Generic Marking Criteria
All course and programme teams must develop specific marking
criteria and this must be provided to external examiners.
The generic criteria provide a guidance framework for all
Institute taught undergraduate and masters programmes. Academic
staff should use these as the basis for developing specific
criteria relating to the learning outcomes of particular modules.
Level I: |
90 – 100
%
Outstanding work with excellent presentation of ideas.
There is a coherence of ideas and demonstration of a
through knowledge and understanding. Arguments supported
by broad reading with effective use of source materials
and accurate referencing |
80 -90 %
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard.
There is a coherence of ideas and demonstration of a
through knowledge and understanding. Broad reading with
appropriate use of resource materials and accurate referencing
supporting the arguments. |
70 – 79 %
The work is well presented and coherently structured.
There is evidence of a sound knowledge and understanding
with theory being linked to practice. Materials are
referenced and acknowledged. |
60 – 69 %
Presentation is acceptable but with some errors..
There is knowledge and understanding of issues under
discussion. There is also evidence of the application
of knowledge and ideas were appropriate. There is some
use of relevant source materials. |
50 -59 %
Presentation is acceptable but attention to structure.
And referencing is required. The context is relevant
but largely descriptive; there is evidence of a reasonable
level of Knowledge and understanding. Sufficient to
meet the learning outcomes but there is limited use
of source materials to support arguments, proposals
or solutions. There is some link to practice. |
40 -49 %
The presentation is lacking in many ways. There is
a need for a better structure, style, grammar and referencing.
The level of knowledge and understanding displayed is
insufficient to meet all learning outcomes. There is
Limited use of source materials to support the work
presented, the work is very descriptive and lacks evidence
of analysis. |
30 -039 %
The work is very poorly structured and presented.
Some materials may be relevant. Context is based largely
on taught element with little evidence of reading around
the topic and little or no referencing to practice where
appropriate. The learning outcome is not met. |
20 – 29 %
The work is very poorly structured and presented.
Much material is irrelevant. Content is based almost
entirely on taught element with very little evidence
of any purposeful reading around the topic. No effective
references to practice. The learning outcomes are not
met. |
< 20 %
The work is very poor and fails to demonstrate understanding
or knowledge. The presentation and referencing does
not conform to expected standards. |
Level 2 |
90 – 100%
Outstanding work with presentation of a very high
standard. There is coherence of ideas and demonstration
of a through knowledge and understanding. Arguments
are supported by wide reading with effective use of
source materials and accurate referencing |
80 – 90%
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard.
There is coherence of ideas and demonstration of through
knowledge and understanding. Wide reading with appropriate
use of source materials and accurate referencing supports
arguments.
|
70 – 79%
The work is well presented and coherently structured.
There is evidence of a sound knowledge and understanding
with issues of theory linked to practice where appropriate.
Most material has been reference/acknowledge.
|
60- 69%
Presentation is acceptable but with some errors. There
is knowledge and understanding of issues under discussion
and some evidence of the application of knowledge and
ideas where appropriate. Some use of relevant source
materials. |
50 – 59%
Presentation is acceptable but attention to structure,
style and referencing is required. The content is relevant
but largely descriptive, There is evidence of a reasonable
level of knowledge and understanding, sufficient to
meet the learning outcomes but there is limited use
of source material to support arguments, proposals or
solutions. Some links are made to practice where appropriate.
|
40 – 49%
The presentation is acceptable but requires considerable
attention to style, structure, grammar and referencing.
The level of knowledge and understanding displayed is
insufficient to meet all the learning outcomes. There
is limited use of source material to support the work
presented, the work is very descriptive and lacks any
evidence of analysis. |
30 –39%
The work is poorly structured and presented. Some
material may be relevant. Content is based largely on
taught elements with little evidence of reading around
the topic and little or no referencing to practice where
appropriate. The learning outcomes are not met. |
20 – 29%
The work is very poorly structured and presented.
Much material is irrelevant. Content is based almost
entirely on taught elements with very little evidence
of any purposeful reading around the topic. No effective
reference to practice where appropriate. The learning
outcomes are not met.
To get 20% the work must show some evidence of a genuine
attempt to demonstrate some knowledge of the subject.
|
< 20%
The work is derivative and fails to demonstrate understanding
or knowledge.
The presentation and referencing does not conform
to expected standards |
Level 3 |
90 – 100
%
Outstanding work with excellent presentation, high-level
understanding of the main theories, concepts and principles
of the subject. Excellent skills of analysis, diagnosis
and evaluation of issues shown, exhibited capacity in
identifying and analysing professional problems and
issues. Very good at the use of IT. |
80 -90 %
Extremely good work with presentation at a very high
level. There is coherence of ideas and demonstration
of thorough knowledge and understanding. Very clear
linkage of theories concepts and principles of the subject.
