Guidelines for marking programming assignments
Class | Mark | Marking guidelines |
First | 1) Excellent piece of work that could be used as is by a research lab 2) Substantial evidence of originality and flair 3) Excellent appreciation of how to structure experimental and analysis programs 4) Simple, clear and effective documentation | |
Excellent First | 100 | Assignment reaches an exceptional level of achievement that significantly exceeds the standards described by the above statements |
Good First | 90 | Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements |
Solid First | 80 | Assignment is well described by the above statements |
Low First | 75 | Assignment mostly meets the standards described by the above statements |
Upper second | 1) Comprehensive, well-organised and well-implemented piece of work 2) Evidence of originality and flair in places 3) Strong appreciation of how to structure experimental and analysis programs 4) Largely simple, clear and effective documentation with a few minor weaknesses | |
Good 2.1 | 68 | Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a distinction |
Solid 2.1 | 65 | Assignment is well described by the above statements |
Low 2.1 | 62 | Assignment mostly meets the standards described by the above statements |
Lower Second | 1) Basic organisation and implementation with some shortcomings 2) Lacks originality and flair 3) Adequate appreciation of how to structure experimental and analysis programs 4) Documentation is limited and/or contains errors | |
Good 2.2 | 58 | Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a merit |
Solid 2.2 | 55 | Assignment is well described by the above statements |
Low 2.2 | 52 | Assignment mostly meets the standards described by the above statements |
Third | 1) Poor organisation and implementation with many shortcomings 2) Appreciation of how to structure experimental and analysis programs fails to meet acceptable standard 3) Documentation is incomplete and contains many errors | |
Good Third | 48 | Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a pass |
Solid Third | 45 | Assignment is well described by the above statements |
Low Third | 42 | Assignment falls below the standards described by the above statements |
Fail | 1) Very deficient organisation and implementation with many substantial shortcomings 2) Serious and substantial errors in documentation | |
High Marginal Fail | 38 | Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a marginal fail |
Low Marginal Fail | 32 | Assignment is well described by the above statements |
Outright Fail | 10 | Assignment falls below the standards described by the above statements |
Zero Marks | 0 | 1) No code or documentation |
Grade assignment decision rules
Note. If an assignment meets some of the descriptive criteria for a degree class (e.g. 2:1), and some of the descriptive criteria for another degree class (e.g. 2:2), it is at the discretion of the marker where to assign the grade (i.e. somewhere in the 2:1 or 2:2 range).