General Criterion Referencing Scheme

When marking the assignments we use a general criterion referencing schemes as a guide to the sorts of things we are looking for in an assignment of a particular standard.

These should be used in conjunction with the specific criteria given with each assignment.

Returned work will be graded using this 15 point University-wide scale.

Grades 13-15 equate to a First Class degree

Grades 10-12 equate to an Upper Second Class degree

Grades 7-9 equate to a Lower Second Class degree

Grades 4-6 equate to a Third Class degree

Grades < 4 are a fail

 Academic quality criteria [Each set of criteria includes the qualities of that preceding it]

   Grade Point
Assignment as complete as could be asked for within the constraints applied. 
Evidence of achievement of high level objectives. Evidence of ‘flair’.
15
High quality work, but with minor defects having limited impact on quality. Ability to  consider conflicting arguments and present a considered and well-argued opinion. Insight. Use of sources appropriate to level and task, with full referencing where appropriate.
14
High quality, factually accurate grasp of high order concepts. Key content present with relevant peripheral facts included and well related to core. Use of relevant sources indicated. 
High standard of discussion in practical reports.
13
Major factual content included and understood. Reasoned argument and sequencing. Peripheral facts mentioned, though not necessarily well incorporated into concepts. In Practical report ‘methods’ incorporate modifications used. Discussion shows relationship to theory.
12

11
Major facts clearly known, though peripheral and supporting information may be absent or poorly understood. The material presented forms a logical progression.
10
Work of moderate quality showing evidence of understanding of basic concepts, though some errors and omissions with respect to central information.
9
Lacking depth, with no extension into peripheral areas. Structure is broadly appropriate. Methods in Practical reports limited to that of schedule. Discussion present but limited to own results. 
8

7
Many minor errors in central information, though with key 
concepts given or alluded to. Evidence of weak understanding. Lack of structure and sequence. Often merely descriptive
6

5
Some evidence of understanding but with confused structure.
Major factual information omitted or incorrect. Little evidence of concept formation. In Practical reports Discussion is mere re-iteration of Results.
4
Compensatable fail
Some facts provided but are scant, anecdotal, confused or poorly expressed. Little coherence or appropriate structure present to indicate understanding of the fundamental concepts. 
3

2
Non-compensatable fail 
Many major errors of fact. Much necessary material omitted. 
No coherence and little/no evidence of understanding. Structure is inappropriate or missing.
1
Non-submission, or attempted wrong question or provided no relevant content.
0


 

Published by Dr Kevin Reiling