Marking Criteria for Culture Modules

When are these marking criteria applied? How will my work be marked?

For SMLC culture modules, individual assignments are graded using a scale comprised of 20 points. This approach reflects the fact that there is no single “correct” answer. Your grade also reflects your overall proficiency across several key areas. In the assignment briefLink opens in a new window for the particular task, your module tutor will clarify which of these categories are most relevant to your work and if any do not apply.

ArgumentationLink opens in a new window and StructureLink opens in a new window:

What is your approach to the assignment briefLink opens in a new window? Is it well justified?
How do you guide the reader/audience from one idea to the next?
Is your discussion focused? How do you show how points are related to each other and to your overarching argument?

AnalysisLink opens in a new window and Depth of KnowledgeLink opens in a new window:

Do you know the material in detail?
Can you reflect on the “How?” “What?” “Why? “So what?” of the choices an author/filmmaker/translator etc. has made in terms of the story they tell, the language they use, the settings they choose, and so on?
Do you understand how the material reflects the time in which it was produced? Or how it speaks to the historical, cultural, philosophical, political, theoretical issues raised in the module as a whole?

Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window and OriginalityLink opens in a new window:

Do you consider the brief and the issues that it raises from various angles?
Do you develop your own informed perspective on the issues rather than repeating what you have heard or read elsewhere?
Do you take what others say on face value? Do you ask: How have they come to this conclusion? What is their evidenceLink opens in a new window? Are other interpretations possible?

Academic ResearchLink opens in a new window, EngagementLink opens in a new window, and PracticeLink opens in a new window:

Do you use high-quality, reliable sourcesLink opens in a new window to improve your understanding and provide evidence for your arguments and analysisLink opens in a new window?
Do you understand how your work relates to what others have said and done before?
Have you acknowledged when your work builds on somebody else’s ideas? Is it possible to verify the resources that you cite through your references?

CommunicationLink opens in a new window and PresentationLink opens in a new window:

How clear is it for others to understand your work?
Has your work been formatted and prepared to a professional standard, i.e. with consistent use of font and spacing? Has it been proofread to minimise spelling and grammar errors? Is the technical executionLink opens in a new window and production effective?
If applicable, have you given careful consideration to the medium chosen (video, podcast etc.) and to how you can use it to enhance the message?

This list includes lower-order skills like showing knowledge and comprehension that you have developed at school. It also includes higher-order skills, which are the more complex cognitive processes that we expect you to have progressively refined by your final year. The higher-order skills may therefore have a particularly strong bearing on your overall mark.

When should I use these marking criteria?

Before submission: These marking criteria explain what your tutors will be looking for when they assess the different skills that you have demonstrated.

You should always read the criteria below alongside the assignment briefLink opens in a new window for the task that you have been set. The brief explains the expected learning outcomesLink opens in a new window(i.e. the skills and knowledge that you are expected to show) for that assignment. The brief will make clear if the task has been designed to focus on certain skills and/or if any criteria do not apply to that assessment.

After you get your grade: Your grade reflects the overall picture of your achievement. Your work may show strengths in some areas and potential for improvement in others. Depending on the assignment or level of study, some criteria may be weighted higher than others. The feedback provided by your module tutor will help you to understand how to develop your skills for future assignments.

Your tutor will be available during Advice and Feedback Hours to discuss the feedback in more detail.

94-100 / High First: Expert

Work in this category goes well beyond what is expected at this level of study. There is virtually no scope for improvement given the confines of the assignment. At final-year level, work could plausibly be worked up for publication or be presented at a postgraduate conference or in another professional setting.