Appropriate use of source materials and accurate referencing
to support the argument exhibited capacity to identify
and analyse problems and issues. |
70 – 79 %
The work is well presented and coherent structured.
There is very good understanding of a range of theories
concepts and principles related to the subject. Very
good analysis and evaluation of technical functions.
Problems and issues critically analysed. There is a
very good and coherent argument. |
60 – 69 %
The work is clearly presented and well structured.
There is evidence of understanding of the relevant theories,
concepts and principles related to the subject. The
work contains some discussion, application of knowledge
and use of relevant source materials. |
50-59 %
Presentation is acceptable; there is some link between
theory and practice. There is evidence of analysis,
diagnosis and evaluation of issues. There is limited
use of source materials to support arguments. |
40 – 49 %
The level of knowledge and understanding displayed
is insufficient. There is limited use of source materials,
the work is very descriptive and lacks of evidence of
critical analysis and interpretation of issues. There
no evidence of linking theory to practice.
|
30 – 39 %
The work is poorly presented. There is little understanding
of theories, concepts, and principles related to the
subject. Little or no referencing. The learning outcomes
not met. |
20 – 29 %
The work is very poorly structured and presented.
Content is based largely on taught elements with little
evidence of reading around the topic. No effective references.
There is no genuine attempt to demonstrate some knowledge
of the subject. |
< 20 %
The work lacks evidence of knowledge of subject. The
presentation and referencing does not conform to the
required standards. |
Level 4 |
90 – 100
%
Excellent presentation skills exhibited, high level
understanding of established principles of the subject
and concepts, clear evidence of critical analysis of
issues and capacity to make judgments. Excellent use
of selected skills, techniques, practices and materials
and accurate referencing.
|
80 – 90 %
Very good presentation. A very good projection of
understanding of subject matter, proper linkage between
theory and practice, a clear manifestation and selection
of principles, concepts and terminologies, proper use
of relevant skills, techniques, practices and materials
associated with the subject. Proper identification and
analysis of problems and issues. Appropriate use of
resource mate4rials and references. Very clear arguments.
|
70 – 79 %
The wok is very good, high level presentation, very
clear linkage of theory to practice, evidence of capacity
to evaluate a selection of principles, concepts and
terminologies. Appropriate use of relevant skills, techniques,
practices and materials. There is some critical and
analytical application of relevant research. Referencing
is of high standard, through some errors can be identified.
60 – 69 %
The work is clearly presented; there is evidence of
understanding of principles, concepts and terminologies.
There is appropriate use of relevant skills, techniques,
practices and materials associated with the subject.
There is a clear identification and analysis of issues.
There is some evidence of critical and analytical application
of theory to practice. |
50 – 59 %
Presentation is acceptable. There is acceptable understanding
of the established principles, concepts and terminologies.
There is evidence of using the relevant skills, techniques
and practices. But there s limited use of reference
materials to support the arguments referencing is generally
poor. |
40 – 49 %
The level of knowledge and understanding of the established
principles is insufficient. The ability to evaluate
the relevant principles is below the required standards.
There is limited use of the necessary references. The
work is very descriptive and lacks evidence of analysis
of issues. Problem identification and analysis is also
insufficient. |
30 – 39 %
The work is generally poor. Some materials are relevant.
The work does not reflect an understanding of the established
principles of the area of study. Use of relevant skills,
techniques and practices is inappropriate. There is
little evidence of reading around the topic. There is
little or no references in use. The learning outcomes
are not met. The work lacks critical analysis or reflection. |
20 – 29 %
The work is very poorly presented and contains several
problems. A lot of materials is not relevant. There
is no linkage between theory and practice. No references
were used. The learning outcomes are not met. Communication
is generally very poor.
|
Level 5 (Honours) |
90 – 100%
- top 1st
Outstanding work with presentation of a very high
standard. There is comprehensive understanding of key
concepts and knowledge and clear evidence of critical
analysis and insight. Accurate interpretation of data
with arguments, ideas and solutions presented effectively
and based on strong research and reading, with excellent
use of referencing. |
80 – 90%
1st
Extremely good work with presentation of a high standard.
