undergraduate dissertation marking criteria

School of Social and Political Science

Marking descriptors.

• Coursework marking scheme
• Dissertation marking scheme

A1 (90-100%)

An answer that fulfils all of the criteria for ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair in tackling issues, yielding a product that is deemed to be of potentially publishable quality, in terms of scholarship and originality.

A2 (80-89%)

An authoritative answer that provides a fully effective response to the question. It should show a command of the literature and an ability to integrate that literature and go beyond it. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to the conclusion. Sources should be used accurately and concisely to inform the answer but not dominate it. There should be a sense of a critical and committed argument, mindful of other interpretations but not afraid to question them. Presentation and the use of English should be commensurate with the quality of the content.

A3 (70-79%)

A sharply-focused answer of high intellectual quality, which adopts a comprehensive approach to the question and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. It should show a willingness to engage critically with the literature and move beyond it, using the sources creatively to arrive at its own independent conclusions.

B B- (60-63%) B (64-66%) B+ (67-69%)

A very good answer that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The question and the sources should be addressed directly and fully. The work of other authors should be presented critically. Effective use should be made of the whole range of the literature. There should be no significant errors of fact or interpretation. The answer should proceed coherently to a convincing conclusion. The quality of the writing and presentation (especially referencing) should be without major blemish. Within this range a particularly strong answer will be graded B+; a more limited answer will be graded B-.

C C- (50-53%) C (54-56%) C+ (57-59%)

A satisfactory answer with elements of the routine and predictable. It should be generally accurate and firmly based in the reading. It may draw upon a restricted range of sources but should not just re-state one particular source. Other authors should be presented accurately, if rather descriptively. The materials included should be relevant, and there should be evidence of basic understanding of the topic in question. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded C+; a weaker answer will be graded C-.

D D- (40-43%) D (44-46%) D+ (47-49%)

A passable answer which understands the question, displays some academic learning and refers to relevant literature. The answer should be intelligible and in general factually accurate, but may well have deficiencies such as restricted use of sources or academic argument, over-reliance on lecture notes, poor expression, and irrelevancies to the question asked. The general impression may be of a rather poor effort, with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for a short answer that at least referred to the main points of the issue. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.

An answer with evident weaknesses of understanding but conveying the sense that with a fuller argument or factual basis it might have achieved a pass. It might also be a short and fragmentary answer with merit in what is presented but containing serious gaps.

An answer showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and pedestrian use of inadequate sources.

An answer that falls far short of a passable level by some combination of short length, irrelevance, lack of intelligibility, factual inaccuracy and lack of acquaintance with reading or academic concepts.

An answer without any academic merit which usually conveys little sense that the course has been followed or of the basic skills of essay-writing.

A dissertation that fulfils all of the criteria for an ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair and originality in tackling both methodological and substantive issues. These should be seen as yielding a product that is of potentially publishable quality in terms of scholarship, originality and contribution to the field.

An authoritative dissertation that displays a sophisticated grasp of issues raised in the literature and develops an appropriate design and methodology to address a clearly-articulated set of questions stemming from that literature. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to its own independent conclusions. It should also show an ability to be reflexive, pointing to lessons learned from the research and making suggestions where appropriate as to how future studies in the area might benefit from experience gained in the course of the investigation. Referencing, presentation and use of English should be of commensurately high quality.

A dissertation of high intellectual quality, which has clearly-stated aims, displays a good grasp of methodological issues and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. While presenting the data obtained from the research accurately, the discussion should move beyond a mainly descriptive account of the results, to develop its own comments, points and interpretations.

A very good dissertation that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The research question should be clearly stated and an appropriate methodology used to test or answer it, with effective use made of the literature. There should be no significant errors of either fact or interpretation. The presentation and use of the research data should be accurate and the discussion should show a willingness to speculate on their implications for theoretical, empirical or practical developments in the area. Referencing and the quality of the writing should be without major blemish. The answer should cover the question fully and present only relevant material. Within this range a particularly strong dissertation will be graded B+; a more limited one will be graded B-.

