Generic Assessment Criteria


Mark Range
Knowledge and Understanding
Analysis
Reading and Research
Presentation
90+
Excellent subject knowledge and understanding of key issues and debates.
Clearly demonstrated command of the accepted critical positions, and confidence in going beyond accepted positions when evidence allows for it.
Clear demonstration of the ability to create and deploy a sustained original argument and demonstrate its applicability through appropriate evidence.
The provision of a comprehensive critical evaluation of a broad yet appropriate range of material.
Evidence of expertise in the ability to read widely and autonomy in the identification and selection of appropriate information sources.
Very effective deployment of reading to support arguments, evaluate results and critique outcomes..
Critical and appropriate use of evidence from other disciplines.
The work is of publishable quality.
The work should show a clear and authoritative demonstration of knowledge and understanding of the subject area and a confidence with the arguments it presents.
All supporting documentation is of the highest possible quality.
80-89
Excellent subject knowledge and understanding of key issues and debates.
Evidence of a command of the accepted critical positions and of going beyond accepted positions when evidence allows for it.
Evidence of ability to make a sustained original argument on the basis of evidence.
Evidence of an ability to synthesise information to show a full grasp of the material.
Strong evidence of critical evaluation of a wide range of material.
Evidence of the ability to read widely and eclectically for information.
Very effective deployment of reading to support arguments.
Critical and appropriate use of evidence from other disciplines.
Lively and articulate writing that shows evidence of knowledge, enthusiasm for the material and strong control of the arguments being deployed.
70-79
Evidence of a wide knowledge of relevant theory applied in a critical and thoughtful way.
Evidence of full and precise knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of the methods and models being employed.
Strong evidence of ability to make a sustained argument on the basis of appropriate evidence.
Strong evidence of ability to critically evaluate evidence and synthesise generalisations.
Strong evidence of making a judgement using appropriate criteria.
Evidence of selection of material from a wide range of sources.
Reading used critically and deployed effectively in supporting arguments.
Strong evidence of independent research.
Use of English that makes the meaning clear to the marker and shows control of the arguments being deployed.
60-69
Good subject knowledge and understanding of key issues and debates.
Evidence of a full understanding of the possibilities and limitations of the methodologies and models employed.
Evidence of critical understanding of relevant theoretical material.
Evidence of ability to make a sustained argument using appropriate evidence.
Evidence of ability to critically evaluate evidence and synthesise generalisations.
Evidence of an appropriate level of critical analysis and judgement including justification of the criteria.
Appropriate reading with effective use of a range of relevant sources.
Effective deployment of reading in supporting arguments.
Evidence of independent research.
Clear and correct usage with very few imprecise statements.
Strong evidence of familiarity with the appropriate technical terminology
50-59
Demonstrates an appropriate understanding, but not evidently critical, of key issues and debates.
Evidence of an understanding of the methodologies or theoretical models used and how they are relevant to the assessment task.
Evidence of ability to make an argument on the basis of evidence appropriate to the theoretical issues being discussed.
Evidence of the ability to collate information, and construct general conclusions.
Evidence of a satisfactory level of analysis using criteria.
Use of appropriate reading material from an appropriate range of sources, with coherent structure and clear argument.
Satisfactory deployment of evidence to support argument.
Some evidence of independent research.
Appropriate presentation with few imprecise statements.
Evidence of familiarity with appropriate technical terminology.
40-49
Evidence of some knowledge of appropriate theory, but lacking depth.
Limited understanding of key issues and debates.
Limited understanding of relevant methodologies or models.
Some evidence of analysis, but criteria used are not clear.
Evidence of ability to state a position but with limited argument and evidence.
Evidence of the ability to construct a coherent response, but no more than basic interpretation and evaluation.
Evidence of selection of mainly relevant material from a range of sources, but evidence not deployed accurately.
Materials used come from inappropriate sources but are treated as if from more usual sources.
Narrow selection of material.
Limited evidence of research.
Correct English usage, but with some lack of precision.
Limited familiarity with appropriate technical terminology.
Use of English in such a way that the marker cannot understand some of the points made, thus limiting the mark by the material that can be understood.
30-39
Evidence of some knowledge, but with serious omissions.
Little understanding of key issues and debates.
Evidence of reproduction of material from lectures and introductory textbooks, with no interpretation or deeper understanding.
Evidence of basic interpretation of the problem, but usually only tackling a small part of the problem.
Evidence of a general, but rudimentary, grasp of the problem, with only a limited ability to sustain their argument.
No evidence of research beyond directed reading or lecture notes.
Over reliance on a single textbook source, without analysis, criticism or interpretation.
Some incorrect use of English.
Failure to use technical terminology appropriately.
Coherent notes appropriate to the problem, but not developed into flowing prose.
Not referencing to an appropriately identified convention.
Failure to adhere to the specified format for the submission.
20-29
Evidence of some knowledge, reading and material, but these ideas are marginal to the question or assessment task set.
Inadequate understanding of subject with significant errors and omissions.
An unbalanced submission that omits essential material.
Evidence that the assessment task has been understood, but little development of the idea and the conclusions drawn are erroneous in the light of evidence presented.
Superficial reading of inappropriate sources.
Failure to use reading appropriately in support of argument.
Significantly flawed use of English.
The submission rambles around the general area of the problem, but with little coherence or structure.
No referencing or literature.
1-19
The work contains significant misconceptions and basic errors and shows little familiarity with the concepts and language expected.
Notes of little relevance to the problem.
Interpretation of the problem is seriously flawed with no attempt to argue for the interpretation taken.
No evidence of reading
Incorrect use of English to such an extent that much of the assignment cannot be understood.
0
Awarded for non submission or work not submitted in accordance with the regulations for Late Submission. Awarded as a result of an accusation of plagiarism or falsification of data in empirical research that has been upheld and which the review believes should carry the penalty of awarding zero marks. Awarded for the re-use of work simultaneously or previously submitted for assessment.

These criteria are drawn from the LTSN Generic Assessment Criteria (reference unknown), with appropriate modifications to remove references to specific forms of assessment.