*OLD* UG Practical and Project Grade Descriptors

Class

Mark

Marking Guidelines

First

An excellent write-up, well written, logical and critical showing appreciation of the major points, and integration with points that go beyond the basic module material (for a practical) or beyond that which might normally be expected to contribute to the introduction (for a project). An outstanding write-up will also show originality and flair. For a project: clear evidence of independence and originality in designing/running/analysing the study.

Excellent First

100

A report that could be submitted for publication, that demonstrates critical awareness of current issues, is concisely written and presents relevant material that would not normally have been anticipated on the basis of the input from the supervision.

Good First

90

A full, organised and critical account of a study that demonstrates comprehensive understanding, with a strong argument in the introduction, and a highly competent results section. The discussion would follow naturally given the initial hypotheses and results.

Solid First

80

Well argued, clear and full account of a study that shows evidence of originality, whether in content or presentation of argument or in statistical treatment of the data.

Low First

75

Well argued and full account, perhaps missing some relevant (but not critical) material. Showing some evidence of originality, whether in empirical content or presentation of data.

Upper Second

Comprehensive, well-organised and accurate report. Evidence both of having understood the issues and of being able to think about them effectively. Evidence of competency in all aspects of data presentation and analysis.

Good 2.1

68

Well-organised and full description of core material, lacking the originality of content or organisation that would qualify for a First class mark.

Solid 2.1

65

Well organised and full account of the study, lacking extra flair.

Low 2.1

62

Relatively full account of the material, falling short in one or more aspect, for example, logical progression, appropriate discussion of the literature, presentation of method or results section, statistical treatment of data or weak discussion.

Lower Second

An adequate report that is mostly satisfactory, but there may be some shortcomings or omissions. Limited in organisation and scope in either the study itself or the write-up. Evidence of limited capabilities in data handling.

Good 2.2

58

Good report, as far as it goes; perhaps overly verbose, introducing irrelevant material, or missing a sufficient amount of details of the relevant literature, methodology, statistical analysis or results to no longer qualify as a comprehensive account.

Solid 2.2

55

Pedestrian account of a selection of a satisfactory study but is otherwise lacking because of some problem with the argument, methodology or statistical treatment.

Low 2.2

52

Satisfactory study (as above) but with clear shortcomings in the presentation of the material.

Third

Incomplete report, sparse information, errors or omissions, poorly organised.

Good Third

48

Incomplete report or failing to understand the main point.

Solid Third

45

Incomplete/confused knowledge of module requirements leading to an inadequate report.

Low Third

42

Very confused and incomplete account of the material.

Fail

A very deficient report. Serious errors and/or omissions.

High Marginal Fail

38

Contains relevant data. However, only provides some evidence of (disorganised) knowledge. Inaccurate with numerous errors and omissions; very poorly organised; irrelevancies; shows little grasp of the issues.

Low Marginal Fail

32

One or two relevant ideas.

Outright Fail

10

No real idea.

Zero Marks

0

No answer, no psychological content.