Generic Marking Criteria

Marking Criteria for Natural Sciences Programmes

Marking Criteria for Applied Psychology Programme

Class/Grade	Examination - essay questions	Assignments/Essays	Laboratory/Field Reports
First Class Work
90-100%	Outstanding answer, As 80-90%, but with unequivocal evidence of originality. Explicit evidence of extensive reading, which has been abstracted and integrated to inform answer.	Outstanding work. As 80-90% but with explicit evidence of creative ability. Original material developed. Extensive reading used to direct arguments. Extremely high level of intellectual work.	Outstanding work. Authoritative report. Rationale is explicit. Data interpretation and discussion is inspired. Every aspect of the data is fully exploited. Incisive discussion fully Integrated with current research. Faultless presentation.
80-90%	Exceptional answer in terms of structure and content. Critical appraisal of literature and data. Some original material. Well defined arguments presented. Thorough consideration of all dominant and associated issues.	Work of exceptional quality showing clear understanding of the subject matter. Sketch maps and diagrams adapted and relevant. Critical appraisal of literature and data. Very high level of intellectual work.	Exceptional work. Professional report. Skilful interpretation of data. Discussion critical and evaluative. Explicit evidence of knowledge of current research. Exceptional presentation.
70-80%	Perceptive answer incorporating all dominant issues. Logical development of arguments which are all supported by relevant literature. Evidence of extensive reading. Inspired synthesis of relevant aspects of literature. Lucid presentation.	High quality work showing strong grasp of subject matter. Arguments well formulated and sustained. Consideration of all dominant issues with some critical appraisal. Selective use of relevant literature.	High quality. Rationale focused and coherent. Analysis complete and correct. Data fully interpreted and well expressed. Good knowledge of context of research. High standard of presentation.
Satisfactory Work
60-70%	Accurate, structured and coherent answer. Most of dominant issues discussed. Clear development of arguments. Literature used to support some arguments. Limited critical analysis.	Work of solid quality showing competent understanding of subject matter. Arguments clearly developed and supported with relevant literature. Appreciation of main issues but limited critical analysis. Well prepared and presented material. Writing coherent.	Rationale explained. Majority of data analysed and presented correctly. Interpretation thorough but not critical. Sufficient discussion but lack of depth. Reference to background reading. Good standard of presentation.
50-60%	Answer correct but not comprehensive. Superficial treatment of subject. Some structure, some arguments presented but not developed. Breadth and depth lacking. Limited small factual errors. Very limited reading. Competent writing.	Adequate work but lacking depth and breadth. Descriptive rather than analytical approach. Arguments presented but not developed. Referencing unfocused. Competent writing.	Basically sound piece of work. Rationale briefly described. Some aspects of data not fully or correctly analysed. Discussion general and descriptive. Little evidence of background reading. Average presentation.
40-50%	Poorly structured, ill defined answer. Descriptive approach. Conceptual and factual errors. Insufficient detail. Little evidence of reading.	Simple factual approach. Narrow or misguided selection of material. Superficial treatment of issues. Limited presentation and presentation. Arguments inadequately presented. Writing style limited.	Barely adequate. Rationale not clear. Some attempt at analysis but generally incomplete or inappropriate. Discussion limited. No evidence of background reading.
Unsatisfactory work
30-40%	Essay not adhered to. Answer unstructured. Significant proportion of answer irrelevant. Lack of coherency. Limited understanding of topic.	Unsatisfactory. Title of essay assignment not adhered to. Work shows lack of understanding of topic. Unstructured approach. Writing style very poor.	Inadequate report. Rationale vague. Most analysis inappropriate and incomplete. Discussion very brief and lacking in detail of irrelevant. Presentation poor.
20-30%	Incomplete answer, much material irrelevant or incorrect. Limited attempt to answer question. Tendency for repetition and listing of facts. No obvious structure to answer.	Incomplete work due to inclusion of irrelevant material or absence of appropriate information (or both). Some attempt to adhere to requirements of assignment/essay. Writing incoherent.	Report unstructured. Very little analysis, discussion minimal. Information disorganised. Presentation extremely poor.
10-20%	Relevant material very limited. Structure vague. Partial attempt to answer question. Information listed and undeveloped.	Very limited material. Requirements only partially met. Illogical work without structure.	Confusing report. Rationale absent. Analysis and discussion irrelevant or almost absent or wrong. Incoherent. Presentation careless.
0-10%	Question not answered. Fragments of relevant pieces of information incidentally included.	Irrelevant material presented. No understanding demonstrated. Assignment/essay requirements unfulfilled.	Some data included. All other information absent or irrelevant.

