PHIL10072: Themes in Epistemology Course
Guide 2013-14
Course Organiser:
Dr. Nick Treanor (nick.treanor@ed.ac.uk)
Seminar Leaders:
Professor Duncan Pritchard (duncan.pritchard@ed.ac.uk), Dr.
Nick Treanor (nick.treanor@ed.ac.uk), and Dr. Aidan McGlynn
(amcglynn@staffmail.ed.ac.uk)
Course Secretary:
Sue Richards (sue.richards@ed.ac.uk)
Contents
1.
Course Aims and Objectives
2.
Intended Learning Outcomes
3.
Lecture Times and Locations
4.
Lecture Content
5.
PPLS Undergraduate Student Handbook
6.
Readings
7.
Assessment Information
8.
Learn
9.
Autonomous Learning Groups
10. Feedback
11. Useful Information
12. Common Marking Scheme
Department of Philosophy
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences
University of Edinburgh
2
1. Course Aims and Objectives
This course offers an overview of some of the key topics in contemporary epistemology.
The topics that we will be covering include:











The analysis of knowledge;
Anti-luck epistemology;
Virtue epistemology;
Radical scepticism;
Understanding and epistemic value;
Religious knowledge;
Testimonial knowledge;
Theories of epistemic justification;
Epistemology and the nature of belief;
Knowledge-first epistemology;
Norms of assertion
2. Intended Learning Outcomes
By the end of this course, students should gain:


A sound understanding of some of the main themes in contemporary
epistemology;
An ability to think and write critically and knowledgeably about these themes.
3. Seminar Times and Locations
Lectures will be held on Friday 2.10pm – 4pm, Dugald Stewart Building room 1.20.
Please note that in addition to the seminars themselves, there are lots of opportunities
to speak with the course organiser and the seminar leaders. In particular, you can drop
in on them at their pre-arranged weekly office hours, or else contact them directly to ask
a question or arrange a meeting. Here are the contact details for the three members of
faculty teaching on this course:
Professor Duncan Pritchard
Room 6.13, Dugald Stewart Building
Office Hours: Tuesdays 3-4pm
E-mail: duncan.pritchard@ed.ac.uk
Phone: 0131-6511784
Web: http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/view.php?name=duncan-pritchard-frse
Dr. Nick Treanor
Room 6.07, Dugald Stewart Building
Office Hours: Fridays 9-10am
E-mail: nick.treanor@ed.ac.uk
Phone: 0131-6513085
Web: http://www.ppls.ed.ac.uk/people/nick-treanor
3
Dr. Aidan McGlynn
Room 6.12, Dugald Stewart Building
Office Hours: Mondays 2-3pm
E-mail: amcglynn@staffmail.ed.ac.uk
Phone: 0131-6516333
Web: http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/view.php?name=aidan-mcglynn
4. Seminar Content
Week 1: Knowledge and Luck (Pritchard)
Core Reading:

Pritchard, D. H., Knowledge, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), chapters 1-2.
Useful Background Reading:





Pritchard, D. H., What is this Thing Called Knowledge?, (Routledge, 3rd Ed.,
2013), chapters 1 & 3.
Steup, M., ‘The Analysis of Knowledge’, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,
(ed.) E. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/, (2006).
Hetherington, S., ‘The Gettier Problem’, Routledge Companion to Epistemology,
(eds.) S. Bernecker & D. H. Pritchard, chapter 12, (Routledge, 2010). [E-book in
library].
Engel, M. ‘Epistemic Luck’, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (eds.) J. Fieser
& B. Dowden, http://www.iep.utm.edu/epi-luck/, (2011).
Orozco, J., ‘Epistemic Luck’, Philosophy Compass 6 (2011), 11–21. [Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00365.x/abstract].
Advanced Reading:



Pritchard, D. H., ‘There Cannot be Lucky Knowledge’, Contemporary Debates in
Epistemology, (eds.) M. Steup & J. Turri, §7, (Blackwell, 2nd Ed., 2013).
[Available at: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31024093/ContraLuckyK0611.pdf].
Hetherington, S., ‘There Can be Lucky Knowledge’, Contemporary Debates in
Epistemology, (eds.) M. Steup & J. Turri, §7, (Blackwell, 2nd Ed., 2013).
[Available at: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31024093/HetheringtonOnLuckyK.pdf].
Black, T., ‘Modal and Anti-Luck Epistemology’, Routledge Companion to
Epistemology, (eds.) S. Bernecker & D. H. Pritchard, chapter 18, (Routledge,
2010). [E-book in library].
Week 2: Virtue Epistemology (Pritchard)
Core Reading:
4

