NEW GUIDANCE ON GRADE DESCRIPTORS
Approved by the Dean of Studies, May 2008
The following revised guidance on grade descriptors has been developed following the move from letter grades to numeric gradepoints, agreed by Senate in May 2008. The Dean of Studies has approved this for integration into the Teaching Policies and Code of Practice and related documents such as student handbooks.
Grade descriptors for assessed work
4.7
The School uses a standard assessment system, marking against six gradepoints (integers 0 to 5). Grades
2 and above are pass grades; grades below 2 are fail grades; and grade 5 can be seen as equivalent to distinction standard. Summative assessment combines these marks into non-integer gradepoint averages
(GPAs) in the range 0 to 5, by averaging against relevant weightings.
4.8
The criteria used to place students in each grade category must be written down by staff setting assessments, and adhered to by marking staff. To aid consistency in standards of marking across the School,
Table 1 below gives an overall qualitative framework for matching standards of assessment to gradepoints.
Specific requirements will differ from assessment to assessment; these descriptors are intended only as a general guide and starting point to develop detailed marking criteria for particular assessment tasks.
However if specific marking schemes differ significantly from this framework, they may be inconsistent with the School’s expectations on grading and should be addressed by the relevant Board of Examiners.
Table 1
Grade Descriptor Typical work should include evidence of… point
5 Excellent Excellent engagement with the topic, excellent depth of understanding & insight, excellent argument & analysis. Generally, this work will be ‘distinction standard’.
 NB that excellent work does not have to be ‘outstanding’ or exceptional by comparison with other students; these grades should not be capped to a limited number of students per class. Nor should such work be expected to be 100% perfect – some minor inaccuracies or omissions may be permissible.
4 Very good
3
2
1
0
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory / poor
(fail)
Very poor (fail)
Very good engagement with the topic, very good depth of understanding & insight, very good argument & analysis. This work may be ‘borderline distinction standard’.

Note that very good work may have some inaccuracies or omissions but not enough to question the understanding of the subject matter.
Good (but not necessarily comprehensive) engagement with the topic, clear understanding & insight, reasonable argument & analysis.
Adequate evidence of engagement with the topic but some gaps in understanding or insight, routine argument & analysis.
Inadequate engagement with the topic, gaps in understanding, poor argument & analysis.
Poor engagement with the topic, limited understanding, very poor argument & analysis.
0 Not submitted (null) Null mark may be given where work has not been submitted, or is in serious breach of assessment criteria/regulations.
4.9
Table 2 gives some further very general suggestions for how criteria might differ between quantitative and qualitative work, to appropriately distinguish different standards of work for the task concerned.
1 of 3

Grade point
Table 2
Simple general criteria for qualitative work (e.g. essays or other written assignments)
Simple general criteria for quantitative work (e.g. multiple choice questions, mathematical questions, laboratory ‘spot’ tests)
All correct. 5
4
3
A comprehensive discussion of the topic giving all relevant information, showing in-depth critical understanding of the topic, going beyond conventional answers, and bringing in additional relevant ideas or material.
A full discussion of the topic that includes all relevant information and critical evaluation.
The major points are discussed, but relevant, though less important considerations, are omitted.
Almost all correct, none incorrect.
Most correct, a few incorrect allowed.
2 Sufficient relevant information is included but not all major points are discussed, and there may be some errors of interpretation.
Essential parts correct (to be defined), some incorrect.
1 A few points are included, but lack of understanding is shown together with use of irrelevant points.
Many correct but essential part (to be defined) incorrect or unknown.
0 None of the major points present; many irrelevant points included and a serious lack of understanding. or
Not submitted.
Some correct, essential part incorrect.
or
Not attempted.
Describing standards of work in student feedback
4.10
Whilst all marks should be reported to students as numeric gradepoints or GPAs (NB that ‘grade letters’ should never be given), the descriptors in Table 1 such as “very good” or “satisfactory” can helpfully be used in feedback to students about their assessed module work. However, if using such terms, markers must remain consistent with this standard scheme; e.g. it would not be appropriate to use the word “good” throughout feedback for a piece of work then graded at 2.0, unless clearly indicating that a specific aspect had dragged the mark down.
Grade distributions and using the full range of marks
4.11
Markers are encouraged to use the full range of available marks, to reflect the full range of student achievement. In particular, markers should not feel reluctant to award 5.0 grades provided work meets the appropriate standards. The following specific points should be noted –
4.11.1
‘Excellent’ work does not have to be ‘outstanding’ or exceptional by comparison with other students.
4.11.2
Since the School uses criterion-referenced marking rather than banded marking, 5.0 grades should not be capped to a limited proportion of students per class.
4.11.3
There is no standard cut-off for what constitutes ‘excellent’ work. Different conversion schemes may be used to convert numeric scores or percentage marks into a gradepoint result on the 0-5 integer scale. In many cases where quantitatively-scored assessments are used, a 5.0 grade may be awarded for work scoring above a particular threshold (for example 80%) of the possible marks, i.e. by no means perfect but of a sufficiently high standard.
4.11.4
Good assessment design should ensure that tasks have clear criteria to allow excellent students to achieve 5.0 grades.
2 of 3

4.12
The School supports module organisers and Exam Boards in assuring consistency of marking standards by preparing annual School-wide analysis of module grade distributions. However, grades should not be forced into a standard distribution. Rather, marking criteria should reflect School standards, so student results can be seen as based on individual achievement rather than in any way biased by different module choices. Nonetheless, marking parameters may be set in light of past or typical student performance, in a way that makes it more likely for the final distribution of grades to follow a standard pattern (e.g. with most grades in the 2.0 to 4.0 range, and fewer at the 5.0 range or in the fail range).
4.13
Group assessment tasks should be anticipated to produce higher standards than individuals would achieve alone.
4.14
Following the initial grading process, Module Organisers should look at the distribution of grades for the particular Module. If this deviates significantly from past performance or appears to differ significantly from other grade distributions at Course, Department or School level, this should be considered in more depth – to confirm that the marks given are indeed in line with School criteria. In some cases, Module
Organisers may wish to recommend re-marking, procedures for which are detailed in the Guidance Notes for
Boards of Examiners.
3 of 3