University of Hertfordshire Grading Criteria guidance
It is essential that students can readily access Grading Criteria for all assessment formats (eg
essays, group presentations, written examinations etc) in their assessment diet and that these
Grading Criteria relate to the Academic Levels of those assessments.
When a marker analyses an assessment submission, he/she consider several different
dimensions or characteristics of the work, as appropriate to the type of assessment. For
example, use of English, quality of analysis, quality of evaluation, use of references, etc. These
dimensions or characteristics are usually termed assessment criteria or marking criteria.
Grading Criteria are the descriptions of how each assessment/marking criterion is judged in
relation to the University’s Grade bands. Grading Criteria are often displayed in a matrix format
(criteria vs grade bands). The following shows an example of Level 6 Grading Criteria for written
coursework (courtesy of the School of Health and Emergency Professions). For further
examples of Grading Criteria see the Learning and Teaching Institute website at
http://tinyurl.com/3878zg6.
Numeric
Grade
Grade
Descriptor
80-100
Presentation
and structure
Presentation of
References
Outstanding
work
Outstanding
presentation
and clarity.
No significant
grammatical /
spelling
errors.
70-79
Excellent
work
Excellent
structure.
Fluent writing
style with very
few errors.
60-69
Very good
work
Very good
clear
structure.
Articulate and
fluent writing
style. Very few
grammatical
errors and
spelling
mistakes.
Outstanding standard re:
Referencing within text.
Accuracy of references in
text to those in list.
Accuracy of reference
list.
Use of recommended
referencing system.
Excellent standard re:
Referencing within text.
Accuracy of references in
text to those in list.
Accuracy of reference
list.
Use of recommended
referencing system.
Very good standard re:
Referencing within text.
Accuracy of references in
text to those in list.
Accuracy of reference
list.
Use of recommended
referencing system.
Grading Criteria
Breadth / Depth
and Integration of
Literature
Outstanding
breadth and depth
of literature.
Outstanding
integration of
literature into work.
Content /
Knowledge
Outstanding
exploration of topic
showing excellent
knowledge and
understanding.
Analysis, Critical
Evaluation and/or
Reflection
Outstanding level of
analysis, critical
evaluation and/or
reflection.
Highly developed /
focused work.
Excellent breadth &
depth.
Excellent
integration of
literature into work.
Excellent level of
knowledge and
understanding
demonstrated.
Covers all relevant
points and issues.
Excellent level of
analysis, critical
evaluation and/or
reflection of issues.
Very good breadth
& depth appropriate
to topic.
Literature integrated
very well.
Very good level of
knowledge and
understanding
demonstrated.
Very good level of,
analysis, critical
evaluation and/or
reflection but not
consistently taken to
full extent.
Although not shown here, the Grading Criteria continue for the remaining grade bands:
50-59 Good work
40-49 Satisfactory work
30-39 Marginal fail
15-29 Clear fail
0-14 Little or nothing of merit
Subject specific requirements mean that rather than have one set of cross-university Grading
Criteria, each Programme should have in place its own Grading Criteria, appropriate for the
range of assessment types (eg essays, oral presentations, practical examinations etc) used in
the Programme and the academic level(s) that the assessments are offered at. As a minimum,
different Grading Criteria would be expected at Masters level, Undergraduate level and
Foundation degree level. Programmes may also choose to distinguish between Undergraduate
levels 4, 5 and 6 (or, for example, levels 4/5 and level 6). What is essential is that the Grading
Criteria are sufficiently discriminatory to help staff decide what grade to award and help students
understand how work will be/has been graded.
Consistent use of language
The descriptions used in the Programme’s Grading Criteria must be consistent with the numeric
grade bands and Grade Descriptors in UPR AS14, Section D. For example work graded within
the 60-69 range would be ‘Upper Second Class work’ and/or ‘very good work’. It does cause
unnecessary confusion for students if the grade awarded and the feedback is not consistent
with the agreed Grade Descriptors (eg ‘you have achieved a mark of 70%- this is a good piece
of work’ would be out of step with university policy – it should read either ‘...this is an excellent
piece of work’ or ‘...this is a First Class piece of work’). This consistent use of language is
very important for students and for the University’s quality processes.
Uses of Grading Criteria
Grading Criteria help improve the reliability of marking by making explicit how the various
characteristics or dimensions of a piece of work are judged (marking schemes and model
answers that give even greater detail on how a particular piece of work should be evaluated can
improve reliability further).
Grading Criteria can help students that are preparing an assessment understand how their work
will be graded (and thus seek to address the Grading Criteria as they prepare their
submissions); and they can help students understand the grade they have been awarded.
Grading Criteria may be embedded in coursework Feedback Sheets – this enables staff to
indicate precisely how a particular piece of work has been rated in relation to individual criteria.
Where appropriate, Grading Criteria may also be weighted between the different criteria
(typically with the caveat that the work must have demonstrated the achievement of the learning
outcomes in order to pass).
Minimum requirements
In summary, the minimum requirements relating to Grading Criteria are:
 Every Programme must publish Grading Criteria in the Programme handbook(s). These
may be adopted by a wider group (eg School Grading Criteria).
 The Grading Criteria must relate to the percentage ranges and the University’s Grade
Descriptors in Section D of UPR AS14 (ie ‘outstanding’, ‘excellent’, ‘very good’, ‘good’,
‘satisfactory’, ‘marginal fail’, ‘clear fail’ and ‘little or nothing of merit’).
 Relevant Grading Criteria should be available for each assessment format that students
on the programme will encounter (Grading Criteria may be constructed so as to be
relevant to a range of assessment types).
 The language that Staff use to provide feedback on work must be consistent with the
University’s Grade Descriptors.
Learning and Teaching Institute/Academic Quality