MSc/MSci (4th yr) Marking Criteria: Practical Reports and Projects

Criteria for marking reports/projects

All of the criteria below should be considered in relation to the requirements of a 60 credit Masters-level project. The project scope should be appropriate for this level. The project scope includes the effort and complexity of all parts of the project, and could be evident in the creation of testing materials, the amount or type of data collection or the analysis techniques employed.

Class	Mark	Marking guidelines
Distinction		Narrative, rationale and hypotheses are logical and exceptionally well communicated Description of methods and design are well-structured and comprehensive and would allow for replication Analyses use suitable techniques and results are reported clearly, in appropriate detail Excellent integration of appropriate evidence to support claims Strong evidence of original critical reflection and an analytical approach
Excellent Distinction	100	Assignment reaches an exceptional level of achievement that significantly exceeds the standards described by the above statements
Good Distinction	90	Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements
Solid Distinction	80	Assignment is well described by the above statements
Low Distinction	75	Assignment mostly meets the standards described by the above statements
Merit		Narrative, rationale and hypotheses are logical and coherent Description of methods and design are comprehensive and would allow for replication Analyses use suitable techniques, but may have minor errors in their reporting of results Good integration of appropriate evidence to support claims Good evidence of original critical reflection and an analytical approach
Good Merit	68	Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a first class mark
Solid Merit	65	Assignment is well described by the above statements
Low Merit	62	Assignment mostly meets the standards described by the above statements
Pass		Broadly logical and coherent narrative, rationale and hypotheses, but showing signs of structure breaking down Description of methods and design contain key details but miss some important aspects; only partial replication would be possible Analyses use suitable techniques but with some significant errors in their application and/or reporting of results Appropriate evidence used to support claims, but patchy in places Limited evidence of original critical reflection and an analytical approach
Good pass	58	Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for an upper second class mark
Solid pass	55	Assignment is well described by the above statements
Low pass	52	Assignment mostly meets the standards described by the above statements
Marginal Fail		Narrative, rationale and hypotheses suffer from illogical or incoherent passages Description of methods and design miss a number of important aspects; would not allow for replication Analyses use suitable techniques but with some substantial errors in their application and/or reporting of results Some appropriate evidence used to support claims, but missing in several places Weak evidence of original critical reflection or an analytical approach
Good marginal fail	48	Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a second class mark
Solid marginal fail	45	Assignment is well described by the above statements
Low marginal fail	42	Assignment falls below the standards described by the above statements
Fail		Minimally logical hypotheses and rationale, and an incoherent narrative Methods and design are poorly described Analyses are omitted or largely inappropriate Material is almost entirely irrelevant to the topic
High Fail	38	Assignment exceeds the standards described by the above statements but does not meet the standards for a pass mark
Low 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	No psychology-related content.