POLIS Assessment Criteria-2

7/25/2019 POLIS Assessment Criteria-2

1/21

School Assessment Criteria / Marking Scheme Undergraduate


2/21

a Marking Criteria for Assessed Essays and Examinations at Level 1

Guidelines for marking assessed essays at level 1 are given to Teaching Assistants andare published in the level 1 handbook for students.

In line with all other University Departments !evel 1 assessed essays and e"aminationscripts in this #chool are marked according to !evel 1 teaching ob$ectives rather than!evel %&' (degree) ob$ectives. This means that markers are looking for thecomprehension of taught materials and an understanding of basics as a preparation for progression into !evel %. #tudents are not therefore penalised if they do not display tothe same e"tent the kind of critical evaluative powers that would be e"pected at !evels%&'. The marking scale (*+,pass -+,e"cellent) remains the same as the table of numbers but marks awarded for assessment should not be regarded as indicating adegree classification.


3/21

Marking ands for level 1 assessed essays

To be placed in a given class work need not have all the re uired characteristics./owever work with some of the characteristics of a given class will not necessarily belocated in that class. 0ork on the margins of a class may drop to the class below if marred by poor presentation or referencing.

!"#$%"# This mark would be given to an outstanding piece of level 1 work. 0orkshows a well developed and critical understanding of concepts and theorieswith an e"cellent appreciation of competing arguments. The piece of workshows an ability to evaluate comple" concepts and ideas. A fluent logicalcoherent essay cogently structured and organised with a relationshipapparent between the stages of the argument leading to an analyticalconclusion. Detail to be clearly related to the argument. It should representan in depth answer to the uestion with the answer located within a broader framework&conte"t. It should show a considerable awareness of the relevantliterature with a strong commitment to scholarly work in evidence includingno deficiencies in referencing and bibliography. There should beconsiderable powers of synthesis.

&"# $&%# 0ork placed in this band would show signs of e"cellence. 0ork showsdeveloped understanding of concepts and theories competent selectioninterpretation and analysis of evidence and a substantial attempt to relate thisto theory. There should be the ability to evaluate arguments using evidence.#ome attempt at critical evaluation should be apparent. A clear discussionwell structured around the theme of the answer showing a well developedline of argument. The answer should be either broad or in depth reflectingconsiderable reading and awareness of differences between te"ts&authorsand criticisms of them. Detailed analysis of relevant material. A clear andconcise conclusion&introduction written with fluency. 2vidence of commitmentto the scholarly approach with no deficiencies in bibliography and referencing.

'"# $ '%# This would represent a very good mark for a !evel 1 piece of work. 0orkshows a sound understanding of relevant concepts and an ability to interpretand analyse evidence. The writer should be able to compare and&or identifysome strengths and weaknesses in available sources a reasonable numberof which have been consulted. Accurate recitation of authors&te"ts someevaluation attempted. There is a clear overall structure to the essay and it

contains no serious errors (in content or structure). There may be somedescriptive passages but these should be relevant accurate and concise. Aclear introduction and conclusion written with some fluency. 3inordeficiencies in bibliography and reference may be evident.

("# $ (%# This would represent a good piece of work. A generally sound and accurateunderstanding of concepts and evidence. A basic attempt to organisematerial. At times the te"t may lack structure but generally the essay iswritten in a clear and appropriate manner. #ome may tend to focus ondescription but the areas covered will be relevant to answering the uestion.

Any limited attempt at evaluation of ideas&concepts&empirical material will be

rewarded. There is evidence of some breadth of reading (i.e. three to four


4/21

sources) and an attempt to reference authors and construct a bibliography inan accurate and academic manner.

)"# $ )%# This would be a satisfactory piece of work but would show limited partlyinaccurate understanding and representation of relevant material. Answers inthis band may contain some minor mistakes or the odd ma$or mistake.

Answers in this band may be inclined to provide simplistic descriptions or maybe poorly linked to the literature. 4oor structure presentation or lack of claritydue to poor use of 2nglish may drag an otherwise good answer down into thisband. A good answer which might have been in one of the bands above butwhich is inade uately referenced may be put into this band. A mark of *5*'6 indicates the need for serious improvement.

