Marking

Below are the SPS common marking criteria for written PGT coursework, with accompanying descriptors arranged in a rubric.

Marking criteria are the standards on which your coursework is evaluated by staff when they do the marking. Three criteria are used here:
Argument
Comprehension
Writing.
The criteria are explained with marking descriptors. The descriptors describe what the criteria mean in practice and thereby help you understand how your coursework will be marked.
The descriptors are arranged in a rubric. which detail expectations of coursework at different mark levels. These help you understand what is required to succeed in your coursework, and help to understand the mark you have been awarded.

Please note:

Not all assignments use these criteria. The SPS common marking criteria are applied by many courses for conventional written coursework like essays. However, some assignments will instead use different, bespoke criteria developed by the Course Organiser to reflect the specificities of that assignment. Information about whether your course is using these common criteria or bespoke criteria will be stated in your course Learn page in the assessment section. Always check this before beginning any assignment. If in doubt about which criteria are being applied, contact your Course Organiser.

Marking Descriptors

University Postgraduate Common Marking Scheme

The University has common marking schemes which apply to all programmes at the University:

Postgraduate Common Marking Scheme

School Common Marking Criteria

A1 (90-100%) and-A2 (80-89%)

An exceptional assignment. The discussion and analysis is not only sophisticated but innovative. It critically engages with diverse literatures in crafting an original and academically robust argument. The work may be of a standard that would be publishable in peer-reviewed academic journals (particularly for A1).

Argument: highly-focussed and academically convincing argument that fully addresses the question/prompt. This argument is exceptionally sophisticated, conceptually and theoretically and is also, as appropriate, rigorously supported and elaborated through examples and/or empirical material. Examples and empirical material go beyond the illustrative to generate an exceptionally insightful academic analysis. The argument is informed by advanced engagement with relevant academic literature, and builds logically towards authoritative conclusions. Overall, the quality of the argument demonstrates an advanced capacity to critically engage with existing literatures and convincingly present evidence so as to develop and define new and abstract problems and issues and so advance understanding in the area of enquiry.
Comprehension: demonstrates a precise, correct and appropriately detailed understanding of key ideas, concepts and evidence, grounded in an exceptionally insightful reading of relevant literature. The literature is synthesised in illuminating and creative ways to support an academic argument that emerges from but goes beyond that literature.
Writing: prose is precisely and clearly understood by the reader. This prose may convey a distinctive academic “voice”, but always supports persuasive communication in a manner appropriate to the task. The text is logically structured and organised throughout such that the reader can easily follow the progression of argument. Prose will be (almost) wholly free of mistakes of spelling and grammar, permitting idiosyncrasies of expression providing the substance of the argument is clear. Sources should be referenced with exceptional thoroughness and precision, according to accepted academic formats and standards.

A3 (70-79%)

An excellent assignment. It has a sharply-focused discussion of high intellectual quality, and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. It critically engages with a range of literature and moves beyond it, using the sources correctly to creatively arrive at independent conclusions. More specifically:

Argument: a focussed and academically convincing academic argument that clearly responds to the assignment question/prompt. This argument is conceptually and theoretically sophisticated, and, as appropriate, thoroughly supported and elaborated through examples and/or empirical material. The argument is grounded in precise and detailed engagement with relevant academic literature, and follows a logical progression to compelling conclusions. Overall, the quality of the argument demonstrates a capacity to work existing literatures and evidence to develop and define new and abstract problems and issues and so advance understanding in the area of enquiry.
Comprehension: demonstrates a precise, generally correct and appropriately detailed understanding of key ideas, concepts and examples which is grounded in, and supported by, an insightful reading of relevant literatures. Engagement with literature moves beyond merely summarising or providing overviews, to present creative and insightful analyses and synthesis.
Writing: prose is precisely and clearly understood by the reader. This prose may convey a distinctive academic “voice”, but always supports persuasive communication in a manner appropriate to the task. The text is logically structured and organised throughout such that the reader can easily follow the progression of argument. The text is mostly free of mistakes of spelling and grammar, permitting idiosyncrasies of expression providing the substance of the argument is clearly articulated. Sources should be thoroughly and precisely attributed, in keeping with accepted academic formats and standards.

B- (60-63%), B (64-66%) and B+ (67-69%)

A good (B- to B) to very good (B to B+) assignment. It has a focussed discussion of above average intellectual quality and maintains a high level of analysis in most of the assignment, albeit with shortcomings in argument. It demonstrates thoughtful, detailed and sometime creative engagement with relevant literature, with some limitations in comprehension. On that basis, it offers distinctive insights that go beyond simply paraphrasing others’ ideas. Assignments may fall into this grade band despite generally excellent performance when there are significant specific problems identified with aspects of the argument, comprehension, or writing.

