3. Marking criteria for Year Abroad essays written in the target language
Students often ask how essays written in a foreign language are graded: Is language more important than
content? Or vice versa? For clarity, here are the Department's agreed marking criteria.
School descriptors of mark band
90-100
80-89
70-79
Candidate produces truly excellent and
insightful work, of publishable quality;
it is hard to see how more could have
been demanded within the constraints
of the task.
Candidate displays striking insight,
originality and analytical skill, far
outweighing any minor shortcomings or
possibilities of improvement.
Candidate shows excellence in
knowledge and presentation of relevant
material and some originality of
thought.
60-69
Candidate writes clearly, shows good
broad knowledge, is aware of issues,
but lacks originality.
50-59
Candidate shows fair overall knowledge,
is aware of most main issues and
normally attempts to address them.
40-49
Candidate shows some broad or some
specific knowledge, but weak grasp of
issues, and poor presentation.
30-39
Candidate has enough knowledge to
attempt to answer the question, but
does so in a very poor way.
20-29
Candidate answers only part of the
question and that in a barely adequate
fashion.
Candidate attempts an answer, but this
is deeply flawed, irrelevant, or
unacceptably brief, giving little
evidence of real knowledge of the
relevant material.
Candidate produces nothing that can be
counted as an attempt to answer the
question; any content to the essay is
completely irrelevant or unintelligible.
10-19
0-9
How to take account of the candidate’s command of the foreign language:
criteria to be applied in conjunction with the School descriptors
The candidate’s command of the foreign language - and of the appropriate register
for academic writing - should be flawless for a mark in this range to be awarded.
The candidate’s command of the foreign language - and of the appropriate register
for academic writing - should be excellent; any mistakes should be slight, or
comparable to those one might expect from an educated native speaker.
A candidate whose thinking and argument are first-class should not be awarded a
mark in this range unless the language would merit a high 2.1 or first-class mark in a
language-based exercise; a candidate whose language is first-class should not be
awarded a mark in this range unless there is also evidence of first-class thinking; an
essay in this range should be written in an appropriate register.
A candidate whose essay is intelligent and whose use of the foreign language reveals
a good grasp of grammar and idiom may be awarded a mark in this range. Errors in
the language will be of a minor nature and will not impair comprehension of the
argument. The style and idiom may be clumsy or not completely adequate in places,
but will generally be appropriate for an academic essay.
A candidate whose command of the foreign language is very good, but whose essay
lacks academic substance, may be considered for a mark in this range, provided that
the essay shows some evidence of 2.1 quality in the content.
A candidate whose use of the foreign language reveals more serious gaps in his/her
knowledge of basic grammar and idiom, but whose essay has intellectual merit may
be awarded a mark in this range; generally speaking, there may be some problems
with comprehensibility, but these should be infrequent; one would expect errors and
anglicisms to be more frequent in this range and for the candidate to show a less
strong command of idiom, but there must be evidence of basic linguistic
competence; conversely (and exceptionally) a candidate whose command of the
foreign language is excellent, but whose essay has serious intellectual flaws, is badly
structured, or is otherwise inadequate may be awarded a mark in this range.
A candidate whose command of the language sometimes inhibits understanding of
what he or she writes may be awarded a mark in this range, provided that the essay
has some substance; similarly, a candidate whose lack of accuracy reveals consistent
carelessness and/or a patchy grasp of basic grammatical rules should be given a
mark in this range provided that the essay makes reasonable sense; the syntax may
predominantly follow the patterns of the candidate’s mother tongue, rather than
that of the target language, or alternatively seem simplistic or naïve; the vocabulary
and idiom may be poor or inaccurate.
In very exceptional cases, an essay that demonstrates a reasonable command of the
language, but which is vacuous, uneven, or seriously flawed intellectually in parts
may be awarded a mark in this range, provided that the essay has some intellectual
merit.
A candidate whose command of the language seriously or repeatedly inhibits
understanding of what he or she writes, or who seems to have no grasp of basic
grammatical rules, might be awarded a mark in this range, particularly where the
essay shows few signs of intellectual merit.
The candidate’s command of the language will be poor or very erratic to merit a
mark in this range; some passages may be unintelligible.
The candidate’s command of the language will be very poor or extremely erratic to
merit a mark in this range; frequently passages will be unintelligible.
The essay will be largely unintelligible or written with such erratic grammar that
virtually nothing is correct.