Reflective Writing Marking Criteria (Undergraduate)

First Class (70+)

A critical reflection which draws on the author’s personal learning experience, and, where relevant, integrates it with nuanced knowledge of the wider literature. The reflection displays evidence of independence of thought and critical thinking, and goes beyond description of experience to an analysis of how the experience informs the candidate’s understanding of themself, others, and/or the relevant historical material. Well written, with a sense of style.

90+

Outstanding work in all aspects with reflection and analysis that are thoroughly independent, original and insightful. Flawlessly presented and showing exceptional sophistication and insight. An outstandingly critical reflection that draws on the author’s personal learning experience to demonstrate deep ability to self-critique and learn and, where relevant, integrates the discussion with the wider literature to suggest major revisions to our understanding.

The work’s structure and writing has attained the highest professional standards in the discipline.

80-89

An exceptionally critical and insightful reflection that draws on the author’s personal learning experience, and integrates it with a sophisticated command of the relevant wider literature to develop our understanding in significant and imaginative ways. The reflection is profound, self-aware and nuanced, and the analysis is innovative, rigorous and thoroughly original. The reflection demonstrates the ability of the candidate to question their own biases, stereotypes, preconceptions, approaches, methods or assumptions, and to revise their thinking as a result.

Highly accurate work in technical terms.

75-79

A highly critical and innovative reflection that draws on the author’s personal learning experience, and, where relevant, effectively integrates it with a sophisticated knowledge of the relevant wider literature. The reflection demonstrates the ability to question biases, stereotypes and preconceptions.

70-74

A critical reflection that draws on the author’s personal learning experience and shows a clear awareness of how to engage in self-reflection, making effective use of the relevant wider literature. Undoubted quality in the analysis or reflection, 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 critical reflection that draws on the author’s personal learning experience, and integrates it with a reasonable knowledge of the relevant wider literature.

The reflection is self-aware and nuanced, and the analysis is coherent and logical, showing breadth of knowledge and a degree of independent thought. The reflection shows some understanding of how the experience might inform the candidate’s understanding of themselves, others, and/or the relevant historical material.

Well written and structured with only a few errors in grammar, syntax or style.

65-69

A clear and direct reflection. Well structured, showing thoughtfulness and an awareness of nuance and complexity in places. Demonstrates some meaningful reflection on aspects of the author’s experience.

60-64

A relevant reflection, showing evidence of some self-awareness, although the discussion may show weakness in terms of range, depth, precision, clarity or style.

Pass

Lower Second Class (50-59)

A reflection that draws on the author’s personal learning experience, showing some limited knowledge of the relevant wider literature. The author makes attempts at self-reflection and to apply their learning experience to the understanding of themselves, others, and/or the relevant historical material, but does not demonstrate depth of analysis or understanding. A reasonably structured account but with some signs of confusion; may contain errors or fact or understanding. The writing lacks fluency and may be clumsy in places.

55-59

A relevant discussion, displaying some attempt at self-reflection, but may tend toward description of experience rather than analysis. Some understanding is shown of key issues, but the discussion may be directed more narrowly, or more inappropriately, compared with candidates whose work is marked in the 60-69 range.

50-54

Demonstrates limited attempts at self-reflection, but is largely restricted to description of experience.

Third Class (45-49)

A partial attempt at analysis, which makes little sustained attempt at self-reflection or only does so in a haphazard manner. A poorly developed discussion, showing limited wider reading. The reflection is descriptive and lacks nuance, and the analysis is neither coherent nor fully logical. The points may be misremembered, vague or insufficient to constitute a serious response, containing errors of fact or interpretation. Does not move beyond description of the learning experience. Some evidence of structure, but it is likely to be muddled or unclear.

Pass without Honours (40-44)

Signs of some relevant discussion, 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 assignment. There is no coherent structure.

Little reference to the author’s personal learning experience, without any critical reflection.

30-39

Bare response to the assignment. May show some knowledge of relevant approaches. The response relies on a limited amount of description of the author’s learning experience, without any critical reflection of its significance. Poorly written and structured with numerous grammatical and spelling errors.

20-29

No meaningful response to the assignment. Contains no relevant information. May have some attempt at reflection, 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 or reflection. No structure at all. No understanding or knowledge of the topic. Only partial response.

0

Indicates work either not submitted or unworthy of marking.