Postgraduate Taught Marking Criteria
Overview
The History department has specific marking criteria for work at postgraduate level. It is mapped to the Arts Faculty's Marking Scale, but is more specific to the expectations of a History assignment.
On this page, you will find detailed information about the marking process in history, the history marking criteria, and further information to help you understand how markers interpret this criteria.
Determining the final mark for a piece of work in History is a complex matter, requiring skill and judgement on the part of markers. Please bear in mind the following:
- No brief list of terms can hope to capture all the considerations that may come into play, and the criteria are always open to some degree of interpretation. The style and tone of feedback will also vary across markers.
- The department has robust processes in place to ensure that marking is fair and consistent (see below).
- A piece of work does not need to meet every one of the specified criteria to obtain a mark in the relevant class. Work that meets all the criteria in a class is likely to achieve higher marks in that class. Equally, when work displays characteristics from more than one class, a judgement must be made of the overall quality. The criteria are not necessarily evenly weighted, so a particularly poor performance in one element of the criteria might outweigh good performance in others.
- Module convenors will provide specific marking criteria for other types of assessment where appropriate. Please contact your module convenor if you are unclear about how an assignment will be marked.
-
Please be aware that if you are taking modules outside of History, the marking criteria may well be different, so make sure you check what is expected in that department.
Before submission
These criteria explain what your markers are looking for when they assess your work. You should therefore read them alongside the assignment brief, so that you understand what the marker is looking for. You can ask the marker if there are particular elements of the criteria that they will be focusing on for a particular assignment.
When you receive your feedback
Your work will show strengths in some areas and potential for improvement in others. Reading your feedback alongside the criteria will help you to understand how your mark was determined. The feedback provided by your marker will help you to understand how to improve for future assignments.
The department has robust processes for ensuring that marking is fair.
- Markers attend training sessions, receive written guidance on marking, and we meet regularly as a department to discuss the criteria and how they are applied.
- All assessments in History worth more than 3 CATS are moderated by another member of staff, who does not teach on the module. They look at a sample of work, including all fails and all marks above 80, to ensure that marking is in line with the criteria, is applied consistently, and the feedback is appropriate.
- Dissertations are second marked, which means that two markers (one of whom is usually the supervisor) read the work and have to agree a final mark.
- All marks and a sample of work from each cohort is then considered by the department's External Examiners, who are academics from other universities, who advise us on our marking processes and ensure that our marking is consistent with other history departments across the UK.
The feedback that you receive will help you to understand the mark that you have been awarded. Just as we do not expect you to write formulaic essays, we do not expect markers to write formulaic feedback, but rather to engage with your work on an individual basis. Therefore the style and tone of feedback will vary across markers.
Markers may not always refer to all elements of the marking criteria in any given piece of feedback, and they may use different terminology to describe the merits of your work.
You are strongly encouraged to speak with your marker (who in most cases is your seminar tutor) in order to help you understand and interpret your feedback. You can also talk to your Personal Tutor for advice on how to improve your marks.
For more information, see our Feedback page.
Don't panic if your marks seem lower than you expected. First, check that you understand the criteria: be aware that a 70 is a Distinction and therefore very strong - this can sometimes be alarming if you come from a different educational context where marks in the 90s are the norm!
If you aren't achieving the marks that you want to, then take the time to engage with your feedback carefully, and seek advice from your markers. You will gradually improve over the course of your degree. If you are worried about your performance in assessments, please discuss this with your personal tutor.
Marking is a matter of academic judgement, which means that university regulations do not allow for marks to be negotiated or challenged, nor for work to be remarked if a student does not like the mark they have received. You are also not permitted to resubmit a passing piece of work in the hopes of attaining a better mark.
If there is a clear administrative mistake in your mark (for example, the mark and feedback appear to be for a different student's assignment, or you think there might be a typo in the mark itself), then you can raise this with the marker and have this corrected.
If you think there has been prejudice or bias on the part of the marker, or you have any other concerns about the quality of the marking you receive, then you should discuss this with the PGT Director, who may advise you to submit a Stage 1 Complaint with supporting evidence so that this can be investigated.
Marking Criteria
This criteria applies to to all work on postgraduate history modules, unless alternative criteria is provided by the module convenor.
What is being assessed?
- Knowledge and Understanding: is the work based on a thorough factual knowledge of relevant historical events? Does it demonstrate understanding of relevant secondary literature, theories, methods and/or debates that are relevant to the topic at hand? Does the work reflect on and engage with the sources, theories, methods, and/or debates that it is discussing?
- Argument: does the work give a persuasive and analytical answer to the question, with good use of evidence?
- Presentation: is the work clearly written and logically organised? Is it written in a clear individual style? Does the work correctly acknowledge its sources through its use of quotations, referencing, and bibliography?
The sections below explain what is expected for each of these criteria at each level.
History Criteria
- Knowledge and Understanding: Exceptional and/or outstanding comprehension of the implications of the question and sophisticated, creative and original, nuanced and critical understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues not only pertaining to the subject, but to the field as a whole. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate and exceptionally sophisticated usage. According to the judgement of the examiners may be of publishable standard in a peer-reviewed journal.
- Argument: A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and extremely well-supported with elements of originality. Outstanding evidence throughout independent thought and ability to 鈥榮ee beyond the question鈥�, suggesting a thorough grasp of the broader field and wider concepts. Evidence of reading exceptionally widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument; demonstrates the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.
- Presentation: Exceptionally well presented: no grammatical or spelling errors; written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary academic practice including flawless citations, use of quotations, bibliography and referencing. Very extensive and detailed knowledge with impressive conceptual understanding and analytical skills. Extensive evidence of coherence, creativity, originality, autonomy, imagination and the ability to deal with complexity, contradictions or gaps in the knowledge base and ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline.