A satisfactory dissertation, though showing elements of the routine and predictable. While generally accurate and firmly based in the reading, it will tend to draw on a more restricted set of sources. It will probably also be based on less clearly-stated aims and/or a less coherent methodology. Indeed, it is the grasp and handling of methodological issues that will most likely differentiate between the B and C grades. The data will be presented accurately, if rather descriptively, although there should be no serious weaknesses in their portrayal or interpretation. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger dissertation will be graded C+; a weaker one C-.

A passable dissertation, which displays some familiarity with relevant literature and the issues under investigation. The aims may be poorly articulated and this incoherence will undermine the quality of the research. The work should be intelligible and factually accurate, but will contain deficiencies such as restricted use of sources, poor expression and failure to analyse or discuss the implications of the data in anything more than a thin and descriptive way. The general impression will probably be of a rather poor effort with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for an obviously hastily-executed piece of research which attempted to address a relevant set of questions. Within this range a stronger piece of work will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.

A dissertation showing clear lack of understanding of the nature of research, but conveying the sense that with clearer aims and better developed instruments it might have achieved a pass. It might also clearly have been written in a hurry, with some merit, but serious gaps, in what is presented.

Work showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and limited use of inadequate sources. It could also be the mark for a very short answer with some relevant material.

Work falling short of a passable level by some combination of poor methodology, unclear aims, incoherence, factual inaccuracy and lack of familiarity with basic concepts or literature.

A dissertation containing no academic merit or evidence that the author understands the nature of the research enterprise, or made a serious effort to address the topic.

Browser does not support script.

We use cookies on this site. By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies. Close this message Find out more

• Find your course
• The Principal
• Our experts
• Our history
• Facts & figures
• Art Collections & Picture Gallery
• Exhibitions
• Online shop
• Organisation of the College
• Charitable status
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research degrees
• Scholarships
• Accommodation
• Guide for parents
• Schools & colleges
• Lifelong learning
• Passport Award
• Discover Arts
• Discover Science
• Careers & Employability
• Departments and Schools
• Biological Sciences
• Comparative Literature & Culture
• Computer Science
• Drama,Theatre & Dance
• Earth Sciences
• Electronic Engineering
• European Studies
• Information Security
• Liberal Arts
• Mathematics
• Modern Languages, Literatures & Cultures
• Politics & International Relations
• Professional Studies
• Social Work
• Student life
• Campus & facilities
• Social life
• Royal Holloway and Me
• What our students say
• Student media
• Students' Union
• Active lifestyle & sport
• Volunteering
• Support, health & welfare
• Jobs while you study
• Sustainability
• International
• Why Royal Holloway?
• English language & university preparation
• Study abroad & exchanges
• Immigration & visas
• Your country
• Fees & scholarships
• After applying
• Support for international students
• Information for agents
• Virtual Open Day
• Current research
• Doctoral School
• Impact case studies
• Research support
• Funding opportunities
• Departments & Groups
• Pure support
• Commercialisation seed funds
• Research data management
• For business
• The Institute for Cyber Security Innovation
• Conferences & hospitality
• Consultancy
• Enterprise centre / incubation
• Licensing / commercialisation
• Research & business
• Recruiting our students
• Proof of award
• Get involved
• Benefits & services
• Events & reunions
• Higher magazine
• Why support the College?
• Our priorities
• A gift in your will
• American Foundation
• Tax efficient giving

Dissertation - Marking Criteria

The text below is an extract from the MSc handbook for students

Each dissertation is independently marked by two examiners; one of these is normally the supervisor. An external examiner moderates the assessment. The examiners may conduct an oral examination if they wish to check the depth of the student's understanding and to ensure that the dissertation is the student's own work. Students must obtain a pass grade on the dissertation to pass the MSc degree. The examiners give up to 100 points where the points translate to the following categories:

85 − 100:   An exceptionally high level of understanding and outstanding  research potential.

