Skip to main content

Marking criteria (written) Language through Films, Language for Contemporary Society, Business 2 & 3

Scale
Mark
Language:
accuracy, range and sophistication (70)
Mark
Content/communication:
scope of ideas / task understanding & fulfilment / clarity and coherence of structure (30)
Excellent 1st  100(70) 94(66) An exceptional piece of writing
Virtually flawless command of the language.
A stylish and ingenious manipulation of the structures of the language even in complex contexts.
Exceptional in every aspect.
100 (30) 94 (28) Exceptionally persuasive, sophisticated argument.
Outstanding grasp of the subject matter.
Highly original, intellectually challenging ideas.
Expertly structured piece of writing.
Original and/or sophisticated illustration/evidence.
High 1st High Mid 1st 88 (62) 82 (57) An outstanding piece of writing
Outstanding command of syntax.
Stylish manipulation of the structures of the language with consistent flair.
Virtually error-free.
Wide-ranging and sophisticated topic-specific vocabulary.
Rhetorical strategies are used idiomatically and with flair.
88 (26) 82 (25) An outstandingly persuasive argument.
Excellent grasp of subject matter and analytical skills.
Excellent range of ideas.
Expertly structured piece of writing.
Excellent range of illustration/evidence.
Appropriate use of register throughout.
Low Mid 1st Low 1st 78 (55) 74 (52) An excellent piece of writing
Excellent command of syntax.
An excellent manipulation of the structures of the language with consistent flair.
Highly accurate: occasional minor errors of spelling, gender or vocabulary.
Wide-ranging and varied topic-specific vocabulary.
A broad range of rhetorical strategies are used to great effect.
78 (23) 74 (22) A highly persuasive argument.
Excellent grasp of subject matter and analytical skills.
Excellent range of ideas.
Rigorously structured piece of writing.
Excellent range of illustration/evidence.
Appropriate use of register throughout.
High 2:1 68 (48) A very good piece of writing
Very good command of syntax.
Very confident manipulation of the language.
Very good range of complex sentences.
Very good range of vocabulary and idioms.
Generally accurate and fluent with few minor errors.
A variety of rhetorical strategies are used to great effect.
68 (20) A very persuasive argument.
Very good grasp of the subject matter and analytical skills.
Very good range of ideas.
Very well-structured piece of writing.
Very good range of illustration/evidence.
Appropriate use of register throughout.
Mid 2:1 65 (46) A good piece of writing
Good command of syntax.
Confident manipulation of the language.
A good range of complex sentence structures are used.
Good range of vocabulary and idioms.
Generally accurate and fluent with some minor grammatical and/or lexical errors.
65 (19) A persuasive argument.
Good grasp of the subject matter and analytical skills.
Good range of ideas.
Well-structured piece of writing.
Good range of illustration/evidence.
Mostly appropriate register.
Low 2:1 62 (44) A mostly good piece of writing
Mostly good command of syntax.
Largely confident manipulation of the language.
Complex sentence structures are attempted but not always successfully executed.
Largely good range of vocabulary and idioms, but some imprecision may occur.
Generally accurate and fluent but with several grammatical and/or lexical errors.
62 (18) A mostly persuasive argument.
Mostly good grasp of the subject matter and analytical skills.
A fair range of ideas.
Reasonably well-structured piece of writing.
A fair range of illustration/evidence.
Mostly appropriate register.
High 2:2 58 (41) A reasonable piece of writing
Reasonable command of syntax.
Reasonable manipulation of the language with some awkwardness of expression.
Lacking fluency in some places.
Complex sentences may be attempted but these are error-prone.
Reasonable range of vocabulary and idioms, but some imprecision occurs.
Some anglicisms may be present in syntax and vocabulary.
Mostly accurate but with occasional major errors, and/or more regular minor grammatical and/or lexical errors.
58 (17) A reasonable if rather flat argument.
Reasonable grasp of main issues but at times understanding of these can be somewhat limited.
Essential information may be lacking.
Satisfactory analytical skills, though these may be uneven.
Ideas may not always be sufficiently developed.
A fair attempt to produce a structured argument though its focus may be erratic.
Illustration may not always be consistently provided.
Some occasional inconsistencies in register may be present.
Mid 2:2 55 (38) An inconsistent piece of writing
Inconsistent command of syntax, which may be anglicised and/or clumsy in places.
Inconsistent manipulation of the language with frequent awkwardness of expression.
Lacking fluency, stilted in places.
Few attempts to create complex sentences, and these are frequently error-prone; or largely accurate but rather simple sentences.
Reasonable range of vocabulary and idioms, but imprecisions frequently occur.
