Generic Marking Descriptors
| Criterion | Distinction A+ A A | Merit B+ B B | Pass C+ C C | Fail F+ F F | Clear Fail U |
| Structure Is the work logically organised? | There is a clear and consistent line of argument with a coherent and effective underlying structure. | Work is well-structured showing competent response. | Provides adequate response but lacks consistent argument. | Work is poorly organised and lacks logical structure. | Disorganised and no understanding of the issue, problem or task. |
| Coherence Does the work have a coherent argument? | Work demonstrates an ability to deal with complex issues coherently, systematically and creatively. | Work demonstrates continuity and coherence of argument that is straightforward to follow. | Work somewhat deficient in integration and coherence and/or showing some lack of intellectual engagement with the material. | Work lacks integration and coherence of issues with unclear argument. | Argument is poorly constructed and confused. |
| Insight and Analysis Does the work critically address a range of views? Is it self reflective and analytical? | Shows critical awareness and insightful understanding of the issue to be addressed, problem to be analysed or task to be executed. Informed reflection integrated into practice. | Shows strong grasp of the issue, problem or task, supported by clear understanding of relevant fields of academic knowledge. Evidence of reflection in most areas. | Adequate awareness of issue, problem or task. Analysis not entirely thorough or complete. Some evidence of reflection. | Shows inadequate grasp of issue, problem or task; analysis thin with insufficient knowledge of critical and analytical questions; little evidence of reflection. | Shows misinterpretation of critical ideas and concepts. No evidence of reflection. |
| Originality Does the work include original illustrations/ examples? Is there a distinctive synthesis of material? | Marked evidence of independence of mind, originality in the application of knowledge, and imaginative use of evidence and concepts; evidence of challenging and changing practice. | Confident and appropriate use of concepts, methods, and forms of analysis. Reasonable attempt to apply knowledge and theory to practice. | Shows insecure handling of analytical/ methodological issues; insufficient originality of view; narrow in scope. | Lacks originality; shows inability to apply ideas to practice. | No originality is evident. |
| Criterion | Distinction A+ A A | Merit B+ B B | Pass C+ C C | Fail F+ F F | Clear Fail U |
| Use of Evidence Is the evidence used accurately, critically and effectively? | Appropriate wide ranging evidence is discussed and used accurately, critically and effectively throughout; marked evidence of independence of mind and originality in the application of knowledge and understanding. | Appropriate evidence is gathered but work lacks breadth and depth. | Shows limited intellectual and critical engagement with the subject. | Lacks appropriate evidence and no critical engagement with the subject. | Draws on inappropriate evidence with serious factual errors. |
| Use of Resources Is a range of reading and other resources used appropriately? | Demonstrates wide range of reading and resources consulted with imaginative use of evidence and concepts. Evidence of a thorough grasp of relevant academic literature and scholarship in the field, and of wide, self directed reading properly integrated in the assignment. | Evidence of some useful self-directed reading with awareness and use of relevant academic literature, both generic and subject-specific. Reference made to other resources. | Confined to standard generic literature and lacks critical engagement. Some use of other resources. | Limited or inappropriate use of relevant academic literature. Little or no use of other resources. | No apparent use of academic literature or other resources. |
| Presentation Is the work legible, grammatical and fluent? Are data presented accurately and appropriately? | Exemplary presentation with clarity of message and information. Fluent prose style with accurate spelling and grammar. | Well presented, with good prose style; clear, logical and generally error-free. | Satisfactory presentation with limited errors; straightforward to read. | Unsatisfactory presentation with textual errors; poor clarity of expression and inappropriate writing style. | Unsatisfactory presentation that is hard to read and navigate. |
| Referencing Are sources fully and accurately cited using an appropriate style, e.. Harvard? | Work is fully supported by appropriately cited references applied in a consistently accurate format. A bibliography may also be provided. | Use of references and citations relatively consistently applied. | Some inconsistencies in citations and references which detracts from the reading. | Lacks citations and demonstrates poor referencing style. | Minimal or absent citations and references. |