Argument: generally convincing and focussed academic argument that responds directly to the question/prompt and provides insights, potentially with some limitations in reasoning or articulation. This argument is conceptually and theoretically informed and, as appropriate, supported by examples and empirical material. Such examples and empirical material may be used in a more illustrative fashion, rather than to elaborate or develop the argument, or may be engaged with insufficient depth to fully substantiate the arguments. Conclusions are reasonable and relate to a preceding progression of argument. Overall, the quality of the argument suggests an ambition to work with existing literatures and evidence to conceptualise and define new and abstract problems and issues and so advance understanding in the area of enquiry, although this ambition may be limited or the resulting arguments may read as being somewhat speculative.
Comprehension: demonstrates generally correct and fairly detailed critical understanding of key ideas, concepts and examples which is grounded in, and supported by, a reasonably insightful reading of relevant literatures. There may be some significant misunderstandings or gaps in engagement. There is critical engagement and synthesis of literature in relation to the argument, though some engagement may tend towards the descriptive or lack focus.
Writing: prose can be clearly understood through most of the assignment. Though containing some limitations in terms of clarity, it still conveys the academic argument in a manner appropriate to the task. The text is generally well structured and organised, though there may be some minor difficulties following the progression of argument. Mostly free of mistakes of spelling and grammar, permitting idiosyncrasies of expression providing the substance of the argument is clearly articulated. A generally high standard of referencing in keeping with accepted academic formats and standards, although there may be some errors in this respect.

C- (50-53%) C (54-56%) C+ (57-59%)

A satisfactory (C- to C) to quite good (C to C+) assignment. It has a discussion which clearly and consistently addresses the assignment question/prompt. The argument may be generic, or over-reliant on propositions not suitably developed though, and supported, by the academic literature. The assignment demonstrates reasonable levels of engagement with relevant literature, even if the quality of engagement tends to be overly descriptive or lacking in precision and detail. Assignments may fall into this grade band despite stronger performance on other general criteria when there are significant specific problems such as not addressing the assignment question, using inappropriate source material, or containing frequent incorrect assertions of misunderstandings.

Argument: the argument provides a reasonable response to the assignment question/prompt. It demonstrates some engagement with relevant conceptual and theoretical issues, although the quality of that engagement may be lacking in detail and precision. There is an effort to supported the argument with some examples and empirical material, though this may lack detail and depth sufficient to convincingly substantiate or elaborate the arguments. The argument is grounded in some engagement with relevant academic literature, although the range may be limited and engagement more in the form of descriptive summaries. Alternatively, propositions may be advanced that do not suitably refer to academic literature or evidence and therefore read as speculative. Conclusions will be relevant but may not connect fully to the preceding argument. Overall, he quality of the argument suggests an ambition to work with existing literatures and evidence to conceptualise and define new and abstract problems and issues and so advance understanding in the area of enquiry. Overall, the quality of the argument may be sound but does not suggest an ambition to conceptualise and define new and abstract problems and issues and so advance understanding in the area of enquiry.
Comprehension: demonstrates an adequate level of understanding of key ideas, concepts and examples, grounded in some relevant literature. The range of reading may, however, be quite limited or contain significant amounts of irrelevant material. There is some critical engagement, but this may be lacking in the precision or detail and may tend towards the descriptive rather than interpretive. There may be some important misunderstandings or misrepresentations of key texts.
Writing: The prose communicates an academic argument in a manner appropriate to the task, although there may be passages that suffer from being incoherent, opaque or vague. There may be frequent minor mistakes of spelling and grammar, or the prose may be idiosyncratic to a degree that inhibits the clear articulation of the argument. The assignment will have a discernible structure, but may suffer from poor organisation of the material or a confusing progression between topics. Sources will be appropriately referenced, although there may be some minor errors and omissions, or the format may not be wholly consistent with accepted academic formats and standards.

D- (40-43%) D (44-46%) D+ (47-49%)

A barely passable (D- to D) to passable (D to D+) assignment. It has a discussion which provides a suitable response to the question/prompt, albeit in a manner that may be unconvincing to a significant degree. There is some demonstration of engagement with relevant literature, though of limited quality. Assignments may fall into this grade band despite stronger performance on the main general criteria when there are significant specific problems such as not addressing the assignment question, using inappropriate source material, or containing frequent incorrect assertions of misunderstandings.

