Assessment, Writing Style, Referencing, etc.
In this section
PenaltiesAssessment 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 second 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.
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. Students must then submit the correct file on Tabula once an initial submission has been deleted by the office.
There will be a penalty of 5 marks per working day applied to the submission.
Once the 2 working day window has passed, students who re-submit the correct file for the respective assignment before marking closes will receive a capped mark of 50%; if the mistake is not rectified before marking closes, the mark will be 0%. This policy applies to all assessments.
Please note that it is the student's responsibility to check that a correct file has been uploaded not the marker.
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. Work submitted up to the date of release of feedback will be marked. If, for medical or other compelling reasons, you require an extension for an assessed essay or dissertation please see the extension policy.
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 Masters 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.
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 Marking Scale works, including the descriptors, please see here: https://warwick.ac.uk/services/aro/dar/quality/categories/examinations/marking/pgt/.
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
The below guidance is specific to the History department.
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.
Academic Referencing and Style Guide
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:
Which citation style should you use? The History Department does not favour one particular style, but it does require that students:
- Use the same style throughout any given essay
- Use a recognised style for citations rather than inventing your own style – the MHRA and Chicago style guides are examples.
- Use footnotes for citations rather than in-text citations, such as the in-text citation style administered by the American Psychological Association (the APA style is widely used in the social sciences but rarely in the humanities)
- Include a bibliography at the end of each essay, ie. a list of the works you have cited in the course of the essay
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.
Department
Welfare and Support
Course Regulations
- Course Structure
- Ethical Approval for Research
- Extensions
- Lectures and Seminars
- MA Courses
- Modules
- Associated Costs
Assessment
- Coursework
- Deadlines
- Dissertation
- MA Dissertation Supervision Request Form
- Exam Boards
- Feedback
- Plagiarism