70 − 84.99:   Very high competence and excellent research potential.

60 − 69.99:   Evidence of some creativity and independence of thought.

50 − 59.99:   Sound understanding of the literature, but lack of accuracy or originality.

0 − 49.99:   Insufficient or no understanding of the topic, poor quality of work.  

The points are given according to the following guidelines:

Knowledge of subject (25)

21 − 25:   Deep understanding and near-comprehensive knowledge.

18 − 20:   Deep understanding.

15 − 17:   Very good understanding.

12 − 14:   Sound knowledge of relevant information.

10 − 11:   Basic understanding of the main issues.

0 − 9:   Little or no understanding of the main issues.

Organisation of material (25)

21 − 25:   Of publishable quality.

18 − 20:   Arguments clearly constructed; material very well-organised.

15 − 17:   Well-organised; aims met with no significant errors or omissions.

12 − 14:   Coherent and competent organisation.

10 − 11:   Lack of clarity in written presentation or aims only partially met.

6 − 9:   Major flaws in arguments; aims of project not met.

0 − 5:   Arguments are missing/deficient. Disorganised or fragmentary.

Originality, interpretation and analysis   (20)

17 − 20:   Significant originality in the interpretation and/or analysis;  project aims challenging.

14 − 16:   Some originality; evidence of excellent analytical and problem- solving skills.

12 − 13:   Good attempt to interpret and analyse existing literature.

10 − 11:   Minor flaws in interpretation/analysis of existing literature.

5 − 9:   Poor interpretation/analysis or project aims too simple.

0 − 4: Little or no interpretation or analysis; project aims trivial.

Evidence of reading (10)

8 − 10:   Independent reading including research papers.

6 − 7:    Good use of outside reading.

4 − 5:    Some evidence of outside reading.

0 − 3:    Little or no evidence of outside reading.  

Bibliography and referencing   (10)

9 − 10:   Of publishable quality.

7 − 8:    Good referencing and bibliography.

5 − 6:     Either poor bibliography or poor referencing.

3 − 4:    Poor bibliography and little or no referencing.

0 − 2:    No bibliography and little or no referencing.

Style, spelling, punctuation and grammar (10)

9 − 10:   Incisive and fluent, no errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

7 − 8:    Very minor errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

4 − 6:    Some errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

0 − 3:    Many errors of spelling, punctuation or grammar.

Find your Mathematics course

• Mathematical Studies BSc
• Mathematics BSc
• Mathematics MSci
• Mathematics and Management BSc
• Mathematics and Music BA
• Mathematics and Physics BSc
• Mathematics and Physics MSci
• Mathematics with French BSc
• Mathematics with German BSc
• Mathematics with Italian BSc
• Mathematics with Management BSc
• Mathematics with Philosophy BSc
• Mathematics with Spanish BSc
• Mathematics with Statistics BSc
• Computer Science and Mathematics BSc
• Economics and Mathematics BSc
• Economics and Mathematics with a Year in Business BSc
• Finance and Mathematics BSc
• Finance and Mathematics with a Year in Business BSc
• Management with Mathematics BSc
• Modern Languages with Mathematics BA
• Mathematics for Applications MSc
• Mathematics of Cryptography and Communications MSc
• settings Undergraduate Postgraduate taught Postgraduate research Search Mathematics All departments View all undergraduate courses for 2018 View all undergraduate courses for 2019 View all postgraduate courses for 2018
• Mobile site view
• Desktop site view
• Media enquiries
• Modern Slavery Act
• IT Services
• Social media
• CampusAnywhere
• Terms and conditions

Comment on this page

Did you find the information you were looking for? Is there a broken link or content that needs updating? Let us know so we can improve the page.

Note: If you need further information or have a question that cannot be satisfied by this page, please call our switchboard on +44 (0)1784 434455.

This window will close when you submit your comment.

