Appendices
Appendix 1: Marking Criteria for Essays/Reports/Examinations — Masters
Criterion
Distinction 70+
Merit 60-69
Pass 50-59
Fail <50
UNDERSTANDING OF QUESTION/ TASK SET:
Development of answer
Thoughtful, well- informed, consistently interesting interpretation; perceptive understanding; accurate, focussed on the question throughout.
Valid interpretation; generally accurate, with good understanding; mostly focussed on relevant issues.
Some inaccuracies; showing an understanding of the subject, but not effectively focussed on the question.
Many inaccuracies; only partial or no evidence of understanding, with a frequent failure to focus on the question.
STRUCTURE:
Overall structure and organisation; introduction; conclusion
Coherent structure; effective organisation of material; clear and appropriate aims; reflective conclusion that relates to aims.
Well organised work; generally successful structure; with relevant aims and reflective conclusion.
Structure is present, although not always clear; aims and conclusion are stated but show only partial relevance and/or coherence.
Limited or no organisation of material; poorly stated or no aims and conclusion; lacking coherence.
CLARITY/ DEPTH/ ORIGINALITY OF ARGUMENT:
Effectiveness of argument;
original ideas/ evidence/ analysis; critical insights
Cogent, consistent and original argument; excellent level of critical engagement and/or analysis; showing excellent clarity of expression and innovative thinking.
Consistent argument; showing critical engagement and/or analysis; generally well written; some original insights.
Showing evidence of argument; patchy indications of critical judgement and/or analysis; occasionally disjointed; few signs of original thought.
Only partial or no attempt to establish argument; limited or no evidence of critical judgement and/or analysis; disjointed; totally lacking in originality.
BREADTH AND RELEVANCE OF CONTENT:
Engagement with relevant ideas; selection of relevant examples; integration of ideas and examples
Very well executed research; fully engaged on an intellectual level; excellent use and integration of illustrative examples.
Well planned and executed research; engages with relevant ideas; good use of illustrative examples.
Some evidence of research; lacking in intellectual engagement; not always properly integrated; some relevant examples provided.
Poorly planned and executed research; examples tending to be irrelevant.
READING AND REFERENCING
Reading of relevant sources; bibliographical research;
citation and reference style
Comprehensive and well integrated review of the relevant literature; showing a thorough understanding of a wide range of literature; consistent and accurate citation and reference style.
Well grounded review of relevant literature; significant evidence of bibliographic research; shows clear understanding; largely consistent citation and reference style.
Some evidence of reading and research, but not well integrated; inconsistencies in citations and references.
Limited or no evidence of relevant reading; no or very poor integration; poor or no style in citations and references.
WRITING STYLE AND PRESENTATION:
Grammar, spelling, legibility;
figures, tables, and other graphics
Written with verve and without errors; excellent use where appropriate of well- designed figures, tables, graphics.
Few stylistic errors; sound use where appropriate of figures, tables, graphics.
Some stylistic errors; somewhat inconsistent and inappropriate use of figures, tables, graphics.
Many errors; poor and inappropriate figures, tables, graphics.
10