 

 

Applied Psychology Marking Scheme

The marking scheme that represents the standard of work associated with a particular degree class is outlined below.

When we are assessing your work we consider five broad attributes:

• Content: (does the material presented answer the question or address the issue?)
• Structure: (does the work have an identifiable global structure e.g. essays have a beginning, middle and an end, and is the local structure good i.e. does each statement follow sensibly from its predecessor?)
• Critical evaluation: (is the relevance of the presented material to the topic explicitly explained and the validity of the evidence critically appraised?)
• Line of argument: (is there a convincing line of argument running through the work?)
• Handling of evidence: (are claims supported by relevant evidence from the literature?)
• Adhering to context: (does the work fit within the parameters set in the assignment details, e.g., the word limit?)

 

First Class

Work assigned a First Class Mark is likely to:

1. Content: address the topic in an explicit and relevant manner
2. Structure: have an easily identifiable global structure and relationships between statements that are very easy to recognise.
3. Critical evaluation: provide an explicit account of the relevance of the material to the line of argument adopted which includes a critical analysis of this evidence.
4. Line of argument: present a convincing and original line of argument that can be followed very easily throughout.
5. Handling of evidence: give wide-ranging and appropriate evidential support for claims that are made.
6. Adhering to context: display a firm understanding of the relevance of the context set, e.g., in terms of concise argument within the word limit.

 

94% Extraordinary First
86% Excellent First
82% Good First
78% Clear First
74% Marginal First

At minimum a first class piece of work must explicitly answer the question or address the issue concerned, be well-constructed, and (perhaps most crucially) show evidence of independent reading and thinking and critical evaluation. A better quality first simply has ‘more’ of these qualities. Thus a good first has to be extremely well written, have a clear focus on the central theme, develop a convincing argument that is original in the sense that the influence of the subject’s own thinking is clearly apparent, and draws on a wide range of material (including primary sources in Level 3 work). An extraordinary first would be deemed to be of publishable quality.

Upper Second

Work assigned an Upper Second Class Mark is likely to:

1. Content: attempt to address the topic or answer the question
2. Structure: have a detectable global structure adhered to for the most part and relationships between sentences that are generally easy to follow.
3. Critical evaluation: present some appraisal of the relevance of the material introduced, but this may not be fully integrated into the line of argument.
4. Line of argument: present an apparent , but perhaps not consistent, line of argument
5. Handling of evidence: support claims in the argument by reference to relevant literature.
6. Adhering to context: display an understanding of the relevance of the context set, e.g., by adhering to the word limit.

 

68% Good Upper Second
65% Clear Upper Second
62% Marginal Upper Second

At minimum, an upper second class piece of work must attempt to answer the question or address the issue concerned, be clearly written, include critical appraisal of the material presented and show signs that the student has read beyond the basic source material (at Level 3 this usually means going beyond what was presented in the lectures or text books). A top upper second will in addition be likely to have a clearer structure, a stronger line of argument, and draw on a broader range of material.

 

Lower Second

Work assigned a Lower Second Class Mark is likely to:

1. Content: present relevant material but fail to use it to address the central issues or answer the question
2. Structure: have a general but rather loose structure and relationships between statements that are sometimes hard to follow.
3. Critical evaluation: provide little assessment of the impact of the material for the argument being presented.
4. Line of argument: have an unconvincing line of argument (information drives the argument rather than the other way round).
5. Handling of evidence: tendency to make claims without supporting evidence.
6. Adhering to context: display only limited understanding of the relevance of the context set, e.g., whilst the ability to produce concise arguments may be weak, the work adheres to the overall word limit.

 

58% Good Lower Second
55% Clear Lower Second
52% Marginal Lower Second

At minimum, a lower second class piece of work must show that the student has a fair knowledge of the basic material relating to the question or issue concerned. Higher marks within this category will be awarded as a function of the accuracy with which this material is handled, the relevance and quantity of the material that is presented, evidence of evaluation of the material and the clarity with which the essay is written. Thus a top lower second is likely to reproduce with reasonable accuracy material that is relevant to the essay or topic or question and to structure the material so that the essay has a beginning middle and end; it is distinguished from an upper second mainly by the level of critique and not going beyond what was presented in lectures or what is available in secondary sources.

