Gobbet Marking Criteria (Levels Two and Three)

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

- Knowledge and accuracy

- Engagement with the extract

- Quality of analysis

- Organization and presentation

To obtain a particular class of assessment a response does not have to fulfil all the criteria listed for that class — judgements are formed on the basis of the predominant character of the response — 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 focused and perceptive response which demonstrates an accurate and detailed knowledge of the extract, the source and its context; shows an ability to identify the significance of the extract in a clear and compelling way; displays evidence of independence of thought and critical thinking and where relevant, nuanced command of the historiographical issues under discussion; well written, with a sense of style.

90+

Outstanding work in all aspects that is thoroughly independent, original and insightful; suggests new ways of understanding the extract and its context; makes innovative connections to historiography; writing that has attained the highest professional standards in the discipline.

80-89

Exceptional insight, weight and sophistication and an ability to undertake advanced source criticism with imagination. Highly accurate work, analytically rigorous, demonstrating thoroughly original approaches.

75-79

High level of critical thought. Evidence of a capacity to pursue independent lines of enquiry and to conduct perceptive and scholarly source criticism.

70-74

Shows a clear awareness of salient points and an ability to discuss them analytically and incisively as well as with some creativity. Undoubted quality in source analysis and contextualisation, 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

Provides a clear and accurate discussion of the extract, the source and its context. Identifies and evaluates the significance of the extract; well structured, revealing a clear logic; shows breadth of knowledge and some independent thought, and, where relevant, appreciates the extent to which historiography is contested; well written with few technical errors.

65-69

A direct response to the extract, showing some critical appreciation of its significance and a detailed knowledge of its context. Suggests thoughtfulness, good information and cogent analysis with an awareness of nuance and complexity.

60-64

A relevant response to the extract, adequately assessing its context and significance. Indicates proficiency, coherent and defensible analysis and adequate knowledge but may lack complexity or fluency. 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.

• Lower Second Class

50-59

A relevant response, displaying some understanding of the extract, its context and significance, but may lack accuracy or omit important information. More descriptive than analytical, without the kind of critical reflection characteristic of answers in higher mark bands. Shows some understanding of historiography where this is relevant. Provides a reasonably structured discussion 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 extract showing a reasonable degree of competence according to most criteria, but with weakness in some areas. Demonstrates a knowledge of the extract, its context and its significance, but the analysis may be underdeveloped with one or more key points neglected.

50-54

Demonstrates knowledge of some aspects of the extract, its context and significance but also contains important gaps and inaccuracies, and little attempt to evaluate the status or significance of information. Thin argument with little analytical awareness; few connections to broader themes.

• Third Class

45-49

A partial response to the extract, which makes little sustained attempt to analyse its context or significance, or only does so in a haphazard manner. Contains significant errors of fact or interpretation. Some evidence of structure, but it is likely to be muddled or unclear.

• Pass without Honours

40-44

Signs of some relevant 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 extract. There is no coherent argument. The answer relies on a very limited amount of the relevant material, without any critical reflection of its significance.

30-39

Bare response to the extract. Shows some knowledge of relevant material. Includes failure to address the specific extract; little or no analysis. 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 extract. 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 extract. Only partial response.

0

Indicates work either not submitted or unworthy of marking.