Pritchard, D. H., Knowledge, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), chapters 3-4.
Useful Background Reading:




Pritchard, D. H., What is this Thing Called Knowledge?, (Routledge, 3rd Ed.,
2013), chapters 5-6.
Greco, J., & Turri, J., ‘Virtue Epistemology’, Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, (ed.) E. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-virtue/,
(2011).
Beahr, J., ‘Virtue Epistemology’, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (eds.) J.
Fieser & B. Dowden, http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtueep/, (2004).
Kvanvig, J., ‘Virtue Epistemology’, Routledge Companion to Epistemology, (eds.)
S. Bernecker & D. H. Pritchard, chapter 19, (Routledge, 2010). [E-book in
library].
Advanced Reading:



Pritchard, D. H., ‘Anti-Luck Virtue Epistemology’, Journal of Philosophy (2012).
[Available at: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31024093/ALVEFINAL.pdf].
Greco, J., Achieving Knowledge, (Cambridge University Press, 2009). [Hardcopy
in library].
Sosa, E., Knowing Full Well, (Princeton University Press, 2011). [Hardcopy in
library].
Week 3: Radical Scepticism (Pritchard)
Core Reading:

Pritchard, D. H., Knowledge, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), chapter 6.
Useful Background Reading:




Pritchard, D. H., What is this Thing Called Knowledge?, (Routledge, 3rd Ed.,
2013), chapters 12-14.
Klein, P., ‘Skepticism’, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (ed.) E. Zalta,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/, (2010).
Pritchard, D. H., ‘Recent Work on Radical Skepticism’, American Philosophical
Quarterly 39 (2002), 215-57. [Available at:
http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/fullacademic/documents/RecentWorkonSkepticism.pdf].
Luper, S., ‘Cartesian Skepticism’, Routledge Companion to Epistemology, (eds.)
S. Bernecker & D. H. Pritchard, chapter 38, (Routledge, 2010). [E-book in
library].
Advanced Reading:

Pritchard, D. H., 'McDowellian Neo-Mooreanism', Disjunctivism: Perception,
Action, Knowledge, (eds.) A. Haddock & F. Macpherson, 283-310, (Oxford
University Press, 2008). [E-book in library].
5


Pritchard, D. H., 'Wittgenstein and the Groundlessness of Our Believing',
Synthese 189 (2012), 255-72. [Available at:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31024093/Papers/WittGroundlessBeliefFINA
L.pdf].
Pritchard, D. H. ‘The Structure of Sceptical Arguments', Philosophical Quarterly
55 (2005), 37-52. [Available at: http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/fullacademic/documents/StructureOfScepticismProof_000.pdf].
Week 4: Understanding and Epistemic Value (Pritchard)
Core Reading:

Pritchard, D. H., Knowledge, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), chapter 7.
Useful Background Reading:



Pritchard, D. H., What is this Thing Called Knowledge?, (Routledge, 2nd Ed.,
2010), chapter 2.
Pritchard, D. H., & Turri, J., ‘The Value of Knowledge’, Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, (ed.) E. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/,
(2011).
Grimm, S., ‘Understanding’, Routledge Companion to Epistemology, (eds.) S.
Bernecker & D. H. Pritchard, chapter 9, (Routledge, 2010). [E-book in library].
Advanced Reading:


Pritchard, D. H., Millar, A., & Haddock, A., The Nature and Value of Knowledge:
Three Investigations, (Oxford University Press, 2010), chapters 1-4. [E-book in
library].
Greco, J., ‘The Value Problem’, Routledge Companion to Epistemology, (eds.) S.
Bernecker & D. H. Pritchard, chapter 21, (Routledge, 2010). [E-book in library].
Week 5: Religious Knowledge (Pritchard)
Core Reading:

Forrest, P., ‘The Epistemology of Religion’, Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, (ed.) E. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/,
(2009).
Useful Background Reading:


Clark, K., ‘Religious Epistemology’, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (eds.)
J. Fieser & B. Dowden, http://www.iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/, (2004).
Zagzebski, L., ‘Religious Knowledge’, Routledge Companion to Epistemology,
(eds.) S. Bernecker & D. H. Pritchard, chapter 36, (Routledge, 2010). [E-book in
library].
Advanced Reading:
6


Pritchard, D. H., ‘Wittgensteinian Quasi-Fideism’, Oxford Studies in the
Philosophy of Religion 4 (2011), 145-59. [Available at:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31024093/WittQuasiFideismPenultimate.pdf].
Pritchard, D. H., 'Reforming Reformed Epistemology', International Philosophical
Quarterly 43 (2003), 43-66; and reprinted in The Epistemology of Basic Belief,
(eds.) R. Rood & R. van Woudenberg, (Rodopi, 2004). [Available at:
http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/fullacademic/documents/RREBOOKPROOFS.pdf].
Week 6: Testimonial Knowledge (Treanor)
Core Reading:

Audi, R., ‘The Place of Testimony in the Fabric of Knowledge and Justification’,
American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (1997), 405-22. [Available on JSTOR].
Useful Background Reading:



Pritchard, D. H., What is this Thing Called Knowledge?, (Routledge, 3rd Ed.,
2013), chapter 8.
Adler, J., ‘Epistemological Problems of Testimony’, Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy, (ed.) E. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/testimony-episprob/,
(2006).
Green, C., ‘Epistemology of Testimony’, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,
(eds.) J. Fieser & B. Dowden, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ep-testi, (2008).
Advanced Reading:


Lackey, J., ‘Testimonial Knowledge’, Routledge Companion to Epistemology,
(eds.) S. Bernecker & D. H. Pritchard, chapter 29, (Routledge, 2010). [E-book in
library].
Pritchard, D. H., 'The Epistemology of Testimony', Philosophical Issues
(supplement to Noûs) 14 (2004), 326-48. [Available at:
http://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/fullacademic/documents/PITestimonyFIN
AL.pdf].
Week 7: The Structure of Justification (Treanor)
Core Reading:

Bonjour, L. ‘Can Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation?, American
Philosophical Quarterly 15 (1978), 1-13. [Available on JSTOR].
Useful Background Reading:


Bonjour, L. ‘The Coherence Theory of Empirical Knowledge’, Philosophical
Studies 30 (1976), 281-312. [Available on JSTOR].
Elgin, C. ‘Non-Foundationalist Epistemology: Holism, Coherence and Tenability’,
7




Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, (eds.) M. Steup & E. Sosa (Blackwell,
3rd Ed., 2013). [An e-version is available on Elgin’s website at Harvard.]
Pritchard, D. H., What is this Thing Called Knowledge?, (Routledge, 2nd Ed.,
2010), chapters 4.
Fumerton, R. ‘Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification’, Stanford
Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (ed.) E. Zalta,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/, (2010).
Olsson, E. ‘Coherentist Theories of Epistemic Justification’, Stanford
Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (ed.) E. Zalta,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/, (2012).
Advanced Reading:
• Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, Bk I, Ch 1-3 (available online in various
translations)
• Klein, Peter, 1998. “Foundationalism and the Infinite Regress of Reasons,”
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LVIII: 919–26. [Available on
JSTOR]
• Sosa, E., 1980, “The Raft and the Pyramid: Coherence Versus Foundations in
the Theory of Knowledge,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 5(1): 3–26. [Available
online]
Week 8: Epistemology and the Nature of Belief (Treanor)
Core Reading:
• Treanor, N. ‘The Measure of Knowledge’, Noûs, Sept. 2013, pp. 577-601.
[Available at: http://tinyurl.com/pq32bu7]
Additional Background Reading:
• Braddon-Mitchell, D. & F. Jackson, Philosophy of Mind and Cognition: An
Introduction, (Blackwell, 2nd ed., 2007), chapters 10 and 11.
• Schwitzgebel, E. ‘Belief’, in Routledge Companion to Epistemology,
(eds.) S. Bernecker & D. H. Pritchard, chapter 2, (Routledge, 2010). [E-book in
library].
• Treanor, N. ‘Trivial Truths and the Aim of Inquiry’, forthcoming in Philosophy
and Phenomenological Research. [Available at http://tinyurl.com/ot7q9w9].
Additional Advanced Reading:
• Schwitzgebel, E. ‘Belief’, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, (ed.) E. Zalta,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/ (2010).
• Stalnaker, R., Inquiry, (MIT Press, 1984 or 1987 edition), chapters 1 and 2.
• Lewis, D. On the Plurality of Worlds, (Basil Blackwell, 1986), sections 1.4 and
1.5
Week 9: Knowledge-First Epistemology (McGlynn)
8
Core Reading:
• Williamson, T. ‘Knowledge-First Epistemology’, in Routledge Companion to
Epistemology, (eds.) S. Bernecker & D. H. Pritchard, chapter 2, (Routledge,
2010). [E-book in library].
Additional Background Reading:
• Williamson, T. Knowledge and its Limits, introduction. (Oxford, 2000). (E-book
in library].
Additional Advanced Reading:
• Williamson, T. Knowledge and its Limits, chapter 1. (Oxford, 2000). (E-book in
library].
• McGlynn, A. ‘Believing things unknown’, Noûs, June 2013. [Available at
http://tinyurl.com/qf36sh9]
Week 10: Norms of Assertion
Core Reading:
• Weiner, M. ‘Norms of Assertion’, Philosophy Compass 2: 187-195. [Available
online].
Useful Background Reading:
• Williamson, T. Knowing and Asserting, Philosophical Review 105(4): 489-523.
[Available through JSTOR].
• Grice, H.P. ‘Logic and Conversation’, Syntax and Semantics Vol 3, 1975.
[Available online].
Advanced Reading:
• Lackey, J. ‘Norms of Assertion’, Nous December 2007, pp. 594-626. [Available
online].
• Weiner, M. ‘Must We Know What We Say?’. Philosophical Review 114: 227251. [Available online.]
Week 11: Revision (Pritchard, Treanor & McGlynn)
No Readings
5. PPLS Undergraduate Student Handbook
The PPLS Undergraduate Student Handbook has more information on Student Support
and academic guidance; late coursework and plagiarism; illness and disability
adjustments, and useful sources of advice.
9
The Handbook can be found here:
http://www.ppls.ed.ac.uk/students/undergraduate/manage_your_courses.php
6. Readings
The core textbook for this course is:

Pritchard, D. H., Knowledge, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).
If you would like a primer on epistemology (i.e., a textbook which is pitched at a less
advanced level), then you may also find this book useful:

Pritchard, D. H., What is this Thing Called Knowledge?, (Routledge, 3rd Ed.,
2013).
Both books should be very easy to get hold off (indeed, in both cases, they are available
as e-books through the library). There are lots of textbooks and anthologies available for
epistemology. There is a reasonably comprehensive annotated list in What is this Thing
Called Knowledge?, 159-62.
In addition to the core texts, the seminar leaders will be citing a lot of other material,
usually as advanced or introductory readings. In nearly all cases the material cited will
be available on-line through the library or you’ll be given a separate weblink. If you have
any problems getting hold of readings, then please let the coarse organiser know asap.
If you would like recommendations for additional readings for a particular topic, then
please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
7. Assessment Information
For Honours students and Visiting students:

A midterm essay of 1500 words (40%), due on Thursday 24th October 2013, by
4pm; and a final essay of 2000 words (60%), due on Thursday 12th December
2013, by 4pm.
Feedback will be provided within 3 weeks, unless otherwise notified by email.
For Honours students doing one of the long essays for the coursework dissertation
option:

A 5000 word essay (100%), due Thursday 16th January 2014, by 4pm.
10
Essay Questions
1.
What is the Gettier problem? Can it be resolved? If not, explain why. If so,
then describe and defend the solution that you favour.
Readings: See readings for week 1. Depending on how you choose to approach this
essay, the readings from weeks 2, 3 or 4 could be relevant.
2.
Does knowledge entail safety? Defend your answer.
Readings: See readings for week 2.
3.
What role, if any, should epistemic virtue play in a theory of knowledge?
Readings: See readings for weeks 3 & 4.
4.
In order to know that p, does one need to have good reflectively accessible
reasons for believing that p?
Readings: See readings for week 5.
5.
Is it possible know that one is not a brain-in-a-vat? If not, then does radical
scepticism follow? If so, then does that suffice to resolve the problem of
radical scepticism?
Readings: See readings for week 6.
6.
‘Knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief’. Discuss.
Readings: See readings for week 7.
7.
Is understanding a type of knowledge? Defend your answer.
Readings: See readings for week 8.
8.
Critically describe what you consider to be the most promising account of
religious knowledge. Is it successful, do you think? Defend your answer.
Readings: See readings for week 9.
9.
What justifies beliefs formed on the basis of testimony, if anything does?
Readings: See readings for week 6.
10.
Does justification have to bottom out?
Readings: See readings for week 7.
11.
‘Questions about what belief is have little to do with questions about what it is
11
to do better as a believer.’ Discuss.
Readings: See readings for week 8.
12.
Do the arguments Williamson offers provide a strong case for the knowledge
norm of assertion?
Readings: See readings for weeks 9 & 10.
13.
Is there an important distinction between primary and secondary propriety?
Readings: See readings for week 9 & 10.
If you are an honours student submitting two essays for assessment, then try to avoid
overlap in your essays. For example, if you do question 1 for your first essay and opt to
write extensively about the safety condition on knowledge, then it would be unwise to
choose question 2 for your second essay. For the same reason, if you are taking the
honours course on Scepticism, then it would probably be wise to avoid answering
question 6. If you would like suggestions for additional readings for the essay questions,
please just ask.
General Essay Guidance
Remember that it is important that your essay is a response to the essay question in
hand. You need to defend the claims you make with arguments, and in doing so draw
on the materials from the texts that we have covered. Make sure that your writing is
clear and that you properly explain all terminology. Where you explore other peoples’
work, make sure that you properly reference them.
For some general advise on writing philosophy essays, see:

Martinch, A. P., Philosophical Writing: An Introduction, (Blackwell, several
editions).
See also the following guidance that is available on the web:




http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html (Jim Pryor).
http://www.public.asu.edu/~dportmor/tips.pdf (Doug Portmore).
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/student/humanities/philosophy.shtml
(Dartmouth).
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/resources/writing.html (Peter Horban).
Word Count Penalties
Essays must not exceed the word limit, which includes footnotes but excludes
bibliography. The precise word count must be written on the coversheet. Overlong
essays will be penalised according to the following rule: 5% will be deducted for every
100 words, or part thereof, over the word limit. So, 1-100 words over lose 5%; 101-200
12
words over lose 10%; 201-300 words over lose 15%; and so on.
Penalties for Late Submission of Essays
Unless an extension has been granted, essays must be submitted by the dates shown in
the table of Submission Dates below. Essays submitted late without an extension may
not be marked, but, if marked, will incur a penalty (in accordance with section 3.8 of the
University Undergraduate Assessment Regulations at:
http://www.docs.sasg.ed.ac.uk/AcademicServices/Regulations/TaughtAssessmentRegulations201314.PDF
For each working day that the work is late there will be a reduction of the mark by 5% of
the maximum obtainable mark (e.g. a mark of 65% on the common marking scale would
be reduced to 60% up to 24 hours later). This penalty applies for up to five working
days, after which a mark of zero will be given.
Please note - Regulation 14 Assessment deadlines: Student responsibilities
It is a student’s responsibility to ascertain and meet his or her assessment deadlines,
including examination times and locations.
8. Learn
Essays are to be submitted online, and for essay submission instructions please see the
instructions on LEARN. Please note you should not include your name or matriculation
number on coursework, only your exam number.
9. Autonomous Learning Groups
One of the best ways to learn, and get feedback, is from talking to each other. In order
to facilitate this, each of your Honours courses now has dedicated Autonomous
Learning Groups. In week 2, you will receive an email from our Student Support Officer
(Tamsin Welch, tamsin.welch@ed.ac.uk) asking if you would like to be part of an
Autonomous Learning Group (ALG) for each of your Honours courses. If you agree,
Tamsin will form the ALGs for you and email you with details of which group you are in,
and the email addresses of the other members of the group.
It is up to you, the members of the ALG, to organise the meetings. You decide how
often to meet and what to do in your ALG. ALGs are designed to help you learn and get
to know your classmates; they are not a formal requirement of the course. It is important
to note that assessment in your courses is non-competitive: you are not competing
against your classmates, only against the general grade criteria. It is in your interests to
help each other.
As a rough guide, we suggest your ALG meets every 2-3 weeks. You could use the
meetings to:
13






