Stage 3 Undergraduate Projects: Detailed Marking Guidance

COM00015H (PRBX)

Marking Scale

In line with the Guide to Assessment (Appendix R), projects are marked using a 17-point stepped marking scale.

Point	Meaning	Mark /100
0	Zero	0
1	Low Fail	10
2	Mid Fail	25
3	High Fail	35
4	Low Third	42
5	Mid Third	45
6	High Third	48
7	Low 2:2	52
8	Mid 2:2	55
9	High 2:2	58
10	Low 2:1	62
11	Mid 2:1	65
12	High 2:1	68
13	Low 1st	75
14	Mid 1st	80
15	High 1st	90
16	Exceptional 1st	100

Marking Criteria

This remainder of this page describes each of the features which will be considered by markers, their weighting, and a guide as to how those features will be assessed. The categories are multi-modal: markers will use their judgement to award a mark in cases such as an Executive Summary which has excellently described aims and key objectives, but no evaluation.

Mentions below of the "implications" of the work include the legal, social, ethical and professional issues (LSEPI). Even where you believe there are essentially no issues in one or more of these classes your report should justify the belief.

Executive summary (5%)

The following criteria apply to the Executive Summary of the report. They focus on the presentation of the project to a knowledgeable peer of the student, and how successfully the student communicates the project. Markers are not judging the appropriateness of methods, criticality of analysis or implications for future work on their own merits in these criteria.

Fail	Very unclear project aims and objectives. Approach, method and results are not presented or so poorly presented that validity cannot be ascertained. Evaluation is either poorly presented or absent.
Third	Aims and objectives of the project are not clear. Approach, method and results are poorly presented such that the reader struggles to judge the validity of the work. Evaluation is presented poorly, with little reflection on what was achieved or its implications.
Lower Second	Communicates the aims and objectives of the project but it is not completely clear what the project is meant to achieve. Approach, method and results are described leaving out key details, leading to questions of validity of each. Evaluation is presented, but not always clearly described or linked to the aims of the project or success criteria. Implications are lightly discussed with some reflection.
Upper Second	Clearly communicates the aims of the project and some objectives, with a clear motivation. A clear discussion of the approach, method and result, with some details missing. Evaluation against success criteria are present, and some implications of the work are discussed.
First	Very clearly communicates the aims and key objectives of the project and provides a strong motivation for pursuing it. A very clear discussion of the approach taken, the methodology applied and the results achieved. Detailed evaluation against success criteria and implication of results on future work.

Main Report (80%)

These marking criteria apply to the main report as a whole. There is no intention that the headings must be headings of chapters or sections in the report. Students should be rewarded for their success in attempting appropriately defined and justified work, not on whether the project was a complete success.

Introductory Material/Motivation/Background/Literature Review (25%)

Fail	No clearly defined approach, or not clear what the aim and objectives are of the project, or aim and objectives that are very modest for this type of project. Extremely poor synthesis of the state-of-the-art. No clear motivation for the work, lack of evidence of any serious scholarship.
Third	A very weakly defined approach, not clear what the overall aim of the project is. Poorly synthesised from the current state-of-the-art, and objectives are very unclear or very modest/too narrow for this type of project. Motivation is on a weak base of evidence, or motivated solely by personal anecdotes or references solely through traditional and alternative media.
Lower Second	A weakly defined approach, drawn from some synthesis of the current state-of-the-art with unclear objectives of how to reach the aim. Motivation has some justification however it is not clearly articulated or based on a tenuous or incomplete evidence base.
Upper Second	A moderately well defined approach drawn from synthesis of the state-of-the-art with some objectives. Motivation is reasonably well justified based on some peer-reviewed literature or other sources.
First	A clearly well-defined aim and associated approach based on synthesis of the current state-of-the-art with detailed, justified and suitably ambitious objectives of how to achieve the desired result. Motivation is clearly stated and justified based on appropriately chosen peer-reviewed literature, white papers, grey literature and traditional/alternative media.

Methodology/Design/Implementation (25%)

Fail	Methods are wholly inappropriate or extremely poor in execution. Little or No indication of skills obtained during the programme of study.
Third	The selection of methodologies is poorly justified. Methods selected are inappropriate, or very poorly executed, however some skill is indicated in specific instances. Ethical and professional issues are referred to occasionally but not deeply discussed as appropriate for the topic of study.
Lower Second	Methodologies are satisfactorily justified, but not strongly or cover a narrow subset of methods and principles, or method selection is potentially inappropriate. Methods are applied well, but there are errors in the application of the methods, or substantial consistent variations that are not justified. Ethical and professional issues are discussed occasionally, however several obvious issues in application of methods appropriate to the topic are missing.
Upper Second	Methodologies are appropriately selected but justification only covers specific subsets of theories, methods or principles. Methods are applied largely correctly across the project, with some improvement possible in some areas. In line with best practices, but occasionally stray from typical approaches weak or no justification. Specific ethical and professional issues are discussed occasionally throughout the report in regards to how methods were applied, as appropriate for the topic of study.
First	Appropriate, rigorous and robust methods are selected and applied correctly across the project work, in line with best-practices and standards for the topic of study. Students provide a systematic analysis of the chosen methods applied to the topic of study, comprised of the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a branch of knowledge. Typically, it encompasses concepts such as paradigm, theoretical model, phases and quantitative or qualitative techniques. Variations in methods are thoughtfully justified and appropriate. Specific ethical and professional issues are discussed robustly in regards to how methods were applied, as appropriate for the topic of study