Work in this category will show all the skills expected of assignments awarded a Mid First. It will also display additional strengths, as applicable:

ArgumentationLink opens in a new window and StructureLink opens in a new window	AnalysisLink opens in a new window and Depth of KnowledgeLink opens in a new window	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window and OriginalityLink opens in a new window	Academic ResearchLink opens in a new window, EngagementLink opens in a new window & PracticeLink opens in a new window	ComLink opens in a new window munication and PresentationLink opens in a new window
The approach has impressive subtlety. The discussion sensitively and deftly manages ideas of considerable complexity. The discussion builds to a compelling conclusion.	Shows profound and sophisticated understanding. Uses ideas beyond those introduced in the module. Perceives nuancesLink opens in a new window, ambivalences, or challenges not yet articulated elsewhere.	Takes a critical approachLink opens in a new window throughout. Significantly advances understanding of the material. Offers highly original and compelling interpretations and/or justifications. May present plausible responses to gaps and tensions in previous work.	Demonstrates initiative in identifying high-quality sources to deepen knowledge of a range of issues. Consistently and astutely reflects on existing scholarship and/or practiceLink opens in a new window, as relevant. Shows a refined understanding of how the assignment contributes to existing scholarship and/or practiceLink opens in a new window. May engage with cutting-edge or interdisciplinary sourcesLink opens in a new window that expand conventional frameworks for evaluating the material.	Expression is highly polishedLink opens in a new window and stylistically assured throughout. Would stand out in professional contexts. For multimedia/poster presentations and creative projects: The submission is distinctive and memorable, using the chosen format in innovative ways to communicate complex ideas with clarity and impact. Every aspect—from concept to execution—shows attention to detail and a deep understanding of how creative choices shape meaning.

82-88 / Mid First: Accomplished and Advanced

Work in this category demonstrates an advanced understanding of the requirements of the assignment briefLink opens in a new window and shows mastery of the learning outcomesLink opens in a new window. It demonstrates wide-ranging, detailed, and accurate knowledge and may skilfully balance breadth with depth. Examples are thoughtfully chosen and thoroughly analysedLink opens in a new window, producing original interpretations. There is sustained critical reflection. The work may fill gaps in scholarship and/or practice. It is not just methodical but demonstrates real finesse. There will be limited scope for refinement in work awarded 88.

Work in this category may show all the skills expected of an assignment awarded a Low First. It will also display additional strengths, as applicable:

ArgumentationLink opens in a new window and StructureLink opens in a new window	AnalysisLink opens in a new window and Depth of KnowledgeLink opens in a new window	Critical Thinking and OriginalityLink opens in a new window	Academic ResearchLink opens in a new window, EngagementLink opens in a new window, and PracticeLink opens in a new window	CommunicationLink opens in a new window and PresentationLink opens in a new window
The work is meticulously planned with a coherent and persuasive rationale. This enables a nuancedLink opens in a new window discussion to proceed with clarity. Each section has a core point, which is introduced and backed up with evidenceLink opens in a new window. EvidenceLink opens in a new window is always analysedLink opens in a new window and explained before moving on. SignpostingLink opens in a new window and transitionsLink opens in a new window enhance the discussion. A well-rounded conclusion gestures towards wider issues.	Demonstrates broad, deep, and nuancedLink opens in a new window knowledge of relevant material, debates, developments, and/or aesthetic contextsLink opens in a new window. Perceptive interpretations consistently home in on finer detailsLink opens in a new window and nuancesLink opens in a new window. The concepts/principlesLink opens in a new window underpinning the module are skilfully defined and applied. May show sophistication and range in the selection of examples. Where relevant, the work offers consistent reflection on the impact and significance of choices made by translators/ authors/ filmmakers etc.	Grapples with the challenges, nuancesLink opens in a new window, and broader implications of issues raised in the brief. Does not gloss over counterarguments, limitations, or tensions. Reflects critically on the arguments and approaches taken in existing scholarship/practiceLink opens in a new window. May draw illuminating connections between the material, module content, and wider issues. ay take scholarship in new directions. For creative projects and translation commentaries: Innovative elementsLink opens in a new window, and reflection on these, make the work distinctive and particularly impactful.	Skilfully identifies high-quality sources to address knowledge gaps. Brings further reading into dialogue with core module readings to open up new perspectives on the material. Selects and employs secondary sourcesLink opens in a new window judiciously to develop the argument and analysisLink opens in a new window. Clearly understands how the assignment builds on and potentially advances existing scholarship and/or practiceLink opens in a new window.	Expression is accurate, elegant, and precise throughout. Complex ideas are articulated in a clear and compelling way. For oral presentations: If applicable, there is almost no difference between prepared and spontaneous responses. Where relevant, visuals enhance the communicative performanceLink opens in a new window, helping to guide the recipient, break down complicated ideas, and emphasise key points. For multimedia/poster presentations and creative projects: If required, creative and technical elements are seamlessly integrated. The work reflects a high level of planning, reflection, and audience awareness. The work may demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of how to use the format to communicate nuancedLink opens in a new window ideas.

