Public History Marking Criteria

The Public History marking criteria apply to public history assessments for HST21015 The Uses of History and HST31040 Making History Public.

First Class (70+)

A submission that demonstrates an excellent grasp of the issues involved in communicating historical material to non-specialists in a manner that does justice to evidence and analysis, within the constraints of the chosen format. Content is accurate, informative and well-selected, and the historical evidence and/or analysis on which it is based is secure, with an appreciation of effective techniques for conveying information, concepts and ideas. Shows a clear understanding of the intended audience(s) and a strong awareness of how to present history in an informed, creative and perceptive way. Demonstrates awareness of an appropriate tone, structure and format and how these correspond to the  intended audience(s). Presented to a high standard. 

90+

Outstanding work in all respects that is thoroughly independent, original and insightful. Immaculately presented; showing exceptional sophistication and insight in how historical content is presented to the intended audience(s). Attains the highest standards of technical or professional knowledge of the chosen format.

80-89

Original and distinctive work that demonstrates exceptional insight and sophistication. Content is highly accurately presented, demonstrating imagination, and a detailed and comprehensive awareness of how to reach the intended audience. Has a very strong sense of the distinctive ‘target market’, and how to select and tailor materials accordingly. Shows an outstanding level of technical or professional knowledge of the chosen format.

75-79

Shows a nuanced understanding of how to present historical material to the intended audience(s), with very clear and precise awareness of how to select and tailor material for that purpose. Demonstrates innovation and creativity, grappling effectively with both practical and conceptual issues or challenges. Presented to a very high standard.

70-74

Shows a clear awareness of the issues involved in communicating historical material to non-specialists. Demonstrates undoubted quality in concept and/or execution, but not sustained throughout. Although generally well presented, work in this category may contain occasional stylistic or technical errors.

Upper Second Class

60-69

A submission that explores public history in a coherent way, demonstrating  good awareness of effective methods and techniques for conveying information, concepts and ideas. Historical content is effectively analysed or communicated and its appropriateness to the audience is clear. The candidate shows a clear awareness of the issues involved in communicating historical material to non-specialists in a manner that does justice to evidence and analysis, within the constraints of the chosen format. There is an awareness of tone and structure appropriate to the intended audience(s). The work is well-designed and presented, with only a few stylistic or technical errors.

65-69

A clearly conceived submission, demonstrating some critical awareness of the challenges of presenting history to a non-academic audience. Suggests some thoughtfulness, and good awareness of content appropriate to the intended audience(s). Demonstrates some creativity and/or nuance in the execution.

60-64

A competent submission, which covers an adequate range of material. Proficient and reasonably presented, but may lack complexity or fluency in execution. A mark in this range will demonstrate a good overall level of competence but will show some weakness in terms of clarity, understanding, appropriateness to audience(s), accuracy, or style.

Lower Second Class

50-59

A submission that displays some understanding of the concept, project or output, but may lack a clear focus, or be poorly structured and presented. Submissions at this level display some understanding of the relevant history, but may show signs of confusion and/or contain errors of fact or interpretation. The candidate shows limited awareness of the issues involved in communicating history to non-specialists in a manner that does justice to evidence and analysis. The structure may be unclear or difficult to follow. Materials may be clumsy or poorly presented, with technical and stylistic errors.

55-59

Shows a reasonable degree of competence according to most criteria, but with weakness in some areas. Some understanding is shown of the intended audience(s), and the historical content is broadly relevant. However, the underlying evidence or analysis may be insufficiently developed, with one or more key points neglected or misrepresented.

50-54

Demonstrates understanding of some relevant issues, but with significant gaps in coverage and/or inaccuracies. The historical content is thin. It shows little analytical awareness, and is reliant on limited evidence and examples. The understanding of appropriateness for the specified audience(s) may be incorrect or misconceived.

Third Class

45-49

A partial submission that makes little sustained attempt at the assigned task, or does so only in a haphazard manner. The historical content is poorly developed, irrelevant, or shows limited understanding. The underlying evidence may be misremembered or vague, or contain serious errors or fact or interpretation. The submission shows very little awareness of the issues involved in communicating history to non-specialists in a manner that does justice to evidence and analysis. Materials may be muddled, lacking structure or poorly presented, with technical and stylistic errors.

Pass without Honours

40-44

A submission that makes some attempt at the assigned task, but at an elementary level. For the most part confused and poorly expressed and presented. Very little sense of relevant historical content, and no real awareness of the issues involved in communicating history to non-specialists in a manner that does justice to evidence and analysis. Demonstrates at most a rudimentary grasp of the conventions in presenting visual, digital or oral materials. Lacking structure; contains significant technical and stylistic errors.

Fail (0-39)

Work that displays little or no real understanding of the assignment. The submission relies on a very limited amount of material, without any critical sense of its significance or appropriateness.

30-39

Bare response to the assignment. Shows some knowledge of relevant material. Failure to demonstrate knowledge of how to communicate in a way that is appropriate to the audience(s). Contains little relevant information, is erroneous in matters of fact and interpretation, and is badly organised. Poorly written with numerous grammatical and spelling errors.

20-29

No meaningful response to the assignment, containing little or no relevant information. Some attempt to engage with the assigned task, but misconceived and/or incoherent, and lacks structure.

1-19

No serious attempt to carry out the task assigned. No structure at all. No understanding or knowledge of the historical content, or its appropriateness to any audience. Only partial submission.

0

Indicates work either not submitted or unworthy of marking.