Read and discuss the papers together
Discuss essay-writing and time-management techniques
Constructively critique each other's draft essays or plans
Read some of the further readings or related papers
Work on presentations or discussion posts that the class may involve
Share tips on career advice
Tamsin will be able to help you with room booking (you can also do this yourself through
MyEd). Please email the CO of the course if you feel that it would be useful for the
group if she or he joined one of your sessions.
Please contact Tamsin if you find it necessary during the semester to transfer into a
different group.
ALGs are a new initiative by Philosophy and we appreciate your thoughts. If you
feedback on how to make ALGs even better, please email Tamsin Welch
(tamsin.welch@ed.ac.uk) or the Director of Undergraduate Teaching, Dr. Mark Sprevak
(mark.sprevak@ed.ac.uk).
10. Feedback
You will get many feedback or feedforward opportunities in your courses. Feedback
could be in the form of an essay, a draft write-up, self-generated or peer feedback,
small group discussions or quizzes within lectures etc. Feedforward might include a
discussion of how to write an essay, or prepare for an exam.
Feedback is essential to learning and it takes many forms. We strongly encourage you
to use all forms of feedback, including:










Asking and answering questions in lectures or classes
Asking questions of your Course Organiser or lecturer in their office hours
Discussing your work with lecturers and examiners on Philosophy's dedicated
Feedback Days (Honours students)
Actively participating in your tutorials (pre-Honours students)
Actively participating in Autonomous Learning Groups (Honours students)
Talking about your ideas outside class with fellow Philosophy students
Taking your essay to PhilSoc essay surgeries
Participating in PhilSoc discussion groups and study-skills events
Participating in PhilSoc debates and talks: http://euphilsoc.weebly.com/
Participating in the British Undergraduate Philosophy Society, including
undergraduate conferences: http://www.bups.org
If you have any suggestions on how to improve feedback further, please contact either:




Your Tutor (pre-Honours students)
Your Course Organiser
Your Personal Tutor
Tamsin Welch, PPLS Student Support Officer (tamsin.welch@ed.ac.uk)
14