*he +ass mark is )"#

,($,%# This mark indicates a fail. !ittle relevant knowledge7 poorly organiseddiscussion that fails to ade uately address the uestion7 no ade uatereasoned conclusion. #ome relevant descriptive material but a tendency forrepetition digression or 8waffle87 tendency to incoherence with weakstructure absence of logical development of argument7 also perhapsevidence of some confusion ma$or mistakes or poor written 2nglish. !ittle or no reference to literature. Generally the essay functions at a low level interms of understanding the uestion and how to answer it. /owever therehas to be enough of an answer to the uestion to distinguish this from theband below. 3a$or inade uacies or omissions in referencing andbibliography.

-"$,)# This is a bad fail. !ittle or no relevant knowledge little or no reference toliterature7 an incoherent essay very disorganised with material irrelevant touestion. #hows very limited or non e"istent understanding of the uestionand how to answer it. Inappropriately brief answers may be placed in thisband.


5/21

c Marking ands for level 1 examinations

!"#$%"# This would be an outstanding e"am answer for level 1. A well focused answer that e"hibits critical engagement with a range of relevant concepts andtheories. The answer has an e"cellent structure and presents a logicalargument coherently. An e"tensive range of appropriate sources and&or dataare referred to and competently compared and evaluated in the script.

&"$&%# 0ork placed in this band shows signs of e"cellence. Again a well focusedanswer that e"hibits engagement with the uestion and a range of relevantconcepts and theories. The answer has a very clear and coherent overallstructure and tackles the uestion in a highly competent and comprehensivemanner. A good range of sources and&or data are cited and evaluated in theanswer.

'"$'%# This would be a very good level 1 e"am answer. It would clearly engage ande"hibit some ability to interpret concepts theories and data as appropriate tothe uestion. A well structured e"am answer with a clear structure that showsevidence and understanding of relevant cited authors and or data. Theanswer may include some descriptive elements but these will be relevant tothe uestion.

("$(%# This would represent a good e"am answer at level 1. A competent answer that reflects ade uate knowledge relevant to the uestion posed. 9asicconcepts and theories will be described. 5n occasions descriptions or

e"planations may not be clearly linked to the uestion but the answer willdisplay some evidence of relevant knowledge. An attempt to structure theanswer is evident but some inade uacies in organisation may be apparent. Inorder to attain a mark of ::6, it is e"pected that candidates include somelimited citation of key authors and&or sources of data.

)"$)%# A satisfactory answer that may show limited and&or inaccurate understandingand representation of relevant concepts and theories. Typically answers inthis band would be poorly structured and limited to simplistic description.They may include some minor mistakes or the odd ma$or mistake. 4oor presentation or poor use of written 2nglish affecting clarity may be evident.

;o reference to relevant sources within the answer.

*he +ass mark is )"#

,($,%# This would be a fail. The answer would show little knowledge relevant to theuestion posed. There may be a tendency for repetition digression or waffle.

A weak structure with an absence of a developed argument. 2vidence of confusion ma$or mistakes or poor use of written 2nglish. ;o reference torelevant sources within the answer.


6/21


7/21

- Level -


8/21


9/21

Marking .ands for Level - Examinations

!"#$%"# 5utstanding work. A rigorous argument is presented. There is detailed ande"tensive engagement with the relevant material. #igns of originality could bepresent. The structure is almost flawless.

&"$&%# 2"cellent work showing a clear command and understanding of the issues. Accurate recall of material pertinent to the set uestions. Answersdemonstrate a thorough preparation of the chosen topic and the ability of thecandidate to demonstrate an independent mind. In particular the candidatehas managed to avoid standard (e.g. te"tbook) repetition and instead drawsupon material from other sources.

'"$'%# There is evidence of a precise recall of material. The answer is clearly

structured and there is also evidence of a logical argument that is clear andconcise. The candidate has managed to avoid using irrelevant material bycarefully preparing for the sub$ect beforehand. There is some indication of standard repetition although this is combined with other sources.

("$(%# The candidate demonstrates a capability of answering the uestion in a clear and coherent manner. /owever the candidate also draws too heavily uponstandard summaries for the main point. Thus there is a lack of breadth of reference to other sources.

)"$)%# The candidate relies in the main upon standard summaries and this iscombined with a misunderstanding of aspects of the uestion.


10/21


11/21

c Marking .ands for Level - Assessed Essays

!"#$%"# 5utstanding work that demonstrates independent scholarship. The candidatehas used a wide variety sources and presents an imaginative and innovativeargument. #igns of originality could be present. The structure is almostflawless.