Academic Manual

• 4. Marking & Moderation

Section 4: Marking & Moderation

Published for 2023-24

4.1 Overarching Principles

4.2 responsibilities, 4.3 markers, 4.4 anonymity, 4.5 marking criteria, 4.6 second marking, 4.6.1 minimum requirements, 4.6.2 parity meetings, 4.6.3 sampling, 4.6.4 reconciliation of marks, 4.6.5 third markers, 4.6.6 documentation of marking, 4.7 internal moderation, advice for students.

Further information and advice for students about assessment is available on the  Examinations & Awards webpages .

Recent Changes

A guide to changes to the regulations are available from the  Recent Changes  page.

King's College London

Marking, college framework, document profile.

• College Marking Framework

The College Marking Framework includes:

• Marking Models
• College Marking Schemes
• College Marking Criteria

The framework is an important reference point for setting and maintaining academic standards across the College. It provides guidance for all assessment practices and promotes consistency across taught programmes with the aim of enhancing the student experience of assessment. This College Marking Framework was endorsed by the Academic Standards Subcommittee (ASSC) and approved by College Education Committee (CEC) in November 2021. The framework was noted for information by Academic Board in December 2021. It was piloted in some faculties in 2022-23 and is the College Marking Framework for all faculties from September 2023.

The College Marking Criteria also provides a frame for the setting of learning outcomes and supports faculties and assessment sub-boards in refining their faculty, discipline or assessment-specific marking criteria.

Step-Marking Guidance for Faculties

• Step-Marking Guidance for Faculties, 2023-24
• Step-Marking Guidance for Students

Previous Framework (before 2023/24)

The previous College Marking Framework and the Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate Marking Criteria are available here:

• Undergraduate Marking Criteria
• Taught Postgraduate Marking Criteria

All To Know About An Undergraduate Dissertation Marking Criteria

A dissertation is a common task that all final year students receive. It is a very important assignment where in the school/college provides the students the option of self-learning. This where the students are given the option of choosing their own area of interest and research on a self-declared question. That is a question that addresses a valid cause or being with respect to the area of interest. The students are expected to develop a sense of responsibility in this process of knowledge procurement. The main purpose of a dissertation is to put in a well-documented format of all the steps undertaken by the student-the research, the finding, observations, comparisons, results and the interpretation made. A custom dissertation consists of the following important parts like the title page, abstract, acknowledgement, a list of contents in the paper, a list of tables as well as a list of figures, an index of all the chapters being discussed, references made, appendices and presentation requirements like top margins, page numbers and others as such.

Important Criteria To Evaluate The Thesis

The four most important criteria upon which a thesis is evaluated are, first, the depth of research done throughout, second, the quality of the discussion being stated in the report, thirdly, the amount of knowledge exhibited and lastly, the manner of presentation(including organization of the whole process and formatting). The depth of research is a predominant factor in preparing a paper. The literature research done, the foundation of your paper is judged here. Whether or not you have undertaken the amount of research need of you with respect to the topic of the paper, is the deciding factor here. But them irrelevant research is also not advised. The quality of discussion is to do with the observation, comparisons made with following subsequent arguments and analysis. Remember never to stray away from the main scope of the paper. Pick out the major topics in the field, discuss them and draw parallels between one or two issues of the same kind. This gives an image of knowing more than what you do.

Next is the range of knowledge you manage to exhibit through your paper. Remember to justify the points and cross reference it. Never make baseless assumptions. Make real life references, state facts and if possible real life implementation of the topic.

Last is the presentation. Here make sure your idea flows freely and continuously. Ensure that anyone who reads your report can understand clearly what you are trying to say.

Latest Posts

• Finding sample proposal objectives
• Dissertation topics in finance

Structuring

• Literature review tips
• Proposal research plan tips
• Help with proposals

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

How to survive marking dissertations

About a decade ago I clearly remember a colleague and I negotiating marks for a dissertation. And he browbeat me into awarding a higher mark (and therefore degree classification) than I felt was deserved. It's stuck with me – I can even remember the student's name. I should have stuck to my guns and agreed to put it to a third marker.