Dr Mark Sprevak, Director of Undergraduate Teaching (mark.sprevak@ed.ac.uk)
11. Useful Information
WEEK 6 INNOVATIVE LEARNING WEEK (17 - 21 February 2014). Normal teaching
slots will be suspended and in their place will be a range of other activities such as
master classes, a research day, a science fair, and guest lectures. More information will
follow nearer the time so please check the School website where details will be
available on the PPLS Events page.
12. Common Marking Scheme
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/registry/exams/regulations/common-markingscheme
A1 90100
Excellent
Outstanding in every respect, the work is well beyond the level expected of
a competent student at their level of study.
A2 8089
Excellent
Outstanding in some respects, the work is often beyond what is expected of
a competent student at their level of study.
A3 7079
Excellent
Very good or excellent in most respects, the work is what might be expected
of a very competent student.
B
6069
Very Good
Good or very good in most respects, the work displays thorough mastery of
the relevant learning outcomes.
C
5059
Good
The work clearly meets requirements for demonstrating the relevant
learning outcomes.
D
4049
Pass
The work meets minimum requirements for demonstrating the relevant
learning outcomes.
E
3039
Marginal fail
The work fails to meet minimum requirements for demonstrating the
relevant learning outcomes.
F
2029
Clear fail
The work is very weak or shows a decided lack of effort.
15
G
1019
Bad fail
The work is extremely weak.
H
0-9
Bad fail
The work is of very little consequence, if any, to the area in question.
The marking scheme used for all coursework and for degree and resit examinations is
the University Common Marking Scheme. The principal grades and descriptors, as
approved by the School of PPLS, of the University’s Extended Common Marking
Scheme, are as follows.
A1 90-100 Excellent
Outstanding in every respect, the work is well beyond the level expected of a
competent student at their level of study. It
• Shows creative, subtle, and/or original independent thinking
• Demonstrates breadth of knowledge and deep understanding of the subject matter
• Draws on a wide, relevant literature base
• Demonstrates an excellent standard of synthesis and evaluation and a critical and
insightful analysis of the literature
• Is well focused, with concentration on the main issues to be addressed
• Presents a compelling case by means of clear logically structured argument or debate,
well supported with evidence
• Is written with flair
• Has, where appropriate, complete and correct referencing
• Is flawless in grammar and spelling
A2 80-89 Excellent
Outstanding in some respects, the work is often beyond what is expected of a
competent student at their level of study. It
• Shows original, sophisticated independent thinking
• Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the subject matter
• Draws on a wide, relevant literature base
• Demonstrates critical and insightful analysis of the literature
• Is well focused, with concentration on the main issues to be addressed
• Presents a strong case by means of clear, logically structured argument or debate,
supported with evidence
• Shows a good standard of academic writing
• Has, where appropriate, complete and correct referencing
• Shows a high standard of grammar and spelling
A3 70-79 Excellent
Very good or excellent in most respects, the work is what might be expected of a very
competent student. It
• Explores the topic under discussion fully
• Shows some complex and/or sensitive independent thinking Complexity and or
sensitivity is reflected in the argument
• Demonstrates a sound understanding of the subject matter
• Draws in a wide relevant literature base
• Demonstrates critical analysis of the literature
16
• Is well focused, with concentration on the main issues to be addressed
• Presents a good case by means of clear logically structured argument or debate,
supported by evidence
• Shows a competent standard of fluent academic writing
• Has, where appropriate, complete and correct referencing
• Shows a good standard of grammar and spelling
B 60-69 Very Good
Good or very good in most respects, the work displays thorough mastery of the relevant
learning outcomes. It
• Demonstrates a good understanding of the area in question
• Draws on adequate references
• Demonstrates good synthesis, analysis, reflection and evaluation of the literature
• Concentrates on the main issues to be addressed
• Presents an adequate case by means of clear, well structured, logical argument
supported with evidence.
• Has, where appropriate, complete and correct referencing of sources
• Shows a good standard of grammar and spelling
C 50-59 Good
The work clearly meets requirements for demonstrating the relevant learning outcomes.
It
• Shows evidence of sufficient knowledge and understanding of the material
• Uses references appropriately to support the argument, though they may be limited in
number or reflect restricted reading.
• Demonstrates limited critical analysis and evaluation of sources of evidence.
• Addresses the area in question clearly and coherently
• Has satisfactory structure, presentation, and expression
• Has, where appropriate, complete referencing of sources, though there may be minor
flaws in referencing technique
D 40-49 Pass
The work meets minimum requirements for demonstrating the relevant learning
outcomes.
It
• Demonstrates a sufficient level of knowledge and understanding but at a basic level,
and there may be minor inaccuracies
• Lacks detail, elaboration or explanation of concepts and ideas.
• Displays limited synthesis and analysis of the literature
• Presents a highly descriptive account of the topic with no real critical analysis
• Presents a weak argument which is not logically structured or which lacks clarity or is
based on unsubstantiated statements
• Has, where appropriate, complete referencing of sources, though there may be flaws
in
referencing technique.
• Has largely satisfactory expression, though there may be minor spelling or
grammatical errors
E 30-39 Marginal fail
17
The work fails to meet minimum requirements for demonstrating the relevant learning
outcomes. It
• Does not demonstrate a sufficient level of knowledge and understanding
• Utilises only limited reference sources and offers poor analysis of them
• May not adequately address the area in question, because its content is too limited or
because there are some inaccuracies
• Presents a poorly structured, poorly developed, or incoherent argument, or no
argument at all
• Has an awkward writing style or poor expression of concepts
• Has incomplete or inadequately presented references
• Shows a lack of attention to spelling and grammar.
F 20-29 Clear fail
The work is very weak or shows a decided lack of effort. It
• Displays very poor or confused knowledge and understanding
• Does not address the area in question.
• Presents no argument or one based on irrelevant and erroneous content
• Displays an unacceptable academic writing style and /or presentation
• Has incomplete or inadequately presented references, if any
G 10-19 Bad fail
The work is extremely weak. It
• Displays no knowledge or understanding of the area in question
• Presents incomplete, muddled, and/or irrelevant material
• Provides no coherent discussion of the area in question
• Has incomplete or inadequately presented references, if any
H 0-9 Bad fail
The work is of very little consequence, if any, to the area in question. It
• Is incomplete in every respect.