Coursework
In this section
- Self Certification
- Specific Extensions
- Exceptional Extensions
- Extensions to Dissertations
- Extensions for Reasonable Adjustments
-
Penalties for Late Submission or Non-Submission of Written Assessed Work
-
Penalties for Non-Submission/Attendance of Assessed Presentations/Group Projects
Assessment Deadlines
The dates and times by which you should submit your work for assessment are given on Tabula.
Work should be uploaded to Tabula by the date and time specified on the system and following the online instructions. Please note that since this is an electronic system, it is very accurate, so even if you submit your work just one minute after the deadline, it will be marked as late and penalties will be imposed accordingly.
Make sure you allow yourself plenty of time to upload your work and try not to leave this until the deadline day itself. If you encounter any technical problems with your IT equipment or with uploading your work which mean that you are unable to meet the deadline, these cannot be accepted as a valid reason for late or non-submission and penalties will be imposed accordingly. Work submitted by any other means (e.g. emailed to the Office or a tutor) will not be accepted.
Extensions
Extensions to assessed work deadlines may be granted in exceptional and/or unforeseen circumstances (such as ill-health or family bereavement).
The Department expects students to plan their time carefully. It is reasonable to expect that minor disruptions will occur during the assessment period and it is your responsibility to allow for this in your work schedule. It is also reasonable to expect that the essay and exam period will be stressful and extensions requested on these grounds will not be approved.
Extensions will not be granted for computer failure, loss of work that has not been backed up, failure to submit the correct version of an essay, issues with transport, paid work or any other reason that the department considers bad time management.
Extension requests (apart from self-certifications) require written evidence that personal difficulties and/or illness have had a detrimental impact on an individual student’s capacity to study. This evidence must be attached to the extension request when it is submitted on Tabula.
Retrospective requests for extensions will not be granted. If serious circumstances prevent you from requesting an extension ahead of time, you should meet with your personal tutor to discuss an application to the Mitigating Circumstances Committee to be taken into consideration. This must be done as soon as possible.
There are different types of extension so please read the below carefully:
Self-Certification
All students are able to apply for two separate extension periods of 5 working days via the self-certification policy. These extensions will be granted without the need for evidence. Students should apply via Tabula no more than five days before the submission deadline for the assessed piece of work, or pieces if there is more than one deadline in the 5 working day period (students must specify ALL the assignments they are applying for self-certification for within the 5-day working period). Please check that your self-certification has been approved. Students may receive a message via the Self-Certification Portal on Tabula requesting further information from the Year Director before approval.
This step-by-step guide goes through the process of applying for a self-certification. You can also see the number of self-certifications you have remaining on Tabula.
PLEASE NOTE YOU CANNOT USE TWO SELF-CERTIFICATIONS ON THE SAME ASSIGNMENT(S)
Specific Extensions
You may apply for a specific extension of 5 working days if you encounter exceptional or unforeseen circumstances. Students should apply via tabula at least two working days in advance of the published assessment deadline. Unlike self-certifications supporting evidence must be provided. You are eligible to apply for a specific extension even if you have self-certifications remaining.
Instructions for requesting a specific extension can be found here: https://warwick.ac.uk/services/its/servicessupport/web/tabula/manual/cm2/students/extension
You will receive a response to your extension request via Tabula within 3 working days.
Exceptional Extensions
Further extensions (beyond a period of self-certification or a specific extension) may be granted only in exceptional circumstances. In these cases, you must discuss your situation with your personal tutor and/or with Disability and Wellbeing Services. In addition to the supporting evidence, you must upload an email from your personal tutor confirming you have discussed your circumstances with them. Extensions are not normally granted for more than 10 working days (which includes any period of self-certification or specific extension).
Requests for exceptional extensions should be made via Tabula (remember to do this for each separate assessment, if you have multiple assessments due around the same time).
Instructions for requesting an exceptional extension can be found here: https://warwick.ac.uk/services/its/servicessupport/web/tabula/manual/cm2/students/extension
You will receive a response to your extension request via Tabula within 3 working days.
Extensions for reasonable adjustments
If you have a disability or a chronic or long term health issue (including mental health issues) you may be eligible for reasonable adjustments which will grant you flexibility in deadlines. To qualify for this you must be assessed by Disability Services. Once assessed you will not need to upload further evidence. When applying for an extension on the grounds of reasonable adjustments please note 'reasonable adjustments' in the box provided. Extensions for reasonable adjustments are granted for 5 working days.
You will receive a response to your extension request via Tabula within 3 working days.
