The following guidance applies to Special Subject, Thematic module and HST3000 essays.

Marking Criteria (Level Three)

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, providing clear references to relevant literature and examples; displays evidence of independence of thought and critical thinking; shows an ability to distinguish between different ideas and arguments, 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; significantly pushes the boundaries of existing historiography; suggests major revisions to our understanding of the topic; writing that has attained the highest professional standards in the discipline.

80-89

Exceptional insight, weight and sophistication and an ability to undertake advanced historical study with imagination and tenacity. Highly accurate work, analytically rigorous, demonstrating thoroughly original approaches and developing existing historical work in significant ways.

75-79

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

70-74

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

Provides a coherent and defensible answer to the question set. Well argued and clearly focused, based on wide reading; uses a range of examples to support the argument; well structured, revealing a clear logic; shows breadth of knowledge and some independent thought; weighs up and evaluates different arguments, identifies key issues and, where relevant, appreciates the extent to which historiography is contested. Well written with only a few errors in grammar, syntax or style.

65-69

A direct answer to the question, showing some critical appreciation of its implications and covering a good range of relevant evidence. Suggests thoughtfulness, good information and cogent argument with an awareness of nuance and complexity.

60-64

A relevant response to the question, covering an adequate range of issues. Indicates proficiency, coherent and defensible arguments and adequate examples 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 question set, but may lack sustained focus, have a limited 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. Based on more limited reading; over-reliant on course text or other basic course material. 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 degree of competence according to most criteria, but with weakness in some areas. Understanding is shown of key concepts and knowledge, and a range of supporting evidence is used; may have an insufficiently developed argument with one or more key points neglected.

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. Thin argument with little analytical awareness, backed up by a limited range of examples, and reliant on a small range of reading.

• 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.

• 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 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. Includes 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.