74-78 / Lower First: Skilled and Highly Proficient

Work in this category skilfully addresses all aspects of the assignment briefLink opens in a new window and meets all the learning outcomesLink opens in a new window. It demonstrates comprehensive, detailed and accurate knowledge. It shows critical insight at several points and may offer some new and original perspectives on the material. Work may still achieve a first if it contains occasional minor misunderstandings of complex or independently researched material but otherwise displays skill and ambition. Work awarded a 78 will be highly proficient, even though there may be scope for refinement or development in some areas.

Work in this category may show all the skills expected of assignments awarded an Upper Second. It will also display additional strengths, as applicable:

ArgumentationLink opens in a new window and StructureLink opens in a new window	AnalysisLink opens in a new window and Depth of KnowledgeLink opens in a new window	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window and OriginalityLink opens in a new window	Academic ResearchLink opens in a new window, EngagementLink opens in a new window & PracticeLink opens in a new window	CommunicationLink opens in a new window and PresentationLink opens in a new window
The approach is well planned and justified. The introduction precisely describes the issues and approach to be followed. Each section makes a clear contribution and is thoughtfully arranged to reinforce the message. The conclusion goes beyond summarisation, reflecting persuasively on new insights gained and/or their broader implications. SignpostingLink opens in a new window and transitionsLink opens in a new window are used consistently to enhance the discussion’s clarity and logic. Backs up most claims with specific evidenceLink opens in a new window, which is contextualised, explained, and integrated.	Detailed and accurate knowledge of relevant material, debates, developments, and/or aesthetic contextsLink opens in a new window. Fundamentally grasps the concepts/principlesLink opens in a new window underpinning the module. Effectively applies knowledge to deepen the discussion. Perceptive interpretations show sensitivity to finer detailsLink opens in a new window. There may be slips or some lack of nuanceLink opens in a new window when treating complex or independently researched issues. If applicable, work consistently analysesLink opens in a new window the impact and significance of choices made by translators/authors/filmmakers etc. Commentaries/close analysesLink opens in a new window convincingly link finer detailsLink opens in a new window to the overall sense of the excerpt, the work and its purpose, and/or broader aesthetic contextsLink opens in a new window.	Engages thoughtfully and imaginatively with the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. Leads with own stance, which is corroborated and refined using secondary sourcesLink opens in a new window. May respond to nuancesLink opens in a new window, challenges, and broader implications of issues raised in the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. May identify strengths and weaknesses of different arguments and approaches. May recognise limitations or alternatives to the chosen approach. May draw illuminating connections between the material, module content, and wider issues. For creative projects and translation commentaries: Innovative elementsLink opens in a new window deepen the work’s impact and are well justified.	Engages in detail with core module reading to contextualise and inform the work. Secondary sourcesLink opens in a new window are critically assessed and integrated with a clear purpose. Accurately situates the work in relation to existing scholarship and/or practiceLink opens in a new window. May use academic databasesLink opens in a new window/bibliographiesLink opens in a new window to find high-quality and complex sourcesLink opens in a new window to deepen and broaden understanding.	Clear and thoughtful expression, though wordLink opens in a new window choice may not always fully convey complex ideas. Consistent and professional presentationLink opens in a new window, displaying attention to detail. For oral presentations Effective, polishedLink opens in a new window, and engaging communicative performanceLink opens in a new window throughout. Pacing and volume are appropriate. If required, visuals enhance the communicative performanceLink opens in a new window, guiding the recipient, breaking down complicated ideas, and emphasising key points. For multimedia/poster presentations and creative projects: Demonstrates clear understanding of how the chosen format can be used to deepen engagement. Creative elementsLink opens in a new window, where required, may be purposefully integrated. Strong technical executionLink opens in a new window and production valuesLink opens in a new window.

