MA marking criteria

MA marking criteria for reflective essays

These criteria apply to reflective essays for the following modules: HST681 Work Placement; HST6042 Presenting the Past: Making History Public (individual essay only) and HST6089 Wikipedia and Medieval History.

This is a guide to the criteria used by staff in assigning a mark to a piece of work. Broadly speaking, your work is assessed on four criteria:

To obtain a particular class of assessment a piece of work does not have to fulfil all the criteria listed for that class — judgements are formed on the basis of the predominant character of the work — but the guidelines help to show what examiners are looking for in their evaluations. Evidence of strength in some areas may compensate for weaknesses in others.

Distinction

90+

Work marked in this range will demonstrate all of the qualities required for a distinction in the 80-89 range. Work marked in this range will further include  thoroughly independent critical reflections of exceptional sophistication and insight, which demonstrate a deep ability to self-critique and learn, while suggesting major revisions to our understanding of the topic studied. 

80-89

Work marked in this range will demonstrate all of the qualities required for a distinction in the 70-79 range and, in addition, present a profound and nuanced reflection that demonstrates your ability to assess your own assumptions and preconceptions and revise your thinking as a result. It will, where relevant, demonstrate rigorous and original analysis. 

70-79

Work marked at 70 or above should show a highly critical reflection which considers and evaluates your learning experience and, where relevant, integrates it with an effective or even sophisticated knowledge of the wider scholarly literature and primary sources. It should show a clear awareness of how to engage in self-reflection and, in the higher marks, an ability to question biases, stereotypes, preconceptions, approaches, methods, or assumptions, and to revise your thinking as a result. The reflection should be able to offer informed and constructive analysis of the work of others and its relationship to the learning you experienced through participating in the task, and any arguments should be framed with nuance and complexity. Where relevant, primary sources should be deployed carefully and subjected to critical analysis. The prose should be written in fluent, lucid and stylish English, engaging the reader's interest, and presented accurately in line with departmental style.

Merit

60-69

The work demonstrates a clear critical reflection on your personal learning experience. The work is self-aware, founded on a considerable breadth of knowledge, and provides a nuanced reflection on how the experience informs your understanding of yourself, others, and the relevant historical and scholarly material. In the higher reaches of the bracket, you will present a direct reflection that demonstrates an ability to evaluate information and to frame cogent arguments with nuance and some complexity, although this may be absent in the lower marks. The prose should be coherent and effective for the task set and should show some developing sense of style; the organization of the work should be clear and effective; the technical presentation should be mostly accurate.

Pass

50-59

The work shows some ability to reflect on your learning experience, but a limited one that does not demonstrate depth of analysis or understanding. Ultimately more descriptive of the experience than analytical, it lacks a sustained focus. Understanding is shown of key issues, but this is insufficiently developed or supported, with the discussion more narrowly directed or lacking in the coherence or clarity expected of a Merit mark. Shows some understanding of the different strands of scholarship, yet is limited in its breadth of knowledge; is based on more limited or partly tangential reading, or over-reliant on basic course materials. The prose is clear, yet lacks fluency and may contain awkward or incoherent formulations; there may be inaccuracies in the organization and technical presentation of work.

Fail

40-49

The work fails to demonstrate a reflection on your learning experience, or contains scant reference to it. It may not refer to your experience at all or, where it does, relies on description and is haphazard in execution and lacks nuance. Fails to engage with scholarship and, where relevant, offers little or no critical discussion of primary source material. The work contains some evidence of organization and structure, but lacks coherence or clarity; based on very limited or tangential reading, or is entirely reliant on basic course materials; contains repeated grammatical and spelling errors and weaknesses in presentation.

30-39

Contains very little or no relevant information, and any relevant reflection is haphazardly organised and focussed on description, rather than being subjected to critical analysis. The work is erroneous in matters of fact and interpretation; poorly written with numerous errors; very poorly organised.

1-29

No serious attempt to carry out the task assigned. No attempt at analysis or reflection. Little understanding or knowledge of the topic at hand.

0

Indicates work either not submitted or unworthy of marking.