Marking Criteria (Participation)

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 for participation encompasses your overall proficiency across several key areas:

Quality of Contributions

Do your comments and questions show that you have done the preparatory work and thought carefully about the topic?
Do your contributions show that you have understood the material accurately?Are your comments and questions relevant?
Do they help to move the discussion forward?

Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window

Do you make connections between ideas or topics discussed in the module, the preparatory readings, or other contexts?
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?

ArgumentationLink opens in a new window

Do you clearly state your position on an issue and support it with relevant evidenceLink opens in a new window or examples?
Do you demonstrate logical reasoning, avoiding contradictions?
Do you respond thoughtfully and constructively to counterarguments, showing that you can engage with a variety of viewpoints?

Collaborative Engagement:

Do you contribute to a space where everyone feels encouraged to participate?
Do you actively listen and productively build on others’ ideas?
Do you ask questions that invite deeper thinking or help clarify complex points?

This list includes lower-order skills like showing comprehension and sharing knowledge that you have already 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?

Throughout the module:These marking criteria explain what your tutors will be looking for when they assess your participation. You are welcome to contact the module convenor at any point in the module for feedback on the quality of your participation and what you can do in the remaining weeks to secure the highest possible mark.

After you get your grade:The grade you receive will reflect the overall picture of your participation. The quality of your participation may show strengths in some areas and potential for improvement in others. Depending on the module or level of study, some criteria may be weighted higher than others. The module convenor will be available during Advice and Feedback Hours to discuss your grade in more detail.

94-100 / High First: Expert

Virtually no scope for improvement. The student makes clear, critical, and constructive contributions that advance group discussion and understanding, demonstrating expertise in the area of study. At final-year level, the performance may resemble that of a postgraduate teacher or facilitator.

Quality of Contributions	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window	ArgumentationLink opens in a new window	Collaborative Engagement
There is minimal difference between prepared and spontaneous responses. Contributions demonstrate profound and sophisticated understanding of the material.	Demonstrates critical thinkingLink opens in a new window by questioning assumptions, identifying underlying themes, and offering originalLink opens in a new window analysisLink opens in a new window and interpretation of the preparatory material. Consistently connects the preparatory material to broader module themes or real-world contexts, helping others grasp the wider significance of the topic. Uses ideas beyond those introduced in the module.	Constructs sophisticated, nuancedLink opens in a new window arguments using appropriate and thought-provoking evidenceLink opens in a new window drawn from a range of sources. The argumentationLink opens in a new window has impressive subtlety. Sensitively and deftly manages ideas of considerable complexity.	Always asks insightful questions or makes contributions that deepen the discussion, e.g. by introducing new perspectives, connecting ideas across topics, or prompting further analysisLink opens in a new window. Demonstrates leadership by actively contributing to a collaborative and supportive seminar culture. Demonstrates self-awareness, making space for others’ contributions when they offer a response and stepping in when discussion stalls.

Work in this category will show all the skills expected of a Mid First, as well as demonstrating the strengths below:

82-88 / Mid First: Accomplished and Advanced

Through their participation, the student shows mastery of the learning outcomesLink opens in a new window. Their contributions demonstrate wide-ranging, detailed, and accurate knowledge. They frequently extend the discussion and provide originalLink opens in a new window insights. There is sustained critical reflection. There will be limited scope for refinement if a grade of 88 is awarded.

Work in this category may show all the skills expected of a Low First, as well as demonstrating the strengths outlined below:

Quality of Contributions	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window	ArgumentationLink opens in a new window	Collaborative Engagement
Regularly and proactively contributes to small-group and whole-class discussions. Demonstrates thorough preparation. Both prepared and spontaneous responses demonstrate a deep understanding of the preparatory material and its wider significance. Accurate, elegant, and precise expression throughout. Complex ideas are articulated in a clear and compelling way. There is almost no difference between prepared and spontaneous responses.	Engages convincingly with complex or subtle issues in the preparatory material. Grapples with the challenges, nuancesLink opens in a new window, and broader implications of issues raised. Does not gloss over counterarguments, limitations, or tensions. May reflect critically on the arguments and approaches taken in existing work. May draw illuminating connections between the material, module content, and wider issues.	Arguments are consistently supported by appropriate evidenceLink opens in a new window from preparatory material or other sources. Demonstrates broad, deep, and nuancedLink opens in a new window knowledge of relevant material, debates, and developmentsLink opens in a new window. May show sophistication and range in the selection of examples. Perceptive interpretations consistently home in on finer detailsLink opens in a new window and nuancesLink opens in a new window.	Regularly asks thought-provoking questions or introduces perspectives that inspire further reflection from peers. Contributions often elevate the discussion or take it in productive new directions. Encourages diverse voices and supports collaborative learning. Actively fosters a respectful and inclusive discussion environment, acknowledging diverse viewpoints and modelling attentive listening.