62-68 / Upper Second: Competent to Proficient

Work in this category addresses all aspects of the assignment briefLink opens in a new window and shows proficiency in relation to the learning outcomesLink opens in a new window. The work demonstrates sound understanding; however, there may still be some minor factual inaccuracies, generalising tendencies, and/or scope for refinement in many areas. Work may fall into this category if it is otherwise skilful but contains minor inaccuracies or omissions, or if it lacks critical rigourLink opens in a new window. Work at the lower end of this category may require refinement in most criteria.

ArgumentationLink opens in a new window and StructureLink opens in a new window	AnalysisLink opens in a new window and Depth of KnowledgeLink opens in a new window	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window and OriginalityLink opens in a new window	Academic ResearchLink opens in a new window, EngagementLink opens in a new window & PracticeLink opens in a new window	CommunicationLink opens in a new window and PresentationLink opens in a new window
Clear approach to the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. The introduction accurately anticipates what follows. Generally, the discussion progresses logically towards a well-founded conclusion. Contains defined sections with a clear focus. May use signpostingLink opens in a new window and transitionsLink opens in a new window well to guide the recipient and clarify the approach. Consistently backs up claims with appropriate evidenceLink opens in a new window.	Demonstrates broad and accurate understanding of relevant material and the concepts/principlesLink opens in a new window underpinning the module. Acknowledges relevant developments, debates and/or aesthetic contextsLink opens in a new window. Engages analytically with specific examples. May reflect on their significance. Where relevant, there are attempts to analyseLink opens in a new window the choices made by translators/ authors/filmmakers etc. in terms of their possible effects. Contains minimal factual inaccuracies, which are generally confined to complex or independently researched material. Displays some close and detailed work with sourcesLink opens in a new window and observation of finer detailsLink opens in a new window and nuancesLink opens in a new window.	May show appreciation for the nuancesLink opens in a new window, challenges, and broader implications of issues raised in the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. May draw on examples not discussed in class or secondary sourcesLink opens in a new window. May consistently develop independent arguments and interpretations. May display flashes of critical insight, with an ability to identify strengths and weaknesses of different arguments and approaches (including the student’s own). There will likely be scope for further development here. Creative projects and translation commentaries may include valid innovative elementsLink opens in a new window—and sound reflection on these.	Engages purposefully with the module reading listLink opens in a new window. Effectively draws on a variety of high-quality and complex secondary sourcesLink opens in a new window to provide background information, definitions, and/or inform close analysisLink opens in a new window. Generally describes key arguments in secondary sourcesLink opens in a new window accurately. May display some understanding of how the work fits into existing scholarship and/or practiceLink opens in a new window. May use academic databasesLink opens in a new window/ bibliographiesLink opens in a new window to find additional reliable sourcesLink opens in a new window to support understanding. Fully acknowledges the words and ideas of others through accurate quotation/paraphrase. References/bibliographyLink opens in a new window/ filmographyLink opens in a new window, as required by the brief, are complete and verifiable. There may be minor inconsistencies in formatting.	Clearly communicated and holds the attention of the recipient. Limited linguistic and grammatical slips, though more precise language might clarify and enhance the message. StyleLink opens in a new window and registerLink opens in a new window are almost always appropriate for the target audience. Professional presentationLink opens in a new window: minimal typographical and formatting issues. For oral presentations: Pacing and volume allow listeners to follow all aspects of the discussion. Hesitation is limited even if engaging spontaneously with the audience. If required, visuals are well selected, accurate, and legible. For multimedia/poster presentations and creative projects: May attempt to leverage the chosen formatLink opens in a new window to enhance the message. Technical executionLink opens in a new window and production valuesLink opens in a new window support the message and do not distract.
Work awarded a lower II.1:
May not always convincingly justify claims. May contain ineffective transitionsLink opens in a new window or elements that appear repetitive or out of place. May not always effectively integrate and explain evidenceLink opens in a new window and sourcesLink opens in a new window.	Demonstrates broad-based understanding, although the work is likely to contain several minor inaccuracies or oversimplifications. Surface-levelLink opens in a new window analysisLink opens in a new window may predominate. The work may overlook the subtleties and complexities of the material/issues.	May take a straightforward or narrow approachLink opens in a new window to the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. May sometimes lead with secondary literature rather than own stance.	May not engage in detail with secondary sourcesLink opens in a new window or use them with a clear purpose. May contain errors when it describes complexLink opens in a new window arguments in secondary sourcesLink opens in a new window. There may be lapses and inconsistencies when presenting quotations and references.	Some unclear phrasing, hesitation, or repetition may make the communicational performance less engaging in places. The technical executionLink opens in a new window may not be consistent throughout, with minor production issues (e.g. audio, layout) slightly distracting from some content. There may be a noticeable difference between prepared and spontaneous communicationLink opens in a new window, as applicable.

