Marking Descriptors for Undergraduate Programmes

A Marks scale

1 For undergraduate degrees marks awarded on individual modules are categorised as follows:

70 to 100	First class
60 to 69	Upper second class (2.1)
50 to 59	Lower second class (2.2)
40 to 49	3rd class
35 to 39	Narrow fail (but compensation may be allowed in accordance with the University’s rules)
Less than 35	Fail

2 This scale assumes rounding, if necessary, to the nearest whole number, with decimal places up to four being rounded down and decimal places of five or more being rounded up.

3 The rules for compensation are described in the Framework for Undergraduate Degree Programmes.

B General Marking Descriptors for Undergraduate Assessments

B.1 Introduction

4. Assessment tasks in the subjects studied within the University lie between two extreme types:

(i) Type A tasks where there is a correct answer and little or no opportunity for alternative approaches or displays of insight. For time-constrained assessments, the assessor must ensure that there is a reasonable allowance of time for the student to be able to recall, work out and write down the correct answer.
Examples: the definition of a term or unit, a schematic or diagrammatic figure, a graph showing the relationship between characteristics, the implementation of a standard procedure (e.g., a calculation), a computer programme to carry out a straight-forward task.

(ii) Type B tasks where there is no definitive right answer; a range of possible answers could satisfy, to a greater or lesser extent, the question posed. The assessor can provide a sample answer that indicates one general approach to answering the question, the main points expected, the quantity and depth of points expected, etc. There is no logical limit to the number of relevant points that a student could make. Therefore the assessor has to apply some form of constraint on the length of answer (e.g., time in an exam or word-count in a coursework submission) and must therefore make his/her assessment bearing in mind the best answer that could reasonably be expected from a student at that level of study under the prevailing conditions (i.e., exam or coursework).

Examples: a discussion or evaluation of a concept or theory, a design solution to an open-ended problem, a report on a project.

5 Many assessments lie between these extremes. For instance, a report on a laboratory exercise will have definable ‘correct’ aspects (report structure, grammar, experimental arrangement and procedure, format of tabulated and graphed results) but there are also opportunities for the student to demonstrate understanding and originality in discussing and evaluating the results, suggesting experimental improvements and drawing conclusions.

6 A major project is a Type B task. Since the assessment of projects is a more complex process, it is dealt with in a separate section below.

B.2 Assessment of Type A tasks

(i) Students will have been given (or referred to a source for) the required definition, figure or procedure and may have been told how it would be assessed (e.g. reproduce it, describe it, carry it out).

(ii) The assessor will set the assessment task, bearing in mind how it relates to the module Learning Outcomes. He/she will then prepare the correct answer and an associated Marking Scheme (the total marks available being allocated to the various steps in the answer, according to volume and difficulty of the work required).

(iii) Answers will be marked according to the extent and correctness of each student’s progress through the steps. The examiner should distinguish between correctness of the process and accuracy of the mathematics (thus a student who follows the correct process but makes an arithmetic error in an early step will get the wrong answer but may be awarded most of the marks).

B.3 Assessment of Type B tasks

(i) Students may or may not be formally taught the subject matter of the task.

(ii) The assessor will set the assessment task, bearing in mind how it relates to the module Learning Outcomes. He/she may provide (or refer to a source for) guidance on how to tackle the task and perhaps an outline of some aspects of the answer or an example answer to a related task. Alternatively students may be required to develop their own approaches to the task. Unless time-constrained, the assessor must indicate the length of answer expected. Furthermore, he/she may provide the criteria by which student submissions will be assessed, and the relative weighting of criteria, for example: extent to which the requirements and constraints of the task have been satisfied; correctness of use and interpretation of relevant knowledge; extent of coverage of the topic; evidence of wider reading; display of insight, understanding, originality, creativity, etc; quality of analytical and problem-solving skills; quality of communication skills.

(iii) He/she may prepare a sample answer that is within the length constraint and matches the stage of development of understanding of the best students. He/she should check that, by applying the stated criteria, the answer would be assessed as at least ‘Very Good’. Some adjustment of the criteria may then be necessary.

(iv) The answer will be marked according to the following Marking Descriptors; some virement will be necessary between the criteria.

7 Each department will have its own set of qualitative marking descriptors which describe what each mark range represents in terms of student achievement in that particular subject. These descriptors will relate to the appropriate subject benchmark statement(s) which have been produced by each national subject community.