Demonstrates an excellent knowledge base with a clear
understanding of the issues and application to practice
where appropriate. There is some effective critical
and analytical application of relevant research and
reading. The referencing is of a high standard and conforms
to the Institute’s standards. |
70 – 79%
2.1
The work is very good, logically structured and presented
to a high standard. Demonstrates a strong knowledge
base with a clear understanding the issues and theory
linked to practice where appropriate. There is some
critical and analytical application of relevant research.
Referencing is of a high standard but minor errors may
be evident.
|
60- 69% 2.2
The work is clearly presented and logically structured.
It shows evidence of a sound understanding and addresses
major issues. The work contains some discussion and
interpretation of relevant perspectives. There is some
evidence of critical and analytical application of theory
to practice. Referencing is adequate. |
50 – 59%
3 rd
Presentation is acceptable. The content is relevant
but largely descriptive, There is evidence of a reasonable
level of knowledge and understanding, sufficient to
meet the learning outcomes but there is limited use
of source material to support arguments, proposals or
solutions. Some links are made to practice where appropriate.
Referencing is poor. |
40 – 49%
marginal fail
The presentation is acceptable. The level of knowledge
and understanding displayed is insufficient to meet
all the learning outcomes. There is limited use of source
material to support the work presented, the work is
very descriptive and lacks any evidence of critical
analysis. Evidence of application of theory to practice
is weak. |
30 –39% clear
fail
The work is poorly structured and presented. Some
material may be relevant. Content is based largely on
taught elements with little evidence of reading around
the topic and little or no referencing to practice where
appropriate. The learning outcomes are not met. It lacks
critical analysis or reflection. |
20 – 29%
bad fail
The work is very poorly structured and presented and
contains numerous errors.. Much material is irrelevant.
Content is based almost entirely on taught elements
with very little evidence of any purposeful reading
around the topic. No effective reference to practice
where appropriate. The learning outcomes are not met.
To get 20% the work must show some evidence of a genuine
attempt to demonstrate some knowledge of the subject.
|
< 20% very bad
fail
The work is derivative and fails to demonstrate understanding
or knowledge.
The presentation and referencing does not conform
to expected standards |
Level 6 (Masters) |
90 – 100%
Distinction
An excellent, critical and complete demonstration
of understanding in all key areas of knowledge relevant
to the work and demonstrating an innovative and creative
approach. Evidence throughout the work of a sustained
ability to synthesise and interpret complex concepts,
to make inferences and to provide an original and/or
compelling argument and discussion. Excellent structure
and immaculate presentation, with cogent use of academic
language and grounded in pertinent and substantial selection
of source materials. Excellent use of appropriate analytical
and research methods and addresses ethical and governance
issues, where relevant, in an informed and perceptive
manner. Exceptional ability to link and critically analyse
theory and practice where appropriate. |
80 – 90%
Distinction
An excellent, critical and complete demonstration
of understanding in all key areas of knowledge relevant
to the work Evidence throughout of the ability to synthesise
and interpret complex concepts to provide a compelling
argument and discussion. Very good structure and presentation,
with confidant use of academic language and grounded
in a relevant and extensive selection of source materials.
Excellent use of appropriate analytical and research
methods and addresses ethical and governance issues,
where relevant, in a considered way. Excellent ability
to link and critically analyse theory and practice where
appropriate |
70 – 79%
Distinction
An excellent, critical and organised demonstration
of understanding in all key areas of knowledge relevant
to the work Evidence throughout of the ability to synthesise
and interpret diverse concepts to provide sound argument
and discussion. Good structure and presentation, with
fluent use of academic language and grounded in a relevant
and comprehensive selection of source materials. Very
effective use of appropriate analytical and research
methods and consideration of ethical and governance
issues, where relevant.. Very good ability to link and
critically analyse theory and practice where appropriate |
60- 69% good pass
A proficient, clearly stated and analytical demonstration
of understanding in all key areas of knowledge relevant
to the work Evidence of the ability to integrate and
analyse diverse concepts in a rational and logical argument
and discussion. Good structure and presentation, with
fluent use of academic language and utilising a relevant
and extensive range of source materials. Effective use
of appropriate analytical and research methods and consideration
of ethical and governance issues, where relevant. Good
ability to link and critically analyse theory and practice
where appropriate |
50 – 59%
pass
An acceptable and sustained demonstration of understanding
in all key areas of knowledge relevant to the work Evidence
of the ability to integrate and analyse diverse concepts
in a reasoned and valid argument and discussion. Adequately
structure and presented, work with a clear use of academic
language and reference to a relevant range of source
materials. Adequate use of appropriate analytical and
research methods and addressing of ethical and governance
issues, where relevant. Effective linking of theory
to practice where appropriate |
40 – 49%
marginal fail
The presentation is acceptable but requires considerable
attention to style, structure, grammar and referencing.