74-78 / Lower First: Skilled and Highly Proficient

The contributions demonstrate that the student has met all of the learning outcomesLink opens in a new window. They convey comprehensive, detailed and accurate knowledge and understanding of the preparatory material and seminar questions. The contributions may occasionally show critical insight and offer some new and originalLink opens in a new window perspectives on the material. Work may still achieve a first if the contributions contain occasional minor misunderstandings of complex or independently researched material. Work awarded a 78 will be highly proficient, even though there may be scope for refinement or development in some areas.

Quality of Contributions	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window	ArgumentationLink opens in a new window	Collaborative Engagement
The student regularly participates in small-group and whole-class discussions, helping to clarify or deepen the discussion. Engages deeply with preparatory activities. Expression is clear, appropriate, and thoughtful with effective pacing and volume. There may be a slight difference between the quality of prepared and spontaneous responses. Word choice may not always convey complex ideas and theories fully.	May respond to nuancesLink opens in a new window, challenges, and broader implications of the issues raised in the preparatory material and seminar discussion. May recognise limitations or alternatives to their own approach. May draw illuminating connections between the material, module content, and wider issues.	Provides persuasive, well-supported arguments in response to questions or the preparatory material. Detailed and accurate knowledge of relevant material. Effectively applies knowledge to deepen the discussion. There may be slips or an occasional lack of nuanceLink opens in a new window when discussing complex or independently researched issues. Perceptive interpretations show sensitivity to finer detailsLink opens in a new window. Backs up virtually all claims with specific evidenceLink opens in a new window.	Asks questions or makes contributions that broaden or deepen the conversation. Plays an active role in maintaining a respectful and inclusive environment, especially in small-group discussions.

62-68 / Upper Second: Competent to Proficient

The student’s contributions show 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.

Quality of Contributions	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window	ArgumentationLink opens in a new window	Collaborative Engagement
The student regularly participates, clearly sharing their thoughts, ideas, and knowledge during group discussions. The student may be particularly present in small-group and, as appropriate, asynchronous discussions. Conscientiously engages with preparatory activities. At the lower end of this category, preparation may be superficial at times. Pacing and volume are appropriate. Limited linguistic and grammatical slips, though more precise language might clarify and enhance the message. At the lower end of this category, there may be some unclear and awkward phrasing. Hesitation may be noticeable when the student is engaging spontaneously or in whole-class discussions.	The student may consistently develop independent arguments and interpretations and cite examples from beyond the preparatory material. At the top end of this category, there may be flashes of critical insight, with an ability to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments and approaches (including the student’s own). There will likely be scope for further development. At the lower end of this category, the student may tend to lean on the opinions of others rather than developing their own stance.	Consistently backs up claims with appropriate evidenceLink opens in a new window. Demonstrates broad and accurate understanding of relevant material. Purposefully applies knowledge. Engages analytically with specific examples and reflects on their significance. At the top end of this category, factual inaccuracies are minimal and generally confined to complex or independently researched material. At the lower end of this category, the student may not always convincingly justify their claims and/or effectively explain their evidenceLink opens in a new window and sources. At times, the student may tend to describe issues rather than evaluate arguments and sources.	Builds on others’ ideas or introduces new perspectives that help move the discussion forward. Listens attentively, responds constructively, and acknowledges diverse viewpoints.

52-58 / Lower Second: Developing

The student participates sufficiently to demonstrate 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 of a more fundamental nature. Work at the lower end of this category may contain weaknesses in most areas.

