Marking
In this section
20 Point Marking Scale
The University uses the ‘20 Point Marking Scale’, which directly maps to the different degree classifications. This scale also includes ‘descriptors,’ short descriptions of the criteria that a piece of work needs to meet to receive a given classification. The scale 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. More details on the scale are here: https://warwick.ac.uk/services/aro/dar/quality/categories/examinations/marking/ug2017/
Classification is a complex matter, requiring skill and judgement on the part of markers. No brief list can hope to capture all the considerations that may come into play. A piece of work does not need to meet every one of the specified criteria to obtain a mark in the relevant class. Work that meets all the criteria in a class is likely to achieve the highest marks in that class. Equally, when work displays characteristics from more than one class, a judgement must be made of the overall quality.
The same standard applies to all undergraduate levels. For example, two essays of the same quality should get the same mark even if one is submitted by a first-year student and the other by a final-year student.
History Marking Descriptors
The descriptors on the 20-Point Marking Scale are designed for use in all subjects across the university. Because History is a distinct discipline, with values and practices of its own, the History department has developed its own marking descriptors. These descriptors are modelled on the university-wide descriptors but have more detail that is specific to History.
The History department has two sets of descriptors, one for written work and one for seminar contribution. Tutors will provide specific marking criteria for other types of assessment where appropriate. Please contact your module convenor if you are unclear about how an assignment will be marked.
Like the university-wide descriptors, the History-specific descriptors implicitly cover good academic practice and the avoidance of academic misconduct.
Written Work (essays, exams, dissertations)
Update for 2023/24 academic year. The descriptors for written work were revised over 2022/23, in preparation for the 2023/24 academic year. The revisions were made in consultation with staff and students. These changes bring the descriptors into line with existing marking practices; they are not meant to change marking practices. For example, an essay that received a 62 in 2022/3 would still receive a 62 in 2023/4. The main change is the division of the first-class descriptors into two, with a view to clarifying the criteria for high first-class marks. There is no change to the way degrees are classified Link opens in a new window
A full comparison between the old descriptors, the new descriptors, and the 20-point marking scale, can be found here Link opens in a new window
What is being assessed:
- Argument: does the work give a persuasive answer to the question, with good use of evidence?
- Knowledge: is the work based on a thorough factual knowledge of relevant historical events?
- Understanding: does the work give a critical analysis of sources, theories, methods, and/or debates that are relevant to the topic at hand?
- Presentation: is the work clearly written, logically organised, and correctly referenced?
In each class below, the bullet points cover argument, knowledge, understanding, and presentation, in that order.
First (88, 94, 100)
- Compelling answer to the question, expertly supported by evidence
- Comprehensive and precise knowledge of relevant topics and sources
- Original and sophisticated understanding of relevant sources, theories, methods, and/or debates
- Superb presentation, including elegant writing style, strong organisation, and flawless referencing
- May achieve, or be close to, a publishable standard
First (74, 78, 82)
- Persuasive answer to the question, skilfully supported by evidence
- Extensive and detailed knowledge of relevant topics and sources
- Critical understanding of relevant sources, theories, methods and/or debates
- Very good presentation, including engaging writing style, logical organisation, and accurate referencing
Upper Second (62, 65, 68)
- Coherent answer to the question, carefully supported by evidence
- Substantial and accurate knowledge of relevant topics and sources
- Sound understanding of relevant sources, theories, methods, and/or debates
- Good presentation, including fluent writing style, clear organisation, and correct referencing
Lower Second (52, 55, 58)
- Plausible answer to the question, supported by some evidence, although argument may take second place to narrative and description
- Adequate knowledge of relevant topics and sources
- Some understanding of relevant sources, theories, methods and/or debates
- Adequate presentation, including writing, organisation, and referencing
Third (42, 45, 48)
- Partial answer to the question, with evidence that is incomplete, irrelevant, or excessively descriptive
- Narrow or erroneous knowledge of relevant topics or sources
- Flawed understanding of relevant sources, theories, methods and/or debates
- Poor presentation, which may include unclear writing, confused organisation, or careless referencing
Fail (12, 25, 32, 38)
- No real answer to the question, whether through lack of evidence, misinterpretation of the question, or failure to state an answer
- Very little knowledge of topics and sources
- Serious misunderstanding of relevant sources, theories, methods and/or debates
- Seriously muddled presentation, which may include incoherent writing, an absence of organisation, or little or no referencing
Zero
- Work of no merit
- Work not submitted
- Work penalised for lateness, academic misconduct, or submission of the wrong file, may in some cases receive a mark of zero
Seminar Contribution
What is being assessed:
- Oral Communication: clarity of expression; persuasiveness; respectfulness and inclusivity; asking useful/probing questions; contributions that extend the discussion.