File Naming
While there is no "correct" way to name a file, we strongly urge you to adopt a robust convention for naming and organising your files before submitting work - this will help prevent you from accidentally submitting the wrong file. Submission of the wrong file will result in penalties (for more information please see below)
A meaningful filename would contain your student number, the module code, assignment name and an indication that it is the final version, for example:
1234567 - HI999 - Source Review - FINAL.pdf
It is essential that you do not include your own name in the document or file name.
Submission of the Wrong File
Occasionally, a student will accidentally upload an incorrect file The department allows a window of 2 working days after the deadline in which students who realise that they have uploaded an incorrect file can contact the department and have the incorrect file deleted and be allowed to upload the correct file.
It is the student’s responsibility to check Tabula and ensure that they have uploaded the correct file for all of their summative assessments.
If a student discovers that they have uploaded an incorrect file for a summative assessment they must email the History PG Office within 2 days of the original submission and also attach to the email the correct file which should have been uploaded.
There will be a penalty of 5 marks per working day applied to the submission.
Once the 2 working day window has passed, students will receive a capped mark of 40 for any incorrect submission. This policy applies to assessments and to 7-day take-home exams.
Please note that it is the student's responsibility to check that a correct file has been uploaded not the marker.
Extensions to Dissertations
Extensions will not normally be permitted for your dissertation. If there are special circumstances which affect your ability to present your work at this time, this will need to be explained to the PGT Director well in advance of the deadline.
Penalties
Penalties for Late Submission or Non-Submission of Written Assessed Work
Deadlines for the submission of work are available on Tabula. According to University rules, late submission of an assessed essay will, unless an extension has been approved, result in a penalty deduction from your mark for the work of 5 marks per day. Weekends (Saturday and Sunday) and bank holidays are NOT included when calculating penalties for late submission. There is no upper limit to the total penalty for late submission. If, for medical or other compelling reasons, you require an extension on an assessed essay or dissertation please see the extension policy.
Penalties for Non-Submission/Attendance of Assessed Presentations/Group Projects
If students are unable to attend a scheduled presentation they will receive a mark of 0 (in the same way as if they missed a scheduled examination). If they have mitigation for illness or other circumstances then they should submit this as soon as possible (see the section of the handbook on mitigation policy). The mitigation panel which reports to the examination board may a) allow a further first attempt (usually an essay is substituted for the presentation/group project) b) allow a resit where the work is capped at 40%) c) in exceptional circumstances waive the need to take the component (usually only if the assessment component is worth less than 3 CATS).
20 Point Marking Scale
The University uses the '20 Point Marking Scale', which directly maps to the different degree classification, and it is now used to mark all undergraduate work. Some work may receive an overall mark that is a composite of several marks from the 20 Point Marking Scale.
Classification is a complex matter, requiring skill and judgement on the part of markers, and no brief list can hope to capture all the considerations that may come into play. There is no requirement that a piece of work would have to meet every one of the specified criteria in order to obtain a mark in the relevant class. Equally, when work displays characteristics from more than one class, a judgement must be made of the overall quality. In some respects, expectations differ between essays, oral contributions, presentations, applied tasks, and exam answers. Presentation, style, grammar and spelling are important aspects of the ability to communicate ideas with clarity.
For details of how the 20 Point Marking Scale works, including the descriptors, please see here: https://warwick.ac.uk/services/aro/dar/quality/categories/examinations/marking/pgt/.
Word Length and Penalties for Over Length Work
A published maximum word length has the force of a University Regulation. All assessed work submitted for a Master’s degree must conform to the word lengths are given in this Handbook, and published elsewhere. You will be asked to provide a word count of your essays and dissertation, to be noted on the title page and confirmed on Tabula. Please note that the word count excludes the bibliography, title pages, footnotes and appendices (including acknowledgements).
- Any assessed work over 4,500 words: 1 mark off for each 100 words (or part thereof)
- Any assessed work up to 4,500 words: 1 mark off for each 50 words (or part thereof) over the specified limit
The word limits are strict upper limits, and marks will be deducted if the assessment is over-length. The title page is not included in the word count, but titles and subtitles in the text are. You do not need an abstract or content list, but if you do include these, they are counted in the word count.
You will not be penalised for producing under length work, provided quality is not sacrificed to brevity. Learning to write to a limit is one of the skills the degree is designed to encourage you to cultivate.
Written Work (essays, exams, dissertations)
80+ (Distinction)
Work which, over and above possessing all the qualities of the 70-79 mark range, indicates a fruitful new approach to the material studies, represents an advance in scholarship or is judged by examiners to be of a standard publishable in a peer-reviewed publication.
70-79 (Distinction)
Methodologically sophisticated, intelligently argued, with some evidence of genuine originality in analysis or approach. Impressive command of the critical/historiographical/theoretical field, and an ability to situate the topic within it, and to modify or challenge received interpretations where appropriate. Excellent deployment of a substantial body of primary material/texts to advance the argument. Well structured, very well written, with proper referencing and an extensive bibliography.