The level of knowledge and understanding displayed is
limited and insufficient to meet all the learning outcomes.
There is a limited range of source material to support
the work presented, the work is very descriptive and
analysis is limited or ineffective. Inadequate linking
of theory and practice. |
30 –39% clear
fail
The work is poorly structured and presented. Some
material may be relevant. Content is based largely on
taught elements with little evidence of reading around
the topic and little or no referencing to practice where
appropriate. The learning outcomes are not met. |
0 – 29% bad
fail
The work is very poorly structured and presented.
Much material is irrelevant. Content is based almost
entirely on taught elements with very little evidence
of any purposeful reading around the topic. No effective
reference to practice where appropriate. The learning
outcomes are not met.
|
All students should be given marking criteria as a guide
to what is expected of them. The Institute’s criteria
are general enough to be given to all students as a minimum
but course teams should develop more specific criteria relevant
to the learning outcomes of the course.
External examiners should be provided with marking guidelines
produced by course teams for each question set for in course
assessment and examinations and for other forms of assessment.
The criteria should be written when the assessment/examinations
are set and sent with the papers etc to the externals for
moderation.
7. Implementation of LTAS
A number of key mechanisms will be employed to enable and
support the implementation of the LTAS.
The Institues Accademic Quality Assurance Committee
will be responsible for overseeing the implemetation of the
LTAS and specifically :
To advise Senate on the formation of policy for the advancement
and enhancement of learning and teaching
To advise Senate on the evaluation of learning and teaching
within the Institute
To monitor and make recommendations on the implementation
of the Institutes's Learning and Teaching Strategy
To update, when required, appropriate elements of the Learning
and Teaching Strategy in order to reflect current debate and
developments
To promote the dissemination of good practice in learning
and teaching as developed within the Institute and elsewhere
To develop and monitor procedures for the accreditation
of prior learning including experiential and other work-based
learning
To advise Senate on the formulation of policy with regard
to Library, educational computing, audio-visual and other
learning resources
To advise Senate on the establishment of special institute
initiatives as appropriate
To advise Senate and the Management committee on staff development
policy for learning and teaching
To consider Faculty/School Board analyses of learning and
teaching and to advise the Senate of trends and issues raised
therein
To prepare and disseminate an annual review of implementation
of the Learning and Teaching Strategy including those aspects
relevant to learning technology and to the library
To consider such other matters as may from time to time
be referred to the Committee
7. .Faculty/School Ownership of
LTAS
Faculties / Schools are responsible for ensuring the implementation
of the LTAS at the local level. Each programme will as part
of devising its programme specification develop a LTAS which
implements the University LTAS within its specific context,
culture and priorities. Deputy Deans have responsibility for
Learning and Teaching within their remit.
Recognition and Rewarding of Excellence in Teaching
The Institue believes that the promotion of effective teaching
should be a matter of the highest priority. Staff may use
evidence of outstanding contributions to Learning and Teaching
when applying for promotion...
Staff Development
Teaching staff will be supported by the development of comprehensive
staff development /CPD provision in teaching, learning and
assessment. This will include a compulsory Post Graduate Certificate
in Learning and Teaching, a programme of CPD, a consultancy
service for programme teams, and 'expert' support for programme
teams developing new provision or reviewing existing provision
provided by the Quality Directorate. It will include staff
development for research and for supervising postgraduate
research students – the former will be provided by the
Research, Publications and Consultancy Directorate and the
later by the Graduate School..
Peer observation of teaching is an important element not
only of quality but of staff development. A supportive developmental
peer observation of teaching process will be introduced across
the Institute. This will be designated to enable all staff
with a teaching role to get verbal feedback on their performance
from a colleague and for good practice to be shared byacademic
departments.
8. Monitoring and Evaluation
The quality assurance and enhancement processes will include
monitoring of the implementation of the LTAS.
Programme Approval and Review
All teams developing new programmes or reviewing existing
provision will be assisted by the Quality Directorate in developing
a teaching, learning and assessment strategy. A check list
and guidelines will be provided as part of the guidance notes
on programme development and review procedures.
Annual Monitoring
Programme teams will be required to include a section on
the LTAS they utilise in their programme specification and
in the evaluation of their LTAS in the annual programme monitoring
report. The Academic Quality Committee will ensure that annual
monitoring focuses on the LTAS amongst other factors.
Annual Evaluation
The Academic Quality Committee will produce an annual evaluation
of the implementation of the LTAS together with an Action Plan
for the following year for consideration by Senate.
|