Quality of Contributions	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window	ArgumentationLink opens in a new window	Collaborative Engagement
The student does not take full advantage of opportunities to participate. There may be a tendency to contribute to small-group and, as applicable, asynchronous discussions rather than whole-class discussions. Engagement with preparatory activities is evident but may be superficial. Pacing and volume generally allow listeners to follow the discussion. Flaws in expression do not impede communicationLink opens in a new window of the general idea. At the lower end of this category, linguistic errors and hesitation may weaken the impact of the message. There may be repeated lapses in registerLink opens in a new window.	There may be some ability to identify issues raised by the reading or seminar questions. May tend to foreground the arguments of others, leaving own stance unclear or underdevelopedLink 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). There may be some evidenceLink opens in a new window of independent argument/analysisLink opens in a new window. At the lower end of this category, the student may tend to foreground the arguments of others, leaving their own stance unclear or underdevelopedLink opens in a new window.	In general, the contributions are relevant and use appropriate evidenceLink opens in a new window. Accurately understands core aspects of the preparatory material. Errors and gaps are evident but do not significantly affect the overall discussion. Some ability to apply knowledge to relevant material to deepen the analysisLink opens in a new window and discussion. Contributions may be fact-based or descriptiveLink opens in a new window rather than interpretive. At the lower end of this category, 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. The relevance of some points may be unclear.	Demonstrates a generally respectful and inclusive approach in discussions, such as listening to others and avoiding interruptions. There are opportunities to engage more actively with peers by building on others’ ideas, asking clarifying questions, introducing new perspectives, or supporting quieter peers.

42-48 / Third: Foundational

There is sufficient participation to show that the learning outcomesLink opens in a new window have been partially met. However, the contributions display a lack of close engagement with the preparatory material and contain fundamental errors. At the top end of this category, contributions will show rudimentary knowledge, understanding, and some ability to construct an argument. Work at the lower end of this category may show weaknesses across the board.

Quality of Contributions	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window	ArgumentationLink opens in a new window	Collaborative Engagement
The student occasionally contributes to small-group, asynchronous, and/or whole-class discussions, as appropriate. There is a lack of close engagement with preparatory activities. Contributions may be hard to follow because they are not clearly organised or because of issues with volume, pacing, and hesitancy. CommunicationLink opens in a new window is hindered in parts.	There is limited evidenceLink opens in a new window of independent engagement with the subject matter. Shows limited ability to distinguish between sources of academic and non-academicLink opens in a new window quality. May take sources on face value, even if they are unreliable or inaccurate.	Contributions may tend to be anecdotalLink opens in a new window rather than referring to evidenceLink opens in a new window or the preparatory material. There may be significant misunderstandings of core ideas. May take sources on face value, even if they are unreliable or inaccurate. Answers in response to questions or source analysisLink opens in a new window are descriptiveLink opens in a new window rather than analytical.	Contributions do not yet build on or respond to others’ ideas. Interactions with peers may show limited awareness of respectful or inclusive communicationLink opens in a new window, such as interrupting, dominating the discussion, or not acknowledging others’ contributions.

32-38 / Fail: Below Required Standards

The student has not shown that they have met the full learning outcomesLink opens in a new window. The quality of the contributions falls below the standard required for the appropriate stage of the degree. A grade of 38 may be awarded if attempts to respond to prompts and questions display some rudimentary knowledge.

Quality of Contributions	Critical ThinkingLink opens in a new window	ArgumentationLink opens in a new window	Collaborative Engagement
Contributions to small-group, asynchronous, and whole-class discussions, as appropriate, are limited and largely irrelevant. Minimal engagement with preparatory activities. The student is unlikely to participate proactively but may respond to prompts by others. Verbal contributions are frequently hard to understand due to pacing issues, volume, and hesitancy. Some meaning is communicated but the message is often unclear.	Displays minimal relevant knowledge. Contributions contain frequent and fundamental errors. There is minimal evidenceLink opens in a new window of an independent stance on the material.	The contributions may be unclear or unconvincing as they are not effectively supported with evidenceLink opens in a new window.	The contributions may take the discussion off track or simply repeat what others have said. The student may not show sufficient engagement with or attentiveness and respect towards peers (e.g. interrupting, dismissing others’ ideas, dominating the conversation).

12-25 / Low Fail: Inadequate or Incomplete

Over the course of the module, there is insufficient participation to assess the achievement of the learning outcomesLink opens in a new window. The student attends class but makes minimal contributions to small-group discussions, whole-class discussions, or (where available) alternative opportunities to make written contributions (e.g. polls, collaborative notetaking, forums). The quality of participation falls well below the standard required for the appropriate stage of the degree. There may be evidenceLink opens in a new window of disrespectfulness towards others. At the top end of this category, there may be some attempt to engage, and contributions may demonstrate some rudimentary knowledge.

0 / Zero