A number of major grammatical and/or lexical errors are present.
Frequent minor errors.
55 (16) An erratic and/or pedestrian argument.
Limited grasp of main issues.
Some attempt at discussion and analysis but the argument lacks focus and/or argumentative reach.
Limited range of ideas.
Patchy evidence of analytical skills.
Structure may be weak and/or unconvincing.
Illustration is weak, inaccurate and/or not always to the point.
Some inconsistencies in register may be present.
Low 2:2 52 (37) An insecure piece of writing
Insecure command of syntax, frequently anglicised and/or clumsy.
Limited manipulation of the language with frequent awkwardness of expression.
Lacking fluency, stilted.
Rare attempts to create complex sentences, and these are error-prone.
Limited range of vocabulary and idioms.
Regular major grammatical and/or lexical errors.
Persistent minor errors.
52 (15) A consistently weak argument.
Some awareness demonstrated of main issues but poor grasp of overall picture.
May contain some material that is irrelevant.
Very little evidence of analytical skills.
Little evidence of a structured approach.
Illustration is weak, not to the point, inaccurate and/or offered in lieu of argument.
Inconsistencies in register may be present.
High 3rd 48 (34) A poor piece of writing
Poor command of syntax, which may compromise comprehension in places.
Frequent inability to manipulate the language.
Very rare attempts to create complex sentences and these are largely unsuccessful.
Some sections are affected by persistent major and minor lexical and grammatical errors.
Poor range of vocabulary.
48 (14) A rather simplistic, superficial approach that struggles to convey an intelligible argument.
Rather vague understanding of how to present the issues.
Occasional recourse to padding.
May contain some material that is irrelevant.
Key information may be missing and/or inaccurate.
Poor structure.
Poor illustration and/or illustration offered in lieu of argument.
Inconsistencies in register may be present.
Mid 3rd 45 (32) A very poor piece of writing
Poor command of syntax, which may occasionally impede comprehension.
Very rare attempts to create complex sentences and these are nearly always unsuccessful.
Some sections are seriously affected by persistent major and minor lexical and grammatical errors.
Very poor range of vocabulary.
45 (13) A simplistic, superficial approach that struggles to convey an intelligible argument.
Vague understanding of how to present the issues.
Frequent recourse to padding.
Contains some material that is irrelevant.
Key information is missing and/or inaccurate.
Very poor structure.
Very poor illustration and/or illustration offered in lieu of argument.
Inconsistencies in register may be present.
Low 3rd 42 (30) An extremely poor piece of writing
Poor command of syntax, which occasionally impedes comprehension.
Overall performance is affected by persistent major and minor lexical and grammatical errors.
Extremely poor range of vocabulary.
42 (12) A very simplistic, superficial approach that often struggles to convey an intelligible argument.
Very vague understanding of how to present the issues.
Frequent recourse to padding.
Contains a significant amount of material that is irrelevant.
Key information is missing and/or inaccurate.
Very poor structure.
Hardly any illustration and/or illustration frequently offered in lieu of argument.
Inconsistencies in register may be present.
High Fail (sub honours) 38 (27) An unsatisfactory piece of writing
Very poor command of syntax, which hinders comprehension.
Widespread inability to manipulate the language.
No successful attempts to create complex sentences.
Persistent major and minor lexical and grammatical errors predominate.
Very poor range of vocabulary.
Comprehension is hindered by awkward expression and anglicisms.
May fall short of the length required.
38 (11) Largely inadequate grasp of the subject matter.
Little or no awareness demonstrated of the main issues.
The argument is generally incoherent and/or irrelevant.
Essential information is either missing and/or inaccurate.
Very poor or no structure.
Extremely poor or no illustration.
Inappropriate register.
Fail 32 (22) A very unsatisfactory piece of writing
Extremely poor command of syntax which nearly always hinders comprehension.
Severely limited in every aspect: grammar, vocabulary, spelling.
Falls short of the length required.
32 (10) Wholly inadequate grasp of the subject matter.
Inadequate awareness of the main issues.
The argument is incoherent and/or irrelevant, to the point that comprehension is hindered.
Essential information is missing and /or inaccurate.
Very poor or no structure.
No illustration.
Falls short of the length required.
Inappropriate register.
25 (18) A wholly inadequate piece of writing
Little evidence of grammatical/lexical competence.
Comprehension is near impossible.
Or not enough language to assess.
25 (7) Wholly inadequate grasp of the subject matter.
A total inability to write to the conventions of the task set.
Low Fail 12 (8) 12 (4)
Zero 0   0 Work of no merit OR Absent OR Work not submitted OR Penalty in some misconduct cases