Assessment Criteria – non language modules
These criteria are used when marking essays of all kinds: assessed, 'non-assessed',
and exam (see section 17 of Essay Writing Guide for additional comments on exam
essays). There are three categories of assessment:
i. Factual content: the selection of relevant, detailed and accurate data,
demonstrating a fundamental knowledge and understanding of the subject, and
showing evidence of broader individual awareness.
ii. Analytical skills: the ability to interpret the factual material critically and
creatively, evaluating accepted judgements in the light of independent analysis, so as
to form a coherent, scrupulously-structured argument which responds to the
question with originality.
iii. Presentation: the expression of the argument in lucid, fluent prose of an
individual and engaging style. Spelling, punctuation, and grammar, should be
correct, and the essay should be accompanied by a full and accurate bibliography
(and notes where necessary).
The weight given to each of the three categories when assessing individual essays
varies slightly from year to year, reflecting the development we aim to encourage in
each student’s intellectual abilities. Whilst a sound and detailed knowledge of the
core texts and their contexts remains an essential component of any essay, credit
given for this category will decrease after year one, as the focus of learning and
teaching shifts to the more advanced skills of critical analysis, creative
argumentation and engaging presentation. Crudely speaking, category i is prioritized
in the first year, with ii and iii gaining prominence in subsequent years, and ii
becoming the main priority in the final year. However, no essay at any level can be
successful unless the skills encompassed in each of the three categories are
demonstrated to the best of the student’s ability.
Marking scale
Work assessed for first-year language modules will be awarded a mark as a percentage,
using the full range from 0-100. In other modules, the 17-point marking scale is used, which
is explained below. You can also find examples on the Teaching Quality website at:
www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/academicoffice/quality/categories/examinations/marking/.
The descriptors in the table below are interpreted as appropriate to the subject and the
year/level of study, and implicitly cover good academic practice and the avoidance of
plagiarism. Italian Studies also publishes more detailed marking criteria, which are available
in the Departmental Guide to Essay Writing:
www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/italian/current/resources/.
With the exception of Excellent 1st, High Fail and Zero, the descriptors cover a range of
marks, with the location within each group dependent on the extent to which the elements
in the descriptor and departmental/faculty marking criteria are met.
Class
Scale
Excellent
1st
First
High 1st
Mid 1
st
Low 1st
Upper
Second
(2.1)
High 2.1
Mid 2.1
Low 2.1
High 2.2
Lower
Second
Mid 2.2
Low 2.2
Descriptor
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.
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.
High quality work demonstrating good knowledge and
understanding, analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance,
presentation and appropriate skills.
Competent work, demonstrating reasonable knowledge and
understanding, some analysis, organisation, accuracy, relevance,
presentation and appropriate skills.
High 3rd
Third
Mid 3rd
Low 3rd
Fail
High Fail
(sub
Honours)
Work does not meet standards required for the appropriate stage of
an Honours degree. There may be evidence of some basic
understanding of relevant concepts and techniques
Fail
Poor quality work well below the standards required for the
appropriate stage of an Honours degree.
Low Fail
Zero
Work of limited quality, demonstrating some relevant knowledge
and understanding.
Zero
Work of no merit OR Absent, work not submitted, penalty in some
misconduct cases
For calculating module results, the points on this marking scale have the following numerical
equivalents:
Class
Point on
scale
numerical
equivalent
Excellent 1st 96
First
Upper
Second
Lower
Second
Third
Fail
Zero
High 1
st
range of marks for work marked using all
points on 0-100 scale
93-100
89
85-92
Mid 1st
81
78-84
st
Low 1
74
70-77
High 2.1
68
67-69
Mid 2.1
65
64-66
Low 2.1
62
60-63
High 2.2
58
57-59
Mid 2.2
55
54-56
Low 2.2
52
50-53
High 3rd
48
47-49
rd
45
44-46
Low 3rd
42
40-43
High Fail
38
35-39
Fail
25
19-34
Low Fail
12
1-18
Zero
0
0
Mid 3