Results/Analysis/Evaluation/Testing/Conclusion (30%)

Fail	Results are very modest/narrow-scoped and/or very poorly presented such that it is difficult to know what was accomplished. Results are not synthesised/there are no results to synthesise or outcomes are not relevant or accurate to the results.
Third	Results are very modest, narrow-scoped or are poorly presented with only partial coverage of what would be expected for the topic of study and methods applied. Results are synthesised into a set of outcomes that are of questionable value (possible because the results are very modest), or are often not representative of the results. Outcomes are poorly evaluated against criteria available, with omissions and lack of detail being common in the analysis, or very light links back to motivation and aim of the project. Conclusions only weakly refer to the original motivation
Lower Second	Results are presented in a reasonable way, sometimes varying from what would be expected for the topic of study. Results are synthesised into a set of outcomes that are accurate, but have some questionable derivations. Outcomes are evaluated against self-defined criteria, with some omissions or lack of detail present in the analysis, or light links back to the motivation and aim of the project. Conclusions link only lightly to the original motivation.
Upper Second	Results are mostly clearly presented, and in mostly appropriate styles and methods applied. Results are synthesised into a set of outcomes for the project that are mostly accurate. Implications for those outcomes in the context of the topic of study are referred to in some detail. Outcomes are evaluated reasonably well against the self-defined criteria, with some minor questions outstanding as to whether the project was a success, and there is some links back to the motivation and aim of the project. The conclusions refer back to the motivation with some implications.
First	Results are broad-reaching, multi-faceted and clearly presented in an appropriate style for the topic of study and methods applied. Results are skilfully synthesised to identify a detailed set of clear outcomes for the project, and their potential implications in the context of the topic of study are substantial and robustly argued. Outcomes are evaluated on self-defined success criteria for the project and related back to the original aim and motivation of the project. The Conclusions clearly refer back to the implications of the project relating to the overall motivation.

Written Communication and Referencing (10%)

Fail	Organisation is very unclear and difficult to follow. Spelling and grammar are very poor. Diagrams and images are inappropriately used and often serve to confuse rather than communicate. Tables are nonsensical. Citations are not complete consistently. Referencing is wrong consistently.
Third	Organisation is often unclear and not logical. Spelling and grammar errors are common making the document difficult to read. Diagrams and images are inappropriately used, or often do not provide support to the reader for understanding the information being presented. Tables are often poorly structured. Citations are often incomplete or inconsistent with one another. Referencing is often inconsistent or not done where appropriate.
Lower Second	Organisation is not always clear or logical, or occasionally leaves out important sections expected for the topic of study. Writing style has some inconsistencies of style or is unclear in presentation. Spelling and grammar errors are present regularly. Diagrams and images used appropriately sometimes, but occasionally do not communicate information to the reader or are inappropriate for the information being presented. Tables are overly complex or dense, and sometimes difficult to understand. Citations are a mix of complete and incomplete in terms of information, style varies within the document or the reference list. Referencing is not always done where appropriate.
Upper Second	Good organisation with mostly clear sections, with some questionable logical groupings in some parts of the dissertation. Good quality, clear and concise writing style that is mostly consistent. High quality spelling and grammar. Diagrams and images mostly used appropriately, or which have only small issues around presentation. Tables are structured well, if sometimes dense or difficult to understand. Mostly complete citations in a consistent style, with appropriate referencing within the document.
First	Very well organised with clear sections and structured in logical fashion to communicate the key parts of the dissertation. High quality, clear and concise writing in a consistent style. Near perfect in spelling and grammar. Diagrams and images used appropriately and are clear and appropriate for the information being presented. Tables well structured for purposes of communicating appropriate data. Correct and complete citations in a consistent style, with appropriate referencing within the document.

Reflections (5%)

The marking criteria for the reflective component has been set centrally by the Science faculty's Professional Skills Working Group.

Read the detailed criteria for the reflective component.

Fail	The reflective component of the report is in the "weak" category for all essential and desired criteria.
Third	The reflective component of the report is in the "medium" category for most of the essential criteria, and in the "weak" category for the desired criteria.
Lower Second	The reflective component of the report is in the "medium" category for most of the essential and desired criteria.
Upper Second	The reflective component of the report is in the "good" category for most of the essential criteria, and in the "medium" category for the desired criteria.
First	The reflective component of the report is in the "good" category for all of the essential and desired criteria.