The whole business of dissertation marking is a fascinating and all too human process. On the face of it, awarding marks should be a predominantly objective procedure. There are assessment and grade criteria, specific headings that students know they need to deliver against – are the aims and objectives clear and tracked through? Does the literature review provide good coverage of existing sources relevant to the dissertation topic? Are the adopted methods explained, appropriate and justified? Does it read well and look 'the biz'?

So in the next few weeks colleagues – including myself – will be hit by a tidal wave of incoming final year undergraduate dissertations. Often these are worth two module credits and can disproportionately weigh in the balance when it comes to determining a final degree award. Typically dissertations are blind double marked. So that each marker judges the work independently and only then discusses with a colleague, the definitive mark to be awarded. At this point there are three outcomes – first, markers are of one mind and agree; second, they pace around like fencers, land a few good arguments and, again, reach a settlement. Third, they disagree so dramatically about the quality of the work and its mark that it must go to a third marker.

How do such divisions arise? There are various reasons: the dissertation adviser will likely have formed a working relationship with the student, and it may be difficult to disentangle things like effort from achievement. Related to this is the fact that where a second marker criticises a submission, the adviser/first marker may not only feel (partly) responsible, but can become defensive as they blur boundaries between marking student work and being drawn in to assessing their own inputs and advice. The key point here is to stick to the evidence and, in particular, to focus on major points such as good literature coverage but very limited primary research; clear articulation and delivery of aims and objectives.

Then there is 'power play'. In my experience the vast majority of cases of mark negotiation are cordial, professional and straightforward. But occasionally you find yourself discussing with a colleague who is determined to 'have their way'. Equally – with substantial numbers of dissertations to assess - you may find yourself uncomfortably at the edge of your known world in terms of expertise. This in turn may lead to overly lenient or punitive marking.

So what to do?

Try to start marking as soon as the dissertations are distributed for marking and – just like student dissertation writers – do a little and often. Personally – whether as a marker or external examiner – I can't cope with more than about four dissertations a day. Beyond which it's hard to know which way is up.

Over about 18 years I have learned that it takes me about 1.5 hours to read a dissertation and write up a report on it. I (and colleagues) use a template with headings such as 'abstract', 'literature review', 'methodology', 'findings and discussion', 'conclusions' (and recommendations where relevant), quality of bibliography and appendices and so on. This helps to ensure that negotiations review the same aspects and sections.

Try to hone in on key points – see the wood for the trees; don't get fixated on every jot and tittle. Is it a good read? Is it professionally turned out? Does it do what it says on the tin – title matches aims and objectives, that then inform methods, that deliver persuasive findings and lead up to reasoned conclusions, that link back to starting objectives?

Remember it's the piece of work you are marking, not the student overall; nor the fact that they worked very hard at it or are delightful. What you see is what they get.

Be clear about whether or not you are allowed to give an agreed mark to the student prior to exam board consideration. At my institution we are not allowed to do this; so we email qualitative feedback that gives a clear nod as to how the wind is blowing. Here's an extract from 2011: "Overall this is an excellent piece of research. Very well done…A beautifully and meticulously presented piece of work that demonstrated an excellent level of endeavour and research. Strengths of your work aside from the clear and methodical layout include…Areas that could be improved…" So, what was the mark? You guessed - a first class 70%+ piece of work.

Double markers should try to agree a mark otherwise it creates more work for another colleague as third marker. But if it does go to a third person, be clear about the procedure – is their decision 'final'? Do the disagreeing colleagues mutually agree a third marker? Or is it the module/course leader that does this? There also needs to be a written trail so that, for example, an external examiner can see how two staff diverged, and how the third decided on the given mark.

Colleagues may like to read my article : Shall we dance? The importance of staff-student relationships to undergraduate dissertation preparation in the journal Active Learning in Higher Education Volume 12 Issue 2, July 2011.