60-69 (Merit)
Well organised and effectively argued, analytical in approach, showing a sound grasp of the critical/historiographical/theoretical field. Demonstrates an ability to draw upon a fairly substantial body of primary material, and to relate this in an illuminating way to the issues under discussion. Generally well written, with a clear sequence of arguments, and satisfactory referencing and bibliography.
50-59 (Pass)
A lower level of attainment than work in the 60-69 range, but demonstrating some awareness of the general critical/historiographical/theoretical field. Mainly analytical, rather than descriptive or narrative in approach. An overall grasp of the subject matter, with, perhaps, a few areas of confusion or gaps in factual or conceptual understanding of the material. Demonstrates an ability to draw upon a reasonable range of primary material, and relate it accurately to the issues under discussion. Clearly written, with adequate referencing and bibliography.
40-49 (Fail/Diploma)
This work is inadequate for an MA award, but maybe acceptable for a Postgraduate Diploma [although some departments may wish to set the pass mark for a diploma at a higher level than this]. Significant elements of confusion in the framing and execution of the response to the question. Simple, coherent and solid answers, but mainly descriptive or narrative in approach. Relevant, but not extensive deployment of primary material in relation to the issues under discussion. Occasional tendency to derivativeness either by paraphrase or direct quotation of secondary sources. Some attempt to meet requirements for referencing and bibliography.
39- (Fail)
Work inadequate for an MA or Diploma award. Poorly argued, written and presented. Conceptual confusion throughout, and demonstrates no knowledge of the critical/historiographical/theoretical field. Failure to address the issues raised by the question, derivative, very insubstantial or very poor or limited deployment of primary material.
History Department Additional Assessment Criteria
80+ (Distinction)
Knowledge and Understanding: Exceptional and/or outstanding comprehension of the implications of the question and sophisticated, creative and original, nuanced and critical understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues not only pertaining to the subject, but to the field as a whole. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate and exceptionally sophisticated usage. According to the judgement of the examiners may be of publishable standard in a peer-reviewed journal
Argument: A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and extremely well-supported with elements of originality. Outstanding evidence throughout independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the question’, suggesting a thorough grasp of the broader field and wider concepts. Evidence of reading exceptionally widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument; demonstrates the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.
Presentation: Exceptionally well presented: no grammatical or spelling errors; written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary referencing and bibliographic formatting. Very extensive and detailed knowledge with impressive conceptual understanding and analytical skills. Extensive evidence of coherence, creativity, originality, autonomy, imagination and the ability to deal with complexity, contradictions or gaps in the knowledge base and ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.
70-79 (Distinction)
Knowledge and Understanding: Excellent comprehension of the implications of the question and critical understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate and sophisticated usage.
Argument: A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and well-supported. Evidence of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the immediate question’, suggesting a burgeoning grasp of the broader field and wider concepts. Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument; demonstrates the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and perhaps some knowledge at the forefront of the discipline
Presentation: Extremely well presented: minimal grammatical or spelling errors if any; written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary referencing and bibliographic formatting.
60-69 (Merit)
Knowledge and Understanding: Generally well written, with a clear sequence of arguments, and satisfactory referencing and bibliography. Very good comprehension of the implications of the question and fairly extensive and accurate knowledge and understanding, showing a sound grasp of the critical/historiographical/theoretical field, well organised and effectively argued, analytical in approach. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: used with reasonable ease and success.
Argument: Demonstrates an ability to draw upon a fairly substantial body of primary material, and to relate this in an illuminating way to the issues under discussion. Very good awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological issues, though not always displaying an understanding of how they link to the question. A generally critical, analytical argument, which shows attempts at independent thinking and is sensibly structured and generally well-supported. Clear and generally critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of works beyond the prescribed reading list; demonstrating the ability to be selective in the range of material used, and the capacity to synthesise rather than describe
Presentation: Very well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors; written clearly and concisely; fairly consistent and satisfactory referencing and bibliographic formatting
50-59 (Pass)
Knowledge and Understanding: Generally clear and accurate knowledge, though there may be some errors and/or gaps and some awareness of underlying theoretical/methodological issues with limited understanding of how they relate to the question. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: attempted use, but not always successful, not always a full understanding of concepts/theory/method used.
Argument: Demonstrates an ability to draw upon a reasonable range of primary material, and relate it accurately to the issues under discussion. Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather than critical and analytical. Tendency to assert/state opinion, view or ‘feeling’ rather than argue on the basis of reasoned arguments and evidence; arguments not sustained by choice of evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical. Some attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the unit; but displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and non-relevant material.