- Knowledge and Understanding: evidence of preparation of core and/or wider reading; demonstrates comprehension of the readings and/or seminar questions
- Methodological Approaches: ability to discern, explain, or engage with historiographical or methodological issues raised by the readings and/or seminar questions
- Analysis: engagement with and evaluation of readings; focus on meaning rather than description; evidence and argument-driven responses to seminar questions
|
Class |
Scale |
Mark |
Generic Descriptor (20 point scale) |
Seminar Contribution Descriptor |
|
First |
Excellent 1st |
100 |
Work of original and exceptional quality which in the examiners’ judgement merits special recognition by the award of the highest possible mark. |
The student engages in both large and small group discussions [and, if applicable, online] with exceptionally clearly expressed oral contributions that demonstrate excellent understanding of the readings and the wider significance of the seminar questions. The student is able to critically engage with historiographical and methodological issues raised by the reading or seminar questions. The student provides well-evidenced and persuasive arguments in response to questions or source analysis, and makes sophisticated and original contributions to knowledge. The student asks questions, or makes contributions, that extend the discussion and may be of professional standard. In discussion with others, the student takes on a leadership role with regard to respectfulness and inclusivity. [If applicable, the student is able to critically reflect on, and critically evaluate, their seminar performance] |
|
94 |
Exceptional work of the highest quality, demonstrating excellent knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. At final-year level: work may achieve or be close to publishable standard. |
|||
|
High 1st |
88 |
Very high quality work demonstrating excellent knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. Work which may extend existing debates or interpretations. |
The student engages in both large and small group discussions [and, if applicable, online] with very clearly expressed oral contributions that demonstrate excellent understanding of the readings and the wider significance of the seminar questions. The student is able to engage with historiographical and methodological issues raised by the reading or seminar questions. The student provides well-evidenced and persuasive arguments in response to questions or source analysis. The student asks questions, or makes contributions, that extend the discussion. In discussion with others, the student demonstrates a high level of respectfulness and inclusivity. [If applicable, the student is able to critically reflect on and accurately evaluate their seminar performance] |
|
|
Upper Mid 1st |
82 |
|||
|
Lower Mid 1st |
78 |
|||
|
Low 1st |
74 |
|||
|
Upper Second (2.1) |
High 2.1 |
68 |
High quality work demonstrating good knowledge and understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. |
The student engages in both large and small group discussions [and, if applicable, online] with clearly expressed oral contributions that demonstrate understanding of the reading and the seminar questions. The student is able to identify, and may be able to explain, historiographical and/or methodological issues raised by the reading or seminar questions. The student provides evidenced arguments in response to questions or source analysis. The student may make contributions that extend the discussion. In discussion with others, the student demonstrates a good level of respectfulness and inclusivity. [If applicable, the student is able to reflect on and accurately evaluate their seminar performance] |
|
Mid 2.1 |
65 |
|||
|
Low 2.1 |
62 |
|||
|
Lower Second |
High 2.2 |
58 |
Competent work, demonstrating reasonable knowledge and understanding, some analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance, presentation and appropriate skills. |
The student may engage only in small group discussions [and, if applicable, online] with contributions that demonstrate understanding of the reading and the seminar questions. The quality of their oral expression may be limited. The student may be able to identify historiographical or methodological issues raised by the reading or seminar questions. The student provides answers in response to questions or source analysis that may be fact-based or descriptive rather than interpretive. In discussion with others, the student demonstrates a reasonable level of respectfulness and inclusivity. [If applicable, the student is able to accurately evaluate their seminar performance] |
|
Mid 2.2 |
55 |
|||
|
Low 2.2 |
52 |
|||
|
Third |
High 3rd |
48 |
Work of limited quality, demonstrating some relevant knowledge and understanding. |
The student may engage only partially in small group discussions [and, if applicable, online] with contributions that demonstrate some understanding of the reading or the seminar questions. The quality of their oral expression may lack coherence. The student provides answers in response to questions or source analysis that are fact-based or descriptive. In discussion with others, the student demonstrates limited respectfulness and inclusivity. [If applicable, the student is able to provide a limited evaluation of their seminar performance] |
|
Mid 3rd |
45 |
|||
|
Low 3rd |
42 |
|||
|
Fail |
High Fail (sub Honours) |
38 |
Work does not meet standards required for the appropriate stage of an Honours degree. Evidence of study and demonstrates some knowledge and some basic understanding of relevant concepts and techniques, but subject to significant omissions and errors. |
The student attends but does not engage in discussion [Online contributions, if applicable, are brief]. Contributions may demonstrate some understanding of the reading or the seminar questions. The student’s oral expression lacks coherence. Responses to questions may be inaccurate or incomplete. The student may be disrespectful of others. [If applicable, the student is unable to accurately evaluate their seminar performance] |
|
Fail |
32 |
Work is significantly below the standard required for the appropriate stage of an Honours degree. Some evidence of study and some knowledge and evidence of understanding but subject to very serious omissions and errors. |
The student attends but does not engage in discussion. [Online contributions, if applicable, are very brief, inaccurate, or incomplete.] Responses to questions, when prompted, are inaccurate or incomplete. The student may be disrespectful of others. [If applicable, the student is unable to accurately evaluate their seminar performance] |
|
|
25 |
Poor quality work well below the standards required for the appropriate stage of an Honours degree. |
The student attends but does not engage in discussion or answer questions. [Online contributions, if applicable, are inaccurate or incomplete.] The student may be disrespectful of others. [If applicable, the student is unable to accurately evaluate their seminar performance] |
||
|
Low Fail |
12 |
|||
|
Zero |
Zero |
0 |
Work of no merit OR Absent, work not submitted, penalty in some misconduct cases |
Absent without authorisation. [No contribution to online element, if applicable]. |