James Derounian is a principal lecturer in community development and local governance and National Teaching Fellow, University of Gloucestershire

• Universities
• Professional development
• Higher education

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Cookies on our website

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use our site. And we'd like to serve you some cookies set by other services to show you relevant content.

• Accessibility
• Staff search
• External website
• Schools & services
• Sussex Direct
• Professional services
• Schools and services
• Engineering and Informatics
• Student handbook
• Informatics
• MSc dissertations and projects

Marking criteria MSc ACS

• Back to previous menu
• MSc project
• Dissertation content
• Ethical guidelines
• Dissertation timetable
• Marking criteria MSc AIAS
• Marking criteria MSc CDM
• Marking criteria MSc MIT

School of Engineering and Informatics (for staff and students)

Dissertation marking criteria

Dissertations should demonstrate a mix of skills at masters level. Depending on the project, different skills will have greater weighting in the marking, but no project will be carried by a single one. The criteria for evaluation include:

• application of or extension of MSc course skills, ideally beyond those taught in that course, or skills beyond those that might reasonably be expected of a computer science undergraduate.
• engagement with the literature, including appropriate selection of papers and analysis of concepts.A dissertation which applies concepts from one field in another area or combines concepts from two fields may attract greater weighting for the literature aspect.
• theoretical analysis and development of concepts.
• quality of programming, proofs and other practical development work.  Organisation, clarity, efficiency, application of advanced methods and novelty are the focus. A large volume of code is not, by itself, sufficient.
• quality of evaluation, including choice of methods, controls and conditions; rigour of their application, and analysis of data.
• novelty is not an absolute requirement of an MSc dissertation. However, the work undertaken should engage with recent developments in computer science. Where there is novelty, for instance modification of algorithms or a new approach to a proof, this shall be acknowledged in the marking.
• good project management will be reflected in the outcomes of the dissertation. However, examiners may wish to note appropriate selection of tools and methods and suitable management of time and risk, particularly where engaging with very new tools or making novel contributions.

General professional standards will be expected:

• in matters of punctuation, vocabulary choice, standard English grammar, and the conventions of academic discourse (including reference to sources).
• in presentation of code (for programming projects): Code for programming projects should be submitted as an appendix to the main report.
• in formal aspects of presentation (word-processing/typing, printing).

Guidelines to students and markers on standards expected at each level

70% - 100%  -  Excellent Shows very good understanding supported by evidence that the student has gone beyond what was taught by extra study, programming, or creative thought. Work at the top end of this range is of exceptional quality. Write-up: well-structured, correct references, critical discussion of existing relevant work, neatly presented, interesting and clearly expressed, thorough disinterested critique of what is good and bad about the approach taken, and proposals about how the project work could be developed in the future. Literature: engagement with current research, including appropriate analysis, comparison, critique and selection and precis of key ideas relating to the student's work.   Program: code that executes efficiently, incorporates sophisticated programming features, is non-redundant, well-structured, well commented and elegant, addresses the problem effectively for a non-trivial application. Theoretical analysis: appropriate application of techniques, including classification, proof, complexity analysis etc., to a non-trivial problem. Evaluation: a substantial evaluation, through appropriate interpretation of analysis, simulation, deployment, functional and non-functional testing, etc., coupled with excellent interpretation and presentation of results.  In more experimental projects results will be repeatable and contain comparison with alternative techniques and/or significant exploration of the parameters of the code/problem.

60% - 69%  -  Good Very competent in all respects, substantially correct and complete knowledge but not going beyond what was taught. Literature: engagement with literature, including critique of ideas, well-related to the rest of the project.  Possibly not engaging beyond further reading from course(s). Program: code that executes, incorporates some complexity, is well-designed and presented and addresses a reasonably non-trivial problem related to the literature. Theoretical analysis: a clear, if not particularly sophisticated, analysis of the problem. Evaluation: a good application of appropriate techniques leading to a clear result.

55% - 59%  -  Satisfactory Competent in most respects.  Minor gaps in knowledge but reasonable understanding of fundamental concepts. Literature: a presentation of ideas from the literature, given some structure and basic analysis and related to the rest of the project. Program: code that executes, and addresses a simple problem. Theoretical analysis: a competent analysis of at least the most significant concepts in the work. Evaluation: evidence of appropriate testing beyond function testing of code.

50% - 54%  -  Borderline Significant gaps in knowledge but some understanding of funamental concepts.  Typically this project will be a marginal development or integration of course or textbook ideas, with some evaluation or analysis.

30% - 49%  -  Fail Inadequate knowledge of the subject.  Work is seriously flawed, displaying major lack of understanding, irrelevance or incoherence.  Code, analysis and evaluation that are not coherent in terms of the problem being addressed or the methods to be employed in doing this.

Poster marking criteria

• Engagement with the literature, showing understanding of prior work to be applied and/or knowledge gap that the project will address. This might require a combination of tool / evaluation method selection and survey of related work.
• Description of the planned system. A passable poster will have a clear statement of goals. The level of sophistication in the design (or other technical progress to date) is of interest, which might involve technical complexity in the work or the techniques being proposed to evaluate the work.
• Quality of the poster design - clear and informative in a poster setting, without being cluttered.
• Ability of the student to answer questions and justify claims / choices made verbally.

Note that novelty is not an absolute requirement of an MSc dissertation.  However, the work undertaken should engage with recent developments in computer science. Where there is novelty, for instance modification of algorithms or a new approach to a proof, this shall be acknowledged in the marking.

Guidelines to students and markers on standards expected at each level:

85-100%  -  Excellent All of: Shows very good understanding supported by evidence that the student has gone beyond what was taught by extra study, programming, or creative thought. Work at the top end of this range is of exceptional quality. A clear statement of goals, set in context of a problem and prior work. Full discussion of existing relevant work, as comparisons, basis or tools. Neatly presented, with clear and polished graphics and clear but brief text. A design which addresses the problem effectively for a non-trivial application; for theoretical analysis: appropriate application of techniques, including classification, proof, complexity analysis etc., to a non-trivial problem. Evaluation plans: appropriate selection of techniques and identification of suitable data to support the evaluation of success of the goals. Possibly includes early results. Verbal discussion will be able to go beyond the poster content, justifying ideas - although allowing for there to be flaws or limitations which are acceptable for MSc level or stage in project. 70% - 84%  -  Very good As for excellent, but competent rather than top class in some respect. 60% - 69%  -  Good Very competent in all respects, substantially correct and complete knowledge but not going beyond what was taught. Literature, design, and/or evaluation plans lacking in sophistication - not really going beyond course material or lacking in complexity.Generally well presented, without requiring the most polished graphics. 55% - 59%  -  Satisfactory Competent in most respects. Minor gaps in knowledge but reasonable understanding of fundamental concepts. Literature, design, and/or evaluation plans are coherent but addressing a simple idea. Possibly lacking in clarity in the presentation or verbal discussion. 50% - 54%  -  Borderline Significant gaps in knowledge but some understanding of funamental concepts.  Typically this project will be a marginal development or integration of course or textbook ideas, with some evaluation or analysis. Presentation may be weak, e.g. poor English or incomplete figures; discussion may reveal weakness in comprehension. 0% - 49%  -  Fail Inadequate knowledge of the subject. Work is seriously flawed, displaying major lack of understanding, irrelevance or incoherence.

School Office: School of Engineering and Informatics, University of Sussex, Chichester 1 Room 002, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QJ [email protected] T 01273 (67) 8195 School Office opening hours: School Office open Monday – Friday 09:00-15:00, phone lines open Monday-Friday 09:00-17:00 School Office location [PDF 1.74MB]

Copyright © 2024, University of Sussex

Dissertation / Project Guidelines

Coming soon, quick links, student support.

© University of Technology, Mauritius. All Rights Reserved

• School of Innovative Technologies and Engineering (SITE)
• School of Sustainable Development and Tourism (SSDT)
• School of Health Sciences (SHS)
• School of Business, Management and Finance (SBMF)
• Doctoral School
• Short Course
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate

• Research Fields
• Publications
• Funded Projects

PROSPECTIVE STUDENT

Existing student.

Developing Marking Criteria

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share through Email

Start with learning outcomes

The starting point for designing and testing marking criteria should be the learning outcomes for your programme. This is to ensure that the design is constructively aligned–that is, the outcomes determine what you want the students to be able to do by the end of the programme, and the marking criteria indicate how well they have achieved this. When detailed marking criteria are available, the students know precisely how they need to demonstrate their learning in an assessment.

Align with the University generic criteria

Marking criteria should align with the appropriate University regulations:

• Regulations for undergraduate modules (p.15)
• Regulations for postgraduate modules (p.3)

Develop criteria for each type of assessment

As different assessments cover different programme learning outcomes, different marking criteria should be developed for different assessment types. For example, if one of the programme learning outcomes is ‘The student will be able to identify appropriate statistical processes and apply these to analysing data sets’, the criteria for an undergraduate dissertation may include:

·      Choose an appropriate statistical process

·      Effectively analyse the data set using the chosen statistical package

·     Critically discuss the findings

These criteria would then be described at each level, i.e. a percentage range (e.g. 60-65%) or a classification (e.g. II(i)). Across a programme, all learning outcomes would be covered by the different assessments. See the Repository of Durham University marking criteria exemplars for examples from a number of departments.

Ensure that the criteria are clear and meaningful to students

Marking criteria should be accessible to students as well as markers. Consider the following when developing or reviewing criteria for each assessment:

• Keep criteria as concise as possible.
• Frame criteria positively for passing marks (i.e. describe what is required rather than what is to be avoided).
• Use concrete phrasing that refers to observable assessment characteristics.
• Separate criteria so that each criterion deals with only one characteristic.
• Specify demonstrable qualities.
• Aim to be precise and specific, but not overly complex.
• Use terminology from the learning outcomes.
• Use adjectives or adverbs to define achievement at different levels (e.g. much, some, key, appropriate).
• If you intend to assess prose style, layout and structure of students’ written work, specify these criteria.
• Be realistic about how many criteria students can competently meet in an assessment task, and how many criteria assessors can juggle when marking.

Keep in mind the importance of distinguishing between terminology at different levels of performance to support students’ understanding. When it comes to providing student feedback, the criteria should clearly indicate to students what they will need to do in future assessments to improve.

Calibration exercises, which involve an iterative process where staff work with draft criteria and standards alongside samples of student work, can ensure that the criteria and standards are appropriate, and are being used appropriately in marking. More on calibration can be found here: Marking criteria calibration .

Any communication with key stakeholders is valuable, including:

• Sharing descriptors with colleagues to make sure there is a shared understanding of what they mean.
• Sharing with students to gain feedback on how transparent and useful the criteria and descriptors are.
• Comparing to sector standards and sharing with the external examiner.

References and resources

Repository of Durham University marking criteria exemplars

Armstrong, S., Chan, S., Malfroy J. & Thomson, R. (2015) Assessment Guide: Implementing criteria and standards-based assessment , University of Western Sydney. Australia: Sydney.

Hughes, C. (2007). Quickbite: Practical guidelines for writing assessment criteria & standards , TheUniversity of Queensland, Australia: Brisbane.

Related Posts

Self feedback.

Self feedback is a guided process in which students evaluate their own work according to marking criteria. It is often […]

Marking Criteria Literacy

Who are marking criteria for? Marking criteria and standards aim to make the assessment process more transparent for everyone. For […]

Marking Criteria Calibration

Marking criteria calibration involves an iterative process where staff work with samples of student work in order to either create […]