: most points illustrated with evidence, generally but not always critically evaluated.

PRESENTATION

Clarity of expression: clear, generally accurate. Spelling and grammar: no significant errors. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate usage. Academic conventions: fairly consistent citation, well presented bibliography.

LOWER SECOND (2.2) (50-59)

KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING

Of the subject being discussed: generally clear and accurate, though there may be some errors and gaps. Of relevant secondary literature: generally clear though often uncritical knowledge of key works on the set bibliography; some significant omissions. Of relevant theoretical and methodological issues: limited awareness of underlying principles and themes and limited understanding of how they relate to the question. Of the wider context: some knowledge, though rarely used to any great effect.

ARGUMENT

Approach: some attempt at analysis and synthesis, but sometimes prone to excessive narrative or description; rarely critical; may assert rather than argue; may not properly engage with question. Structure: argument not always clear; structure may be heavily influenced by the secondary literature rather than the requirements of the question. Originality: little attempt to go beyond or criticise the secondary literature. Use of evidence: frequent references to evidence and awareness of its importance, but rarely critically evaluated.

PRESENTATION

Clarity of expression: conveys meaning, but sometimes clumsy. Spelling and grammar: generally grammatical, but a few significant spelling errors. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: attempts use, not always with full understanding. Academic conventions: has made a serious attempt at providing references, but with significant flaws in coverage and/or presentation; well presented bibliography.

THIRD (40-49)

KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING

Of the subject being discussed: limited and patchy, with some significant errors. Of relevant secondary literature: limited, uncritical and sometimes muddled knowledge of a fairly narrow range of sources. Of relevant theoretical and methodological issues: obvious ignorance of many relevant issues. Of the wider context: limited and patchy, with some significant errors.

ARGUMENT

Approach: limited attempt at analysis or synthesis; excessive narrative or description; tends to assert rather than argue; largely misses point of question. Structure: argument underdeveloped; structure derivative, with little relation to question. Originality: ideas of secondary literature presented uncritically. Use of evidence: a range of evidence mentioned, but not critically evaluated and/or not properly integrated into the argument.

PRESENTATION

Clarity of expression: not always clear or easy to follow. Spelling and grammar: generally grammatical, but frequent spelling errors. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: little and/or inaccurate usage. Academic conventions: limited but flawed attempt at providing references (e.g. given only for direct quotations); well presented bibliography.

FAIL (30-39)

KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING

Of the subject being discussed: very limited, with numerous significant errors and gaps. Of relevant secondary literature: limited, uncritical and often muddled knowledge of a very narrow range of sources. Of relevant theoretical and methodological issues: obvious ignorance of relevant issues. Of the wider context: rudimentary.

ARGUMENT

Approach: little attempt at analysis or synthesis; little understanding of the question and little attempt at addressing it. Structure: little attempt at argument; derivative and/or illogical structure. Originality: follows a limited range of sources closely. Use of evidence: some reference to evidence and some awareness of its importance, but not evaluated or integrated into the argument.

PRESENTATION

Clarity of expression: often clumsy, difficult to follow and disjointed. Spelling and grammar: frequent errors, though not affecting meaning. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: little and inaccurate usage. Academic conventions: few or no references.

FAIL (below 30)

KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING

Of the subject being discussed: rudimentary and seriously flawed. Of relevant secondary literature: limited, uncritical and garbled knowledge of a very narrow range of sources. Of relevant theoretical and methodological issues: obvious ignorance of relevant issues. Of the wider context: rudimentary at best.

ARGUMENT

Approach: no attempt at analysis or synthesis; fails to understand or address the question. Structure: incoherent, illogical, derivative. Originality: wholly derivative of a limited range of sources, in places verging on plagiarism. Use of evidence: little reference to evidence.

PRESENTATION

Clarity of expression: clumsy, disjointed and often incoherent. Spelling and grammar: frequent errors, sometimes obscuring meaning. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: no usage, or catastrophically misunderstood. Academic conventions: no references, poorly presented bibliography.


Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering

Marking scales for Projects: 2007/08

 

Mark

Communication aspects

Content & technical aspects

Practical aspects

Answering questions

0 N

Unauthorised non-delivery, non-submission, or absence.

<4.0

‘Poor’

Although the presentation, poster or thesis has been delivered/submitted, there is little or no communication taking place.  Audience or reader surprised that it could be this bad.  Unacceptable.

Inadequate understanding and knowledge of fundamentals.  Poor quality of critical judgement.  Unacceptable.

Little or no technical competence in many areas.  Designs probably unworkable.

Can hardly start to answer even routine questions.

4.0

Threshold of failure.  Marks below this level need written justification

4.0-5.0

‘3rd

Little effort made with software tools.  Little or no structure.  Probably poor grammar and spelling.  Audience or reader feel their time could be better spent.

Knowledge of some fundamentals, but major gaps in understanding.  Little critical judgement.

Limited technical competence, with major shortcomings in significant areas.  Designs likely to be misconceived.

Serious difficulties in answering.

5.0-6.0

‘2.2’

Rather unimaginative use of software tools.  Some deficiencies in structure.  Some spelling or grammatical inadequacies.  Slightly bores the audience or reader.

Basic understanding and knowledge of most of the fundamentals, but perhaps with some misconceptions.  Possibly limited critical judgement.

Basic technical competence, but a few shortcomings in significant areas.  Designs fairly routine.

Some difficulties in answering.

6.0-7.0

‘2.1’

Competent use of software tools.  Well structured presentation.  Few, if any, spelling or grammatical errors.  Interests the audience or reader.

Sound understanding and knowledge of fundamentals but lacking a little breadth or depth.  Good critical judgement, but lacking some focus.  For MEng, evidence of intelligent exploration of the subject.

Technically competent, perhaps with some minor shortcomings.  Some elegance of design, including variations on standard techniques.

Good attempt at answering.

7.0-8.0

‘1st

Creative use of software tools – indistinguishable from high quality professional presentation.  Excellent structure.  No spelling or grammatical errors.  Grabs the audience’s/reader’s attention.

Excellent structure and expression and critical judgement; well-chosen illustrations.  Thorough understanding and knowledge of subject in breadth and depth.  For MEng, definite evidence of research ability.

High level of technical competence, with very few mistakes of any kind.  Original, elegant design readily apparent.

Able to handle easily – shows initiative and spark.

>8.0

‘Exceptional’.  Marks in this range need written justification.

8.5

As 7.0-8.0, but seen perhaps in 4 or 5 students a year in a typical class.

9.0

As 7.0-8.0, but seen perhaps in 2 or 3 students a year in a typical class. 

9.5

As 7.0-8.0, but seen perhaps only once every year or two in a typical class. 

10

As 7.0-8.0, but seen perhaps once or twice in a lifetime.

Back to the 2010-11 version of the online Regulations and Code of Practice