&"$&%# 2"cellent work. A clear command and understanding of the issues can benoted along with independent thinking. The essay contains a wealth of relevant information and demonstrates wide reading of appropriate literature.

'"$'%# 0ork showing evidence of a good knowledge and understanding of thematerial put together in a way which is for the most part clearly arguedwell written and relevant to the task set. Answers are thoroughly competent

and accurate even if they may contain repetition of standard summaries of ideas as found in te"tbooks.

("$(%# 0ork which is competent and broadly relevant but somewhat lacking infocus organisation or breadth of reference. !ack of structure obstructs theargument presented and the candidate seems to have misunderstoodaspects of the essay uestion. 5ne or more of the main sources may havebeen overlooked and there may be over reliance on one or two items in theliterature.

)"$)%# 0ork showing some knowledge of the material but having seriousshortcomings. Insufficient knowledge and&or understanding of the material isevident. The essay may be too short and relies almost e"clusively upon apoor summary of standard accounts as found for e"ample in te"tbooks. Thecandidate may have missed significant aspects of the uestion but thereshould be sufficient use of little knowledge to address basic issues. Therecould be poor presentation organi@ation of material poor referencing andstyle.

ass mark is )"

0ail ,)$,%# This mark indicates a fail. !ittle relevant knowledge7 poorly organiseddiscussion that fails to ade uately address the uestion7 no ade uatereasoned conclusion. #ome relevant descriptive material but a tendency for repetition digression or 8waffle87 tendency to incoherence with weakstructure absence of logical development of argument7 also perhapsevidence of some confusion ma$or mistakes or poor written 2nglish. Thereis likely to be little reference to literature. Generally the essay functions at alow level in terms of understanding the uestion and how to answer it. 3a$or inade uacies or omissions in referencing and bibliography. /owever therehas to be enough of an answer to the uestion to distinguish this from theband below.


12/21

-"$,)# This is a bad


13/21

, Level ,


14/21

a Marking Criteria for Assessment Essays and Examinations Level ,

To be placed in a given class work need not have all the re uired characteristics./owever work with some of the characteristics of a given class will not necessarily belocated in that class. 0ork on the margins of a class may drop to the class below if marred by poor presentation or referencing.


15/21

Marking .ands for Level , Examinations

!"#$%"# 5utstanding work that demonstrates independent scholarship. The candidatehas used a wide variety sources in a thoroughly original manner. Thus thecandidate goes beyond an accurate recall of information to present animaginative and innovative argument. The structure is almost faultless andrecall of arguments nearly reaches a postgraduate level.

&"$&%# 2"cellent to outstanding work showing a breadth of knowledge clear command and understanding of the issues. 2vidence of independent thinkingand accurate recall of material pertinent to the set uestions. Answers whilenot necessarily long are nevertheless well structured and demonstrate athorough preparation of the chosen topic.


16/21

candidate has stopped short of providing a clear understanding of theuestion.

-"$,)# 0ork which shows a thorough lack of clarity and understanding. 0ork isincompetently presented and largely disorganised. Inaccurate recall of information may also be present.


17/21

c Marking .ands for Level , Assessed Essays

!"#$%"# 5utstanding work that demonstrates independent scholarship. The candidatehas used a wide variety sources in often with a degree of originality andpresents an imaginative and innovative argument that demonstrates ane"cellent grasp and deployment of relevant concepts and theories. Thestructure is almost faultless and recall of arguments nearly reaches apostgraduate level.

&"$&%# 0ork shows well developed understanding of concepts and theories with anappreciation of competing arguments. #ophisticated selection interpretationand analysis of evidence and a high level ability to relate this to theory. Thereshould be a well developed evaluation of various arguments. A fluent logicalcoherent essay cogently structured and organised with a relationshipapparent between the stages of the argument leading to an analytical

conclusion. Detail to be clearly related to the argument. It should representan in depth answer to the uestion with the answer located within a broader framework&conte"t. It should show a considerable awareness of the relevantliterature with a strong commitment to scholarly work in evidence. Thereshould be considerable powers of synthesis.