 

Third

Work assigned a Third Class Mark is likely to:

1. Content: fail to address the topic or to answer the question, either by accurately producing material that is only partly relevant or by inaccurately producing material that is relevant.
2. Structure: lack a general structure and have relationships between statements that are often difficult to recognise.
3. Critical evaluation: include implicit evaluation of the relevance of the material (usually through structure).
4. Line of argument: have no clear line of argument.
5. Handling of evidence: make poor use of evidence to support claims that are made.
6. Adhering to context: displays a poor grasp of the relevance of the context set, e.g., fails to adhere to the word limit.

48% Good Third Class
45% Clear Third Class
42% Marginal Third Class

At minimum a third class piece of work must contain some relevant material. Typically this means providing some indication that the appropriate lectures have been attended and/or relevant secondary sources have been read; however, the reproduction of the material although largely coherent is either scanty or inaccurate. A top third is likely to reproduce this material with fewer inaccuracies but still lacks structure, argument and critique.

 

Fail

Work assigned a Fail Mark is likely to:

1. Content: fail to address the topic or to answer the question
2. Structure: lack a general structure and fail repeatedly to relate statements to each other.
3. Critical evaluation: contain no evaluation of the material presented.
4. Line of argument: lack a line of argument.
5. Handling of evidence: fail to use evidence to support claims that are made.
6. Adhering to context: pays no attention to the context set, e.g., flagrant violation of the word limit.

 

35% Marginal Fail
Insufficiently good to warrant an honours class mark, but not so poor as to necessitate completely failing the work. Contains evidence that the student has some knowledge of some aspects that are directly relevant to the question or the specific topic. This mark might be awarded to an answer/essay that contains a number of key facts or ideas which are directly relevant to the question but are not presented at all coherently. Alternatively in an exam it might be awarded to a very short answer that begins on the right lines and shows every sign that it would be developed in a way that is appropriate to the question (e.g. relevant information provided in note form), but that the student clearly ran out of time.

28% Fail
Might be awarded to an answer that contains some evidence that the student has some knowledge of material that is of relevance to the question. In an exam this mark may be awarded to very short answer that begins on the right lines but is not completed, with no indication of further development.

18% Clear Fail
Might be awarded if the work shows evidence that the student can recall having once heard or read something that may be related to the general topic, but there is little in the answer that is of direct relevance to the question.

8% Poor Fail
Might be awarded if the work shows some degree of coherence but has no effective bearing on the issue raised in the essay title/examination question.

1% Very Poor Fail
This mark is awarded when there is nothing of any value in the work submitted. Its primary purpose is to signal an attempt to fulfil the assessment criteria and to make this work distinguishable from occasions when assessment is not attempted.

The degree classifications of 1st, 2:1, 2:2, 3rd, Fail are used throughout British universities. All universities appoint External Examiners from other universities, whose task is to help ensure that some consistency of standards is maintained across universities. The verbal descriptors given above provide the basis for this consistency, but universities may use different scales to relate to these descriptors.

 

Development through the Levels

During the course of your studies towards your degree, your ability to meet the criteria will improve. For example your final year dissertation is much more likely to resemble a published journal article than practical reports produced in the first year. Staff acknowledge this learning curve and the above criteria are applied mindful of the Level of the degree programme for which the work is being submitted. For example ‘independent reading’ may refer to additional material from secondary sources (e.g. lectures and textbooks) or evidence from primary sources (e.g. original, published research reports) depending on the Level of the work. In addition, regardless of the form of assessment (examinations, essays, practical reports etc.) certain general standards are expected at each level of the degree programme.

Level 1:

• Competence in the use of English (grammar and spelling).
• The ability to describe material accurately and concisely.
• Good basic knowledge and understanding of relevant theories and key research findings gained from secondary sources.
• Correct use of appropriate style for the type of assessment (e.g. essay or empirical project).
• Correct use of reference style.
• Appropriately and neatly presented.

Level 2:

• All the above PLUS
• Evidence of knowledge and understanding of material in primary sources.
• The ability to demonstrate a critical evaluation of the relevant theories and key research findings, predominantly, but not exclusively gained from secondary sources.
• In practical reports, evidence that studies have been designed, conducted and analysed with due regard to scientific criteria

Level 3:

• All the above PLUS
• The ability to demonstrate a critical evaluation of published psychological research reports (primary sources).

The phrase critical evaluation should be clearly understood. At Levels 2 and 3 it is not sufficient merely to demonstrate that you have understood the lecture content and read related material. It is necessary to construct a coherent argument which answers the question set (exams, essays) or validates the research question and investigation of your chosen topic (practical reports). Constructing this argument requires that you explain the relevance of the material; explicitly consider the extent to which it supports or perhaps contradicts the main issues around the topic on which you are focussing; and if relevant, to evaluate or comment on the scientific quality of the research data upon which your argument is based.