Short Analytical Writing Marking Criteria

Short Analytical Writing Criteria

 

This is a guide to the criteria used by staff in assigning a mark to short form exercises in short historical analysis (excluding gobbets), often as part of portfolio work in modules like Historians and History. Broadly speaking, work is assessed on four criteria:

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 exercise, based on reading highly appropriate for the task. Uses suitable examples and evidence to support the analysis where appropriate and provides clear references in line with the Sheffield History Style Guide if required. Where relevant, displays nuanced command of the historiographical issues at stake. Well written, with few technical errors and a sense of style. A mark in this range recognises intelligent and thoughtful engagement with the task, a strong grounding in the topic, and 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 analyse them incisively. Evidence of undoubted quality in the use of apt 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 response to the exercise, based on a good selection of reading. Uses relevant examples and evidence to support the analysis where appropriate and provides references in line with the Sheffield History Style Guide if required. Shows an understanding of relevant knowledge and some independent thought; where relevant to the task, weighs up and evaluates different arguments, and appreciates the extent to which historiography is contested. Written in clear accurate prose, though work in this category may contain occasional stylistic or technical errors.

65-69

Good analysis supported by a sound understanding of the subject, but lacking the incisiveness characteristic of an exercise in the first class range. Shows relevant knowledge and some independent thought; if relevant, weighs up and evaluates different arguments, and appreciates the extent to which historiography is contested. Written in clear accurate prose. 

60-64

A mark in this range will demonstrate a good overall level of competence but will show some weakness in terms of knowledge, depth, precision, clarity, or style. The response may neglect some aspects of the exercise, or show some weakness in the prose, or in the selection of reading and examples.

 

Lower Second Class

50-59

A relevant response to the exercise, showing a solid but limited engagement with the subject. Attempts to analyse the issues at stake, but may lack sustained focus, offer limited insights or tend towards the assertion of essentially derivative ideas. May be more descriptive than analytical, without the kind of critical reflection characteristic of answers in higher mark bands. Shows some understanding of relevant reading. The response may show signs of confusion and may contain errors of fact or interpretation. The writing lacks fluency and may be clumsy in places, with mistakes in the referencing where it is required.

55-59

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

50-54

Demonstrates knowledge of some issues relevant to the question, but with significant gaps in analysis, some inaccuracies and little attempt to evaluate the status or significance of information. Analysis may be underdeveloped, with one or more key points neglected, over-reliance on limited or inappropriate sources, weaknesses in the prose, and, if citations are required, inadequate referencing that does not conform to the Sheffield History Style Guide.

 

Third Class

45-49

A partial response to the exercise, which makes little sustained attempt to develop a coherent analysis or only does so in a haphazard manner. Analysis based on inadequate reading. Examples may be misremembered, vague or insufficient to constitute a serious response, containing errors of fact or interpretation. The writing may be muddled or unclear.

 

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 exercise. There is no coherent analysis. The answer relies on a very limited amount of descriptive material, without any critical reflection of its significance.

30-39

Bare response to the exercise set. Shows some knowledge of relevant material. A mark in this range may reflect: failure to address the exercise set; insignificant 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 exercise. Contains no relevant information. Some attempt at analysis, but misconceived and/or incoherent.

1-19

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

0

Indicates work either not submitted or unworthy of marking.