'"$'%# 0ork shows developed understanding of concepts and theories competentselection interpretation and analysis of evidence and a reasonable attempt torelate this to theory. There should be the ability to evaluate arguments usingevidence. A clear discussion well structured around the theme of the answershowing a well developed line of argument. The answer should be broad or

in depth reflecting considerable reading and awareness of differencesbetween te"ts&authors and criticisms of them. Detailed material generallyconnected well with the whole.

("$(%# 0ork shows a sound understanding of relevant concepts if generalised or uneven at times7 ability to interpret and analyse evidence. The writer shouldbe able to compare&identify some strengths and weaknesses in availablesources a reasonable number of which have been consulted. Accuraterecitation of authors&te"ts some evaluation attempted. There is a clear overallstructure to the essay if poorly co ordinated at times. #ome descriptivepassages but these are accurate and precise. #ome attempt to tackle theorybut at a rather more basic level than for an upper second. A conciseconclusion written with some fluency.

)"$)%# 0ork shows limited partly inaccurate understanding and representation of relevant material C some material of tenuous relevance. #ome interpretationof evidence and occasional critical points. 9asic attempt to organise material.!imited use of sources7 essay is poorly linked to literature7 contains somemistakes. Inclined to simplistic descriptions7 little on more conceptual areas.2ssay may be marred by poor structure or presentation inade uatebibliography or weak written 2nglish. There is some if limited understandingof the uestion and awareness of relevant authors&te"ts on the basis of whichsome sort of conclusion is reached.


18/21

ass mark is )"

0ail ,)$,%# This mark indicates a fail. !ittle relevant knowledge7 poorly organised

discussion that fails to ade uately address the uestion7 no ade uatereasoned conclusion. #ome relevant descriptive material but a tendency for repetition digression or 8waffle87 tendency to incoherence with weakstructure absence of logical development of argument7 also perhapsevidence of some confusion ma$or mistakes or poor written 2nglish. Thereis likely to be little reference to literature. Generally the essay functions at alow level in terms of understanding the uestion and how to answer it. 3a$or inade uacies or omissions in referencing and bibliography. /owever therehas to be enough of an answer to the uestion to distinguish this from theband below.

-"$,)# This is a bad fail. !ittle or no relevant knowledge little or no reference toliterature7 an incoherent essay very disorganised with material irrelevant touestion. #hows very limited or non e"istent understanding of the uestionand how to answer it. Inappropriately brief answers may be placed in thisband.


19/21


20/21

0ail ,)$,%# This mark indicates a fail. The dissertation shows little relevantknowledge or systematic research7 no clear research uestion and a poorlyorganised discussion that fails to ade uately address the uestion7 noade uate reasoned conclusion. #ome relevant descriptive material but atendency for repetition digression or 8waffle87 tendency to incoherence withweak structure absence of logical development of argument7 also perhapsevidence of some confusion ma$or mistakes or poor written 2nglish. Thereis likely to be little reference to literature.

-"$,)# This is a bad


21/21

)"$)%# 0ork shows limited partly inaccurate understanding and representation of relevant material C some material of tenuous relevance. #ome interpretationof evidence and occasional critical points will be evident. There should be abasic attempt to organise material into a coherent poster but the visual

presentation may be poor. Answers to uestioning on the poster shoulddemonstrate familiarity with the literature although they will be descriptive.

ass mark is )"

0ail ,)$,%# This mark indicates a fail. !ittle relevant knowledge7 poorly organisedpresentation. 3a$or inade uacies or omissions in the use of sources andreferences. isual presentation will be poor and responses to uestioning willdisplay little knowledge. /owever the poster suggests sufficient knowledge of the topic to distinguish this from the band below.

-"$,)# This is a bad fail. !ittle or no relevant knowledge little or no reference toliterature7 a disorganised poster using irrelevant material. The visualpresentation will be poor. There is no evidence of independent thinking andsparse use of relevant sources. Answers to uestioning on the poster showvery limited or non e"istent understanding.

Marking Criteria for *utorial artici+ation Su missions All Levels

eekly tutorial +artici+ation su missions 2ill e marked +ass or fail

In order to achieve a pass :++ words weekly submissions must adhere to the followingcriteria

1 relevant to the tutorial topic% 9e written in the studentEs own words' ;ot e"ceed the word length* Include a bibliography: Indentify strengths and weaknesses in any argumentF Identify at least one issue suitable for tutorial discussion.

POLIS Assessment Criteria-2

Documents

Transcript of POLIS Assessment Criteria-2