Arts Faculty Descriptor
-
Work which, over and above possessing all the qualities of the 70-79 mark range, indicates a fruitful new approach to the material studies, represents an advance in scholarship or is judged by examiners to be of a standard publishable in a peer-reviewed publication.
History Criteria
- Knowledge and Understanding: Excellent comprehension of the implications of the question and critical understanding of the theoretical & methodological issues. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate and sophisticated usage.
- Argument: A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and well-supported. Evidence of independent thought and ability to 鈥榮ee beyond the immediate question鈥�, suggesting a burgeoning grasp of the broader field and wider concepts. Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument; demonstrates the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and perhaps some knowledge at the forefront of the discipline
- Presentation: Extremely well presented: minimal grammatical or spelling errors if any; written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary academic practice including flawless citations, use of quotations, bibliography and referencing.
Arts Faculty Descriptor
-
Methodologically sophisticated, intelligently argued, with some evidence of genuine originality in analysis or approach. Impressive command of the critical/historiographical/theoretical field, and an ability to situate the topic within it, and to modify or challenge received interpretations where appropriate. Excellent deployment of a substantial body of primary material/texts to advance the argument. Well structured, very well written, with proper referencing and an extensive bibliography.
History Criteria
- Knowledge and Understanding: Generally well written, with a clear sequence of arguments, and satisfactory referencing and bibliography. Very good comprehension of the implications of the question and fairly extensive and accurate knowledge and understanding, showing a sound grasp of the critical/historiographical/theoretical field, well organised and effectively argued, analytical in approach. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: used with reasonable ease and success.
- Argument: Demonstrates an ability to draw upon a fairly substantial body of primary material, and to relate this in an illuminating way to the issues under discussion. Very good awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological issues, though not always displaying an understanding of how they link to the question. A generally critical, analytical argument, which shows attempts at independent thinking and is sensibly structured and generally well-supported. Clear and generally critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of works beyond the prescribed reading list; demonstrating the ability to be selective in the range of material used, and the capacity to synthesise rather than describe
- Presentation: Very well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors; written clearly and concisely; good academic practice, including accurate citations, use of quotations, bibliography and referencing, though there may be some minor errors in formatting.
Arts Faculty Descriptor
-
Well organised and effectively argued, analytical in approach, showing a sound grasp of the critical/historiographical/theoretical field. Demonstrates an ability to draw upon a fairly substantial body of primary material, and to relate this in an illuminating way to the issues under discussion. Generally well written, with a clear sequence of arguments, and satisfactory referencing and bibliography.
History Criteria
- Knowledge and Understanding: Generally clear and accurate knowledge, though there may be some errors and/or gaps and some awareness of underlying theoretical/methodological issues with limited understanding of how they relate to the question. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: attempted use, but not always successful, not always a full understanding of concepts/theory/method used.
- Argument: Demonstrates an ability to draw upon a reasonable range of primary material, and relate it accurately to the issues under discussion. Some attempt at analysis but a tendency to be descriptive rather than critical and analytical. Tendency to assert/state opinion, view or 鈥榝eeling鈥� rather than argue on the basis of reasoned arguments and evidence; arguments not sustained by choice of evidence; structure may not be entirely clear or logical. Some attempt to go beyond or criticise the 鈥榚ssential reading鈥� for the unit; but displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and non-relevant material.
- Presentation: Adequately presented: writing style conveys meaning but is sometimes awkward; some significant grammatical and spelling errors; adequate academic practice, including accurate use of quotations, bibliography and referencing, though there may be significant errors in formatting.
Arts Faculty Descriptor
- A lower level of attainment than work in the 60-69 range, but demonstrating some awareness of the general critical/historiographical/theoretical field. Mainly analytical, rather than descriptive or narrative in approach. An overall grasp of the subject matter, with, perhaps, a few areas of confusion or gaps in factual or conceptual understanding of the material. Demonstrates an ability to draw upon a reasonable range of primary material, and relate it accurately to the issues under discussion. Clearly written, with adequate referencing and bibliography.
History Criteria
- Knowledge and Understanding: Work inadequate for an MA or PG Diploma award. Limited knowledge and understanding with significant errors and omissions and generally ignorant or confused awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues. Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: attempts to use, but only with partial understanding and/or success.
- Argument: Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a case; underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but used inappropriately or incorrectly. Relevant, but not extensive deployment of primary material in relation to the issues under discussion. Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive description. Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range of sources
- Presentation: Poorly presented: not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and spelling errors; poor academic practice, including attempts at citation but may have missing, incomplete, or careless bibliography and references, and quotations may be unclear.
Arts Faculty Descriptor
-
This work is inadequate for an MA or PG Diploma award. Significant elements of confusion in the framing and execution of the response to the question. Simple, coherent and solid answers, but mainly descriptive or narrative in approach. Relevant, but not extensive deployment of primary material in relation to the issues under discussion. Occasional tendency to derivativeness either by paraphrase or direct quotation of secondary sources. Some attempt to meet requirements for referencing and bibliography.
History Criteria
-
Work inadequate for an MA or Diploma award. Poorly argued, written and presented. Conceptual confusion throughout, and demonstrates no knowledge of the critical/historiographical/theoretical field. Failure to address the issues raised by the question, derivative, very insubstantial or very poor or limited deployment of primary material.
Arts Faculty Descriptor
-
Work inadequate for an MA or PG Diploma award. Poorly argued, written and presented. Conceptual confusion throughout, and demonstrates no knowledge of the critical/historiographical/theoretical field. Failure to address the issues raised by the question, derivative, very insubstantial or very poor or limited deployment of primary material.
- Work of no merit
- Work not submitted, or submission of the wrong file
- Work found to be academic misconduct by the Academic Conduct Panel may receive a mark