Presentation: Adequately presented: writing style conveys meaning but is sometimes awkward; some significant grammatical and spelling errors; inconsistent referencing, but generally accurate bibliography; bibliography may be too short.
40-49 (Fail/Diploma)
Knowledge and Understanding: Work inadequate for an MA or PG Diploma award. Limited knowledge and understanding with significant errors and omissions and generally ignorant or confused awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: attempts to use, but only with partial understanding and/or success.
Argument: Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a case; underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but used inappropriately or incorrectly. Relevant, but not extensive deployment of primary material in relation to the issues under discussion. Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive description. Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range of sources
Presentation: Poorly presented: not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and spelling errors; a limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions.
39- (Fail)
Knowledge and Understanding: Work inadequate for an MA or PG Diploma award. Unsatisfactory level of knowledge and understanding of the subject; limited or no understanding of theoretical/methodological issues. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: little and/or inaccurate usage
Argument: Very little comprehension of the implications of the question and lacking a coherent structure. Lacking any attempt at analysis and critical engagement with issues, based on description or opinion. Little use of sources and what is used reflects a very narrow range or is irrelevant and/or misunderstood
Presentation: Unsatisfactory presentation: difficult to follow; a very limited attempt at providing references (e.g. only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions.
Essay Writing Checklist
Here are some of the things you need to think about in preparing an essay. Few of them are iron rules. Good essays come in many forms, and a good essay writer will sometimes ignore some of these guidelines. But to become a good essay writer you would probably do well to start by following them.
Please remember that writing an essay involves skills of discussion and argument which differ from those that might be used in the informal setting of a seminar. In the first place, argument and analysis in essays will usually have to be more carefully structured than the comments you might make in a seminar or tutorial discussion. In essays, you should demonstrate awareness of more than one argument, acknowledge differences in the views of historians, and adopt a critical appreciation of evidence and its sources. You should also provide the necessary scholarly underpinning for your analysis by showing the sources of your information and arguments in bibliographies and footnotes.
On questions of presentation, footnoting, etc. you should follow the advice given by the department.
The Essay Question
- Have you really answered the question?
- Have you thought about what might lie behind the question, e.g. if it asks 'Was the First World War the main cause of the Russian Revolution?', have you thought about what alternative explanations might be suggested?
- Is each paragraph clearly related to the overall question, raising a new topic and moving the argument forward?
- The ultimate test is that if you left the title off the top of your essay, could a friend guess the question from your answer?
Your Analysis
- Have you made an argument or is the essay simply relating what happened?
- Is your argument logical, coherent and clear?
- Are you contradicting yourself?
- Are you using appropriate evidence to back up each part of your argument?
- Are you aware of counter-arguments?
- Have you combined evidence and ideas from several different sources at each stage of the argument, or are you merely summarising what your sources say one by one?
Your Research
- Have you done enough reading? Six books/article/chapters is suggested for a short essay; ten or more for a long one.
- Are you up to date on the historical debate? Do not rely only on the older texts.
- Have you listed in the bibliography all the sources you used, and only those sources?
The essentials...
Presentation and accurate referencing is an essential part of the historian's craft. An essay that is well written and properly referenced will convey your message efficiently and be more persuasive. Many different formatting conventions are used in scholarly publications and this can be confusing. What we recommend is the best current practice. If you are unsure about any of these guidelines, please ask your essay tutors for clarification.
Why reference?
From reading academic articles and books, you should be familiar with the scholarly practice of making references in the text to other people's work and providing listings of relevant source material at the end of the text.
Why is this done?
- To enable someone reading the document to find the material you have referred to or consulted
- To demonstrate your width of reading and knowledge about a subject
- To support and/or develop points made in the text
- To avoid accusations of plagiarism: using somebody else's work without acknowledging the fact
- Because you may be required to do so by your department
Academic Referencing and Style Guide
The History department recommends that students follow the MHRA standard for essay writing. MHRA is a footnote style commonly used in the Humanities. Superscript numbers are placed in the body of the text, and corresponding notes are placed at the end of each page to cite the resources used.
Examples of good and bad referencing can be found in the Plagiarism section of this handbook:
Proofreading Guidelines
University guidelines on proofreading of assessed/unassessed work can be found at https://warwick.ac.uk/services/aro/dar/quality/categories/examinations/policies/v_proofreading. It sets out expectations, acceptable practices and exceptions for students. The Tabula cover sheet has been updated to reflect this policy and all students must confirm on submission of their work if they have used the services of a proofreader to support their assignment.
Academic Integrity
Please refer to the academic integrity section of the handbook, which can be found here.