52-58 / Lower Second: Developing

Work that provides a relevant response to the assignment briefLink opens in a new window and demonstrates developing knowledge and skills in relation to the learning outcomesLink opens in a new window. However, there will be inconsistencies and room for improvement in most areas. Work may fall into this category if it is otherwise proficient but contains several minor errors or limited errors and omissions of a more fundamental nature. Work at the lower end of this category may contain weaknesses in most areas.

ArgumentationLink opens in a new window and StructureLink opens in a new window	AnalysisLink opens in a new window and Depth of KnowledgeLink opens in a new window	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window and OriginalityLink opens in a new window	Academic ResearchLink opens in a new window, EngagementLink opens in a new window & PracticeLink opens in a new window	CommunicationLink opens in a new window and PresentationLink opens in a new window
The introduction outlines the approach to the assignment briefLink opens in a new window, which is mostly clear and well justified. Most sections are relevant and implicitly support the central purpose. Where present, logical inconsistencies do not undermine the overarching conclusion. A lack of signpostingLink opens in a new window, awkward transitionsLink opens in a new window, and/or occasional repetition may affect clarity and progressionLink opens in a new window. Generally uses evidenceLink opens in a new window to back up claims.	Accurately understands core aspects of the material and some key concepts/principlesLink opens in a new window underpinning the module. Errors and gaps are evident but do not significantly affect the overall discussion. Shows some ability to apply knowledge to relevant material. Acknowledges some relevant developments, debates and/or aesthetic contextsLink opens in a new window (although there will be errors and/or gaps in knowledge). The analysisLink opens in a new window focuses on the main issues rather than finer detailsLink opens in a new window or subtleties. Where relevant, there may be attempts to describe the choices made by translators/ authors/ filmmakers etc. However, the analysisLink opens in a new window is often surface-levelLink opens in a new window and underdevelopedLink opens in a new window.	Displays a sound understanding of the task but overlooks the nuancesLink opens in a new window and broader implications. There may be some evidenceLink opens in a new window of independent argument/analysisLink opens in a new window. Does not yet show an ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments and approaches (including the student’s own). Creative projects and translation commentaries show some attempt to go beyond existing examples.	Draws appropriately on the module reading listLink opens in a new window to provide background information/ reinforce the student’s interpretation of the material. Academic databasesLink opens in a new window/ bibliographiesLink opens in a new window may have been used to find additional reliable sourcesLink opens in a new window to support understanding. Some ability to identify key claims from secondary literature. Consistently acknowledges the words/ideas of others through accurate quotation and paraphrase. References/bibliographyLink opens in a new window/filmographyLink opens in a new window, as required by the brief, may not be formatted consistently.	Flaws in expression do not impede communicationLink opens in a new window of the general idea. StyleLink opens in a new window and registerLink opens in a new window are mostly appropriate. PresentationLink opens in a new window and proofreading are generally of a professional standard. For oral presentations: Pacing and volume generally allow listeners to follow the discussion. If required, visuals are provided but may not always aid communicationLink opens in a new window (e.g. issues with legibility/formatting). For multimedia/poster presentations and creative projects: The chosen format is used in a straightforward but broadly effective manner.
Work awarded a lower II.2:
May not integrate examples in a way that makes their relevance clear. Some sections may drift from the central purpose or lack clear connection to the brief. Ideas may not always be arranged coherently or logically.	May focus on broad themes and not draw connections between the material and the concepts/principlesLink opens in a new window underpinning the module. Finer points are overlooked or misunderstood. Primarily describes relevant features/issues rather than explaining them or reflecting on their significance. There may be noticeable gaps or misunderstandings. These are likely to relate to key issues and topics covered in class, as well as to points of detail and more challenging material. May miss clear opportunities to engage with relevant debates/developments and/or aesthetic contextsLink opens in a new window.	May misconstrue minor aspects of the question/task. Noticeably reliant on class discussion. Tends to foreground the arguments of others, leaving own stance unclear or underdevelopedLink opens in a new window.	May misunderstand or misapply key sourcesLink opens in a new window. It may be difficult to verify quotations and paraphrased statements from secondary sourcesLink opens in a new window because these have not been reproduced correctly. Alternatively, references and bibliographyLink opens in a new window may be missing key details (e.g. page numbers, publication dates), resulting in poor academic practice.	Flaws in grammar or phrasing may be frequent. There may be repeated lapses in styleLink opens in a new window and registerLink opens in a new window. The presentationLink opens in a new window is acceptable but lacks polish. Typographical or formatting issues may distract on occasion. For oral presentations: Pacing and volume may be inconsistent. Hesitation may weaken the impact of the message. For multimedia/poster presentations and creative projects: Where required, creative elementsLink opens in a new window (such as music, visuals) may be limited or feel disconnected from the content. Technical executionLink opens in a new window and production valuesLink opens in a new window may occasionally undermine audience engagement.

42-48 / Third: Foundational

Work that makes some effort to respond to the assignment briefLink opens in a new window and partially meets the learning outcomesLink opens in a new window. There are significant omissions and some fundamental errors. At the top end of this category, work will show rudimentary knowledge, understanding, and ability to construct an argument. Work at the lower end of this category may show weaknesses across the board.