8 In very general terms students’ achievement is categorised as follows:

	Knowledge and Understanding	Intellectual Skills	Transferable Skills
100%	The best answer that could reasonably be expected from a student at that level of study under the prevailing conditions (i.e. exam or coursework)
90-99% ‘Outstanding’	Total coverage of the task set. Exceptional demonstration of knowledge and understanding appropriately grounded in theory and relevant literature.	Extremely creative and imaginative approach. Comprehensive and accurate analysis. Wellargued conclusions. Perceptive selfassessment.	Extremely clear exposition. Excellently structured and logical answer. Excellent presentation, only the most insignificant errors
80-89% ‘Excellent’	As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses or gaps in knowledge and understanding.	As ‘Outstanding’ but slightly less imaginative and with some minor gaps in analysis and/or conclusions	As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses in structure, logic and/or presentation.
70-79% ‘Very Good’	Full coverage of the task set. Generally very good demonstration of knowledge and understanding but with some modest gaps. Good grounding in theory.	Some creative and imaginative features. Very good and generally accurate analysis. Sound conclusions. Some selfassessment.	Generally clear exposition. Satisfactory structure. Very good presentation, largely free of grammatical and other errors.
60-69% ‘Comprehensive’	As ‘Very Good’ but with more and/or more significant gaps in knowledge & understanding and some significant gaps in grounding	As ‘Very Good’ but analysis and conclusions contain some minor weaknesses.	As ‘Very Good’ but with some weaknesses in exposition and/or structure and a few more grammatical and other errors.
50-59% ‘Competent’	Covers most of the task set. Patchy knowledge and understanding with limited grounding in literature.	Rather limited creative and imaginative features. Patchy analysis containing significant flaws. Rather limited conclusions. No selfassessment.	Competent exposition and structure. Competent presentation but some significant grammatical and other errors.
40-49% ‘Adequate’	As ‘Competent’ but patchy coverage of the task set and more weaknesses and/or omissions in knowledge and understanding. Just meets the threshold level.	As ‘Competent’ but probably without much imagination. Shows barely adequate ability to analyse and draw conclusions. Just meets the threshold level.	As ‘Competent’ but with more weaknesses in exposition, structure, presentation and/or errors. Just meets the threshold level.
35-39% ‘Compensatable fail’	Some parts of the set task likely to have been omitted. Major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Some significant confusion. Very limited grounding. Falls just short of the threshold level.	No creative or imaginative features. Analysis and conclusions rather limited. Falls just short of the threshold level.	Somewhat confused and limited exposition. Confused structure. Some weaknesses in presentation and some serious grammatical and other errors. Falls just short of the threshold level.
20-34% ‘Deficient’	As ‘Compensatable Fail’ but with major omissions and/or major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Falls substantially below the threshold level.	As ‘Compensatable Fail’ but analysis and/or conclusions may have been omitted. Falls substantially below the threshold level.	As ‘Compensatable Fail’ but with more serious weaknesses in presentation and/or grammar. Falls substantially below the threshold level.
0-20% ‘Extremely weak’	Substantial sections of the task not covered. Knowledge & understanding very limited and/or largely incorrect. No grounding in theory.	No creative or imaginative features. Analysis extremely weak or omitted. No conclusions.	Largely confused exposition and structure. Many serious grammatical and other errors.

B.4 Assessment of Projects

9 Each department will provide detailed guidelines to students on the planning, implementation and assessment of major projects. Staff use standard mark sheets for each assessment element (one or more of: report, log book, oral presentation, viva) at each stage of the project (typically Proposal, Interim and Final). The weightings of each element of each stage are tabulated. Descriptive criteria are provided that indicate the features of an excellent submission. Each mark sheet lists assessment features for each element; the examiner selects a descriptive grade (e.g. ‘Very Good’) and/or writes a short descriptive evaluation before arriving at a mark for the element. Administrative staff collate the assessment elements to arrive at the module mark. If the overall project mark is a marginal fail, the examiners and moderator will carry out a detailed review before approving the mark (since a failure means that the student’s degree may be unaccredited by one or more of the professional institutions).

C Qualifications Descriptors 学位描述

10 Qualifications awarded by the University of Liverpool are consistent with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland which has been developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Undergraduate qualifications awarded by the University are categorised as follows:

C.1 Degree without Honours

11 A degree without honours may be awarded using the criteria outlined in Appendix F to the Code of Practice on Assessment. Such students will have demonstrated:

(i) Knowledge and critical understanding of the well-established principles of their area(s) of study and the way in which those principles have developed;

(ii) Ability to apply underlying concepts and principles outside the context in which they were first studied, including, where appropriate, the application of those principles in an employment context;

(iii) Knowledge of the main methods of enquiry in their subject(s) and an ability to evaluate critically the appropriateness of different approaches to solving problems in the field of study;

(iv) An understanding of the limits of their knowledge and how this influences analyses and interpretations based on that knowledge.

C.2 Honours Degree 荣誉学位

12 A degree with honours may be awarded using the criteria outlined in Appendix F to the Code of Practice on Assessment. Such students will have demonstrated:

(i) A systematic understanding of the key aspects of their field of study, including acquisition of coherent and detailed knowledge, at least some of which is at or informed by the forefront of defined aspects of a discipline;

(ii) An ability to deploy accurately established techniques of analysis and enquiry within a discipline;

(iii) Conceptual understanding that enables the student:

(iv) To devise and sustain arguments and/or solve problems, using ideas and techniques, some of which are at the forefront of the discipline;

(v) To describe and comment upon particular aspects of current research or equivalent advanced scholarship in the discipline;

(vi) An appreciation of the uncertainty, ambiguity and limits of knowledge;

(vii) The ability to manage their own learning and to make use of scholarly reviews and primary sources, e.g. refereed research articles and/or original materials appropriate to the discipline).