General Level 1 Essay Marking Criteria

General Essay Marking Criteria (Level 1)

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

- Range of knowledge

- Engagement with the question

- Quality of argument and analysis

- Organization and presentation

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.

• First Class (70+)

A well argued and perceptive response to the question, based on wide reading. Uses a range of examples to support the argument and provides clear references to relevant literature and examples. Weighs up and evaluates different arguments, showing an ability to distinguish between different ideas and arguments, and, where relevant, nuanced command of the historiographical issues under discussion. Well written, with few technical errors and a sense of style. A mark in this range recognises intelligent and thoughtful engagement with the subject, a strong grounding in the topic, and the presentation of a coherent argument with an awareness of nuance and complexity, although not all of these elements need be equally strong.

90+

Outstanding work in all aspects that is thoroughly independent, original and insightful; writing that has attained the highest professional standards in the discipline.

80-89

Exceptional insight, weight and sophistication. Highly accurate work, analytically rigorous, written with a sense of style.

75-79

Evidence of critical and innovative thought. Evidence of a capacity to pursue independent lines of enquiry.

70-74

Shows a clear awareness of the salient points and an ability to discuss them analytically and incisively. Evidence of undoubted quality in the use of secondary sources or evidence, but not sustained across the entire range. Although generally fluent, work in this category may contain occasional stylistic or technical errors.

• Upper Second Class

60-69

A clearly focused answer, well argued and supported by a good understanding of the subject. Based on a good range of reading. Shows breadth of knowledge and some independent thought; weighs up and evaluates different arguments, and, where relevant, appreciates the extent to which historiography is contested. Written in clear accurate prose, well structured and using a range of examples to support the argument. Provides references in line with the history style sheet.

65-69

Well written, with few technical errors. A direct answer to the question, showing an awareness of different arguments and interpretations, and developing a coherent and well-structured discussion.

60-64

A mark in this range will demonstrate a good overall level of competence but will show some weakness in terms of breadth of knowledge, depth, precision, clarity, or style. The answer may neglect some areas of the question, or show some weakness in the prose, or the range of reading.

• Lower Second Class

50-59

A relevant answer to the question, showing a solid but limited engagement with the subject. Attempts to present an argument, but may lack sustained focus, have a limited developed argument or tend towards the assertion of essentially derivative ideas. More descriptive than analytical, without the kind of critical reflection characteristic of answers in higher mark bands. Shows some understanding of strands in historiography where this is relevant. Provides a reasonably structured account but with some signs of confusion; may contain errors of fact or interpretation. The writing lacks fluency and may be clumsy in places.

55-59

A relevant response to the question showing a reasonable level of general competency and knowledge according to most criteria, but with weakness in some areas. Some use of relevant examples and some appreciation of different arguments and interpretations.

50-54

Demonstrates knowledge of some issues relevant to the question, but with significant gaps in coverage, some inaccuracies and little attempt to evaluate the status or significance of information. May indicate an insufficiently developed argument with one or more key points neglected, over- reliance on a few items of reading, weaknesses in the prose, and inadequate referencing.

• Third Class

45-49

A partial response to the question, which makes little sustained attempt to develop a coherent answer to the question or only does so in a haphazard manner. A poorly developed argument, based on very limited reading. The evidence may be misremembered, vague or insufficient to constitute a serious response, containing errors of fact or interpretation. Some evidence of structure, but it is likely to be muddled or unclear. Also includes work that is devoid of referencing or identifiable engagement with course content / relevant evidence.

• Pass without Honours

40-44

Signs of some knowledge but at an elementary level. For the most part confused and poorly expressed. A small element of analysis. Contains significant grammatical and spelling errors.

• Fail (0-39)

Work that displays little or no real understanding of the question. There is no coherent argument. The answer relies on a very limited amount of descriptive material, without any critical reflection of its significance.

30-39

Bare response to the question set. Shows some knowledge of relevant material. A mark in this range may reflect: failure to address the question set; insignificant or no argument. Contains little relevant information, is erroneous in matters of fact and interpretation, and poorly organised. Poorly written with numerous grammatical and spelling errors.

20-29

No meaningful response to the question. Contains no relevant information. Some attempt at analysis, but misconceived and/or incoherent, and has a weak structure.

1-19

No serious attempt to carry out the task assigned. No attempt at analysis. No structure at all. No understanding or knowledge of the topic. Only partial response.

0

Indicates work either not submitted or unworthy of marking.