MSci 3rd yr Marking Criteria - Abstract
- Sally Quinn
Class | Mark | Marking guidelines |
First | 1) Excellent abstract – concisely written with focus on clearly explaining the most important and relevant details. 2) Logical structure, with all key areas coherently covered and smoothly linked (making the abstract easy to read and follow) 3) Clear, critical and sophisticated understanding of how the project and findings relate to previous work (going beyond key papers provided) 4) Findings clearly explained and supported with accurate statistics 5) Insightful, critical interpretation of findings with clear answer to research question provided | |
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) Good abstract – most writing is concise, with the majority of focus on clear explanations of the most important and relevant details. 2) Logical structure, with all key areas covered with the majority smoothly linked (making the abstract fairly easy to read and follow) 3) Clear understanding of how the project and findings relate to previous work, with some evidence of critical thought 4) Findings clearly explained and supported with statistics that are mainly accurate, but may contain small errors 5) Interpretation of findings shows some evidence of critical thought with a good attempt to provide a clear answer to the main research question | |
Good 2.1 | 68 | Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a first class mark |
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) Adequate abstract – some of the writing is concise, with both relevant and irrelevant details included 2) Logical structure, with most of the key areas covered, but some may not be smoothly linked (making the abstract challenging to read and follow in places) 3) Some understanding of how the project and findings relate to previous work, but with limited evidence of critical thought 4) Explanation of findings is somewhat clear but may be supported with statistics that may contain more significant errors 5) Interpretation of findings shows limited evidence of critical thought with attempts to provide an answer to the main research question may lack clarity | |
Good 2.2 | 58 | Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for an upper second class mark |
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) Inadequate abstract – writing lacks conciseness, with only some relevant and important details included 2) Logical structure lacking in places, with only some of the key areas covered. Issues may be poorly linked (making the abstract difficult to read and follow) 3) Limited understanding of how the project and findings relate to previous work. 4) Explanation of findings lack clarity and may lack statistical support or be supported with statistics that may contain substantial errors 5) Interpretation of findings shows very little evidence of critical thought with no clear answer provided to the main research question | |
Good Third | 48 | Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a second class mark |
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) Poor abstract – inconcise writing, with only a few relevant details included 2) Logical structure lacking, with only a few of the key areas covered. Linkages between issues may be missing (making the abstract extremely difficult to read and follow) 3) No evidence of understanding of how the project and findings relate to previous work. 4) Explanation of findings incoherent and supported by no statistics or largely inappropriate ones. 5) No attempt to interpret findings or provide an answer to the main research question | |
High Marginal Fail | 38 | Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a pass mark |
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 psychology-related content. |