Argument: The assignment provides an argument that may be read as responding to the assignment question/prompt. The quality of this argument demonstrates some very limited or speculative engagement with conceptual and theoretical issues suggested. This argument may be supported by, and elaborated through, some examples and empirical material. However, it may be that such examples and empirical material are lacking requisite detail to make them wholly effective as means of developing the argument. Alternatively, the examples and evidence may lack clear relevance to the argument. The argument will be developed in some engagement with relevant academic literature, although the range of literature may be very limited and this engagement may be more in the form of summaries or tend towards the broadly and vaguely descriptive. Alternatively, some propositions may be advanced that do not at all refer to academic literatures or sources of evidence and therefore read as wholly speculative.
Comprehension: demonstrates some understanding of key ideas, concepts and examples, grounded in, and supported by, a limited reading of relevant literature. The understanding may, however, be very approximate, vague and occasionally uncertain, with major misunderstandings or misrepresentations. Alternatively, the assignment may over-rely on sources that are either not particularly relevant to the topic or of a kind that would not support a credible academic argument.
Writing: The assignment is written in prose of a quality that makes it difficult for the reader to discern and appreciate the substance of the argument and discussion. This may because of significant grammatical errors, or prose idiosyncratic to a degree that makes arguments inaccessible. Alternatively, the prose style adopted may be wholly inappropriate to the task. The assignment may lack a clear structure or systematic organisation. Sources should be appropriately referenced, although there may be significant errors and omissions, or major inconsistencies with accepted academic formats and standards.

E (30-39%)

A failing assignment. It is distinguished by a discussion which is at best only vaguely related to the assignment question/prompt or, alternatively, is exceptionally underdeveloped (and may fall well short of the word limit). The assignment may also be seriously lacking in any engagement with relevant academic literature and show little or no evidence of an informed understanding of key concepts and theories. It could be that some ideas and propositions in this assignment have potential academic merit, which would be realised with their being better developed and in reference to the relevant literature.

Argument: The assignment provides an argument that may be fragmentary, incoherent but nonetheless may generously be read as a response to the assignment question/prompt. This argument may be exceptionally limited or speculative suggesting only the most rudimentary familiarity with the conceptual and theoretical issues suggested by the assignment question/prompt. Some examples and empirical material may be provided but their relevance to the argument may be unclear, they may be profoundly lacking in detail and substance, or, alternatively, they elaborated in considerable descriptive detail (and so have some value) but are not clearly pertinent to the assignment question/prompt. The argument assignment may allude to academic literature, but the range of literature may be very limited and the discussion of that literature may be vague, greatly lacking in substance and demonstrating little familiarity with that literature.
Comprehension: The quality of the argument in this assignment may demonstrate a broad and vague familiarity with key ideas, concepts and examples which alludes to a body of academic literature, but there may lack in any suggestion that this familiarity is grounded in, and supported by, a reading of the relevant literature. By extension, discussions of this literature may read as exceptionally imprecise and occasionally wholly inaccurate. Alternatively, the assignment may wholly rely on sources that are either not relevant to the topic or may be of kind that would not support a credible academic argument and may be of dubious or suspect quality.
Writing: The assignment is written in prose of a quality that renders it very difficult for the reader to discern and appreciate the substance of the argument and discussion. This may because there is a profound density of quite fundamental mistakes of grammar that make it very difficult to appreciate points and follow lines of argument, or that the prose is idiosyncratic to a degree that renders these points and lines of argument obscure and inaccessible. Alternatively, the prose style adopted may be wholly inappropriate to the task. The text may be wholly, or almost wholly, lacking in the appropriate attribution of sources. Likewise, the reference list may be exceptionally partial, carelessly presented or missing altogether.

F (20-29%)

An assignment that is either not at all relevant to the assignment question/prompt, or is almost wholly lacking in any academically-informed knowledge of the subject, with little or no awareness of the relevant issues or literature. It may be exceptionally short, fragmentary and written carelessly in a manner that makes any argument quite profoundly confusing and intelligible. Although there may be some suggestion of a familiarity with the existence of an academic literature on the subject, there may be no reference made to that literature and, correspondingly, no sources cited in the text of that assignment.

G (10-19%)

An assignment that falls far short of a passable level by some combination of short length, complete irrelevance, profound lack of intelligibility, and no suggestion of an acquaintance with academic literatures or concepts.

H (0-9%)

An assignment utterly lacking in any academic merit which usually conveys no sense that the course has been followed or of the basic skills of assignment-writing.

Detailed Assessment Criteria

Detailed assessment critera (assessment descriptors) may be developed for specific assessments undertaken on a course. The course Learn site will make it clear which marking descriptors will be used for each assessment.

Taught MSc