ArgumentationLink opens in a new window and StructureLink opens in a new window	AnalysisLink opens in a new window and Depth of KnowledgeLink opens in a new window	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window and OriginalityLink opens in a new window	Academic ResearchLink opens in a new window, EngagementLink opens in a new window & PracticeLink opens in a new window	CommunicationLink opens in a new window and PresentationLink opens in a new window
Does not clearly and consistently articulate the approach to the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. There is some sense of progressionLink opens in a new window with elements of introduction and conclusion. Conclusions may be contradictory or unconvincing as they are not effectively supported with evidenceLink opens in a new window. Limited signpostingLink opens in a new window. Points and examples are only loosely connected to each other and the brief. The relevance of several aspects may be unclear. The discussion is disjointed and repetitive.	Identifies and discusses some relevant aspects of the material. There are significant omissions and misunderstandings of the material and/or the concepts/principlesLink opens in a new window that underpin the module. These ideas may be referenced in ways that are irrelevant. May make brief reference to relevant developments and debatesLink opens in a new window and/or pertinent aesthetic contextsLink opens in a new window. However, there will be fundamental misunderstandings or generalisations. RetellingLink opens in a new window and descriptionLink opens in a new window predominate. Where relevant, there are limited attempts to engage with the choices made by translators/ authors/filmmakers etc.	May show some understanding of and attempt to address the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. The approach may not be fully appropriate. May take sourcesLink opens in a new window on face value, even if they are unreliableLink opens in a new window or inaccurate. There is limited evidenceLink opens in a new window of independent engagement with material from lectures and other sourcesLink opens in a new window, which may be excessively quoted or paraphrased.	May engage superficially with the module reading listLink opens in a new window to find relevant and reliable sourcesLink opens in a new window to support understanding. Shows limited ability to distinguish between sourcesLink opens in a new window of academic and non-academicLink opens in a new window quality. Provides references and a bibliographyLink opens in a new window/filmographyLink opens in a new window, as required by the brief. However, these may not fully reflect the content of the work. Key information may be omitted, making it difficult to verify the sourcesLink opens in a new window.	CommunicationLink opens in a new window is hindered in parts. StyleLink opens in a new window and registerLink opens in a new window may be inappropriate for the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. Unprofessional presentationLink opens in a new window in parts with inconsistent formatting of text or images. There may be limited evidenceLink opens in a new window of proofreading using authorised toolsLink opens in a new window. For oral presentations: Pacing issues, volume, and hesitancy make it difficult to follow some aspects of the discussion. If required, visual aids may be inappropriate, unclear, and/or contain errors. For multimedia/poster presentations and creative projects: May use the chosen format in a straightforward way. Creative elementsLink opens in a new window, if required, may not be effectively integrated and may distract from the message. There may be several issues with the work’s technical executionLink opens in a new window and/or production, partly impeding audience engagement.

32-38 / Fail: Below Required Standards

Work that responds in part to the assignment briefLink opens in a new window but may be largely irrelevant. It does not achieve the full learning outcomesLink opens in a new window, falling below the standard required for the appropriate stage of the degree. A grade of 38 may be awarded if work contains some sense of argumentationLink opens in a new window and rudimentary knowledge.

ArgumentationLink opens in a new window and StructureLink opens in a new window	AnalysisLink opens in a new window and Depth of KnowledgeLink opens in a new window	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window and OriginalityLink opens in a new window	Academic ResearchLink opens in a new window, EngagementLink opens in a new window & PracticeLink opens in a new window	CommunicationLink opens in a new window and PresentationLink opens in a new window
The approach to the assignment briefLink opens in a new window is not fully clear and may be contradictory. Often provides inappropriate or irrelevant evidenceLink opens in a new window. The connection between individual points and the brief is frequently unclear. There is limited signpostingLink opens in a new window and transitionsLink opens in a new window are often abrupt. There may be some sense of introduction and conclusion, but these parts do not clearly set up and round off the work.	Displays minimal relevant knowledge or understanding of the material. Contains frequent and fundamental errors. There is minimal engagement with relevant developments, debates, and aesthetic contextsLink opens in a new window. The work does not reference the concepts/principlesLink opens in a new window underpinning the module. Where relevant, there may be no attempt to engage with choices made by translators/ authors/filmmakers etc.	Misunderstands or may not engage with key aspects of the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. Secondary sourcesLink opens in a new window are used without question, even when unreliableLink opens in a new window/incorrect. There is minimal evidenceLink opens in a new window of independent views/ideas/reflections on the material and/or assignment briefLink opens in a new window.	There is limited evidenceLink opens in a new window of engagement with the module reading listLink opens in a new window. May rely on non-academic sourcesLink opens in a new window. May present the words and ideas of others as the student’s own. Quotations may be incorrectly reproduced or attributed, resulting in poor academic practice. ReferencingLink opens in a new window/bibliographyLink opens in a new window/filmographyLink opens in a new window, as required by the brief, are absent or do not provide sufficient information to verify sourcesLink opens in a new window.	Some meaning is communicated but the message is often unclear. Unwarranted variations in styleLink opens in a new window and/or registerLink opens in a new window may make the work inappropriate for the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. There may be excessive jargonLink opens in a new window or overly colloquial languageLink opens in a new window. Unprofessional presentationLink opens in a new window: inconsistent formatting of text or images; no evidenceLink opens in a new window of proofreading using authorised toolsLink opens in a new window. For oral presentations: It may be difficult to follow parts of the discussion due to pacing issues, volume, and hesitancy. If required, visual aids are absent or inappropriate, unclear, and contain errors. For multimedia/poster presentations and creative projects: The format may be inappropriate or ineffective for the purpose. There may be significant issues with the work’s technical executionLink opens in a new window and/or production, impeding audience engagement.

12-25 / Low Fail: Inadequate or Incomplete

Incomplete work: it may be overly short and fulfil neither the assignment briefLink opens in a new window nor the learning outcomesLink opens in a new window. It falls well below the standard required for the appropriate stage of the degree. At the top end of this category, work may attempt to engage with the task and/or contain some rudimentary knowledge.

ArgumentationLink opens in a new window and StructureLink opens in a new window	AnalysisLink opens in a new window and Depth of Knowledge	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window and OriginalityLink opens in a new window	Academic ResearchLink opens in a new window, EngagementLink opens in a new window & PracticeLink opens in a new window	CommunicationLink opens in a new window and PresentationLink opens in a new window
The approach to the assignment briefLink opens in a new window is unclear. AnecdotalLink opens in a new window claims may predominate, with insufficient/inappropriate evidenceLink opens in a new window. Points are disjointed, lacking relevance to the brief. There is no sense of progressionLink opens in a new window from introduction to conclusion.	Little to no relevant or accurate knowledge or understanding, even at the most fundamental level. No engagement with relevant developments and debatesLink opens in a new window and/or aesthetic contextsLink opens in a new window. For some assessment types, this may render the work irrelevant or inappropriate. The work does not reference the concepts/principlesLink opens in a new window underpinning the module. Where relevant, there is no attempt to engage with choices made by translators/authors/ filmmakers etc.	Limited or incorrect comprehension of the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. Secondary sourcesLink opens in a new window are used without question, even when unreliableLink opens in a new window and/or incorrect. There is no evidenceLink opens in a new window of independent views/ideas/ reflections on the material and/or assignment briefLink opens in a new window.	There is no evidenceLink opens in a new window of engagement with the module reading listLink opens in a new window. Does not use reliable sourcesLink opens in a new window of an appropriate academic quality. May present the words and ideas of others as their own. Quotations may be incorrectly reproduced or attributed, resulting in poor academic practice. ReferencingLink opens in a new window/bibliographyLink opens in a new window/filmographyLink opens in a new window, as required by the brief, are absent, inaccurate, or do not reflect the content.	CommunicationLink opens in a new window is severely impeded throughout. StyleLink opens in a new window and registerLink opens in a new window are inappropriate for the assignment briefLink opens in a new window. There is excessive jargonLink opens in a new window or overly colloquial languageLink opens in a new window. Unprofessional presentationLink opens in a new window: inconsistent formatting of text or images; no evidenceLink opens in a new window of proofreading using authorised toolsLink opens in a new window. For oral presentations: It may be difficult to follow much of the discussion due to pacing issues, volume, and hesitancy. If required, visual aids are absent or inappropriate, unclear, and contain errors. For multimedia/poster presentations and creative projects: The format is inappropriate or ineffective for the purpose. There are significant issues with the work’s technical executionLink opens in a new window and/or production, impeding audience engagement.

0 / Zero