BSc Psychology Marking Criteria (Written Assessment)
These criteria apply to all submitted written work (including examination and coursework essays and reports). The criteria refer to three main properties of
the written work: Understanding and Analysis of the topic (U&A), Depth of Knowledge demonstrated (DoK) and Structure and Presentation of the answer
(S&P). These properties are not generally independent, for example any analysis typically requires a structured presentation to be coherent. For work of
variable quality, markers may weigh certain properties above others for particular types of work (for example, in an examination, both U&A and DoK may
carry more weight; whereas all three domains may be equally important for a research report).
| MARK | Level 4 (Year 1) | Level 5 (Year 2) | Level 6 (Year 3) |
| OUTSTANDING (Top First) Well written, highly structured & informed, showing striking personal insight and originality 93% (A**) Consistently achieves all these criteria |
U&A: Full understanding of key theory and evidence demonstrating originality in written assignments, comprehensive understanding of the knowledge base and critical judgement. DoK: Extensive range of research literature used and applied, appropriately to the assignment and of outstanding quality. S&P: Excellently structured, focused and well written presentation. |
U&A: Full understanding of key theory and evidence demonstrating originality in written assignments, comprehensive understanding of the knowledge base and critical judgement. DoK: Extensive range of research literature used and applied appropriately to the assignment, insightful and of outstanding quality. S&P: Excellently structured, focused and well written presentation. Compelling arguments made. |
U&A: Extensive understanding of key theory and evidence demonstrating an ability to formulate ideas in analysis, comprehensive understanding of methodologies with a high degree of precision, highly independent and critical judgement. DoK: Extensive range of primary research literature used and applied to the assignment in a highly insightful manner and of outstanding quality. S&P: Excellently structured, focused and well written presentation Compelling argument throughout. |
| EXCELLENT (High First) Highly thoughtful answer informed by wider reading, showing clarity of thought, personal insight and originality |
U&A: Thorough understanding of key theory and evidence with informed discussion. Evidence of critical evaluation. DoK: Full range of research literature used and applied in a focussed manner. |
U&A: Thorough understanding of key theory and evidence with evidence of evaluation in the discussion. Independent and critical evaluation. DoK: Full range of research literature used and applied in a highly focused manner. |
U&A: Thorough understanding of key theory and evidence with insightful discussion, and independent and critical evaluation integrated throughout. DoK: Full range of primary research literature used and applied in a |
| 88 (A*) Consistently achieves all the criteria 83 (A++) Consistently achieves most of these criteria (and all below) |
S&P: Clear and fluent style. Very well focused and structured. |
S&P: Clear and fluent style. Very well focused and structured. |
detailed integrative way throughout the work. S&P: Clear and fluent style. Very well focused and structured. |
| VERY GOOD (First) Thoughtful answer informed by wider reading showing clarity of thought and personal insight 78 (A+) Consistently achieves all these criteria, and some above 75 (A) Consistently achieves all these criteria 72 (A-) Consistently achieves most of these criteria |
U&A: Thorough understanding of key theory and evidence with sound discussion. DoK: A comprehensive range of relevant literature used. S&P: Clear and logical presentation. |
U&A: Thorough understanding of key concepts demonstrating insight and a good level of evaluation. DoK: Comprehensive range of relevant literature; evidence is used to support arguments; awareness of wider issues. S&P: Clear, logical and integrated presentation. |
U&A: Thorough understanding of key concepts with insightful, creative analysis and independent thinking. DoK: Demonstrates extensive reading of a comprehensive range of relevant research literature, including primary research. S&P: Clear, fluent, logical, integrated and focussed presentation. |
| GOOD (Upper 2nd) Understanding of basic principles and relevant evidence, with a coherent and logical argument 68 (B+) Exceeds or achieves all these criteria 65 (B) Exceeds or achieves most of these criteria |
U&A: Good understanding of key theory and evidence showing evidence of discussion. DoK: Shows knowledge from all core literature. S&P: Coherent and well organised presentation. |
U&A: Good understanding of key concepts with development of analytical thought. DoK: Good use of relevant literature. S&P: Coherent, well organised and logical presentation. |
U&A: Good understanding of all key issues and wider implications with a convincing analysis. DoK: Breadth in examples and literature; evidence used without any major omissions. S&P: Demonstrates extended reading. Coherent, well organised and logical presentation. |
| 62 (B-) Exceeds or achieves some of these criteria |
|||
| SATISFACTORY (Lower 2nd) Sound understanding demonstrated with some analysis 58 (C+) Exceeds or achieves all these criteria 55 (C) Exceeds or achieves most of these criteria 52 (C-) Exceeds or achieves some of these criteria |
U&A: Sound understanding of much relevant theory and evidence demonstrated by description. DoK: Appropriate reading, attempts made to use the material in the work. S&P: Clearly presented but little development. |
U&A: Sound understanding of the key issues is demonstrated, evaluative thought is apparent in some areas. DoK: Appropriate reading is demonstrated to support the discussion. S&P: Clearly presented but little development. |
U&A: Sound understanding of basic principles and main key issues with evidence of analysis or synthesis. DoK: Appropriate material accessed but little evidence of extended reading, possibly some omissions. S&P: Clearly presented and some structure but little development. |
| POOR (Third) Only basic understanding of main issues demonstrated 48 (D+) Exceeds or achieves all these criteria 45 (D) Exceeds or achieves most of these criteria 42 (D-) Exceeds or achieves some of these criteria |
U&A: General knowledge of some areas demonstrated but lacks detail. DoK: Basic literature / material are limited. Low quality in several areas. S&P: Adequate presentation. Some disorganised sections. |
U&A: General knowledge demonstrated but the work is mainly descriptive. DoK: Sparse coverage of basic literature. Low quality coverage in several areas and poor range of reading. S&P: Adequate presentation; unclear sections. |
U&A: General knowledge demonstrated but analysis limited in depth and breadth. DoK: Skeletal coverage of basic literature. Insufficient use of known literature. Low quality in several areas. S&P: Adequate presentation; generally logical. |
| INADEQUATE (Narrow Fail) Significantly unsystematic, incomplete or inaccurate 35% (F+) Exceeds or achieves most of these criteria |
U&A: Some knowledge but limited understanding. Work contains inaccuracies and meaning is unclear. DoK: Limited and/or inappropriate literature/material. Poorly referenced. |
U&A: Some knowledge but does not focus on the question or is very limited. Descriptive work with little recognisable analysis. |
U&A: Key issues not identified or poor analysis. DoK: Inappropriate literature or material used in the assignment. Insufficient reference to the literature some key texts missing. |
| S&P: Disorganised/unclear presentation. Lacks logical order, structure not apparent. |
DoK: Inappropriate literature/material used in assignment. Key texts missing. S&P: Disorganised/unclear presentation with loose ends. |
S&P: Disorganised/unclear presentation. Argument sketchy. |
|
| POOR (Fail) Largely unsystematic incomplete or inaccurate 28 (F) Exceeds or achieves all these criteria 21 (F-) Exceeds or achieves some of these criteria |
U&A: Work is mainly inaccurate or meaning is very unclear. DoK: Poor and/or inappropriate literature/material. Shows lack of understanding of the assignment. S&P: Poor presentation, spelling errors, limited structure or unacceptably brief. |
U&A: Very little knowledge lacks focus with no recognisable analysis. Demonstrated poor understanding of topic. DoK: Poor or inappropriate use of literature. Lacks accuracy, unsound, limited range of sources. S&P: Poor presentation, spelling and grammatical errors, or unacceptably brief. |
U&A: Very poor analysis. Limited understanding of topic. DoK: Poor and or inappropriate literature used. Lacks accuracy, unsound, limited or dated range of sources. S&P: Poor presentation, clumsy and disjointed, spelling and grammatical errors, conventions not followed, or unacceptably brief. |
| NO WORTHWHILE CONTENT (Fail) Little or nothing worthwhile 14 (FF+) Exceeds or achieves all these criteria 7 (FF) Exceeds or achieves some of these criteria 0 (FF-) Fails to exceed any of these criteria |
U&A: Work is very unclear, difficult to follow or garbled. Material presented is inaccurate or entirely irrelevant. DoK: Shows no discernible relevant knowledge or understanding; inappropriate literature is referenced. S&P: Very poor presentation, poor spelling and grammar, lacks structure. |
U&A: Very little knowledge and no understanding of key concepts. DoK: Poor and/or inappropriate literature/material. Shows no discernible knowledge or understanding, lacks coherence. S&P: Very poor presentation, poor spelling and grammar, lacks structure. |
U&A: No analysis evident. DoK: Poor and inappropriate literature, lacking accuracy, unsound. Poor uses of sources, no use of evidence to support argument. Very limited understanding of topic. S&P: Very poor presentation, poor spelling and grammar, lacks structure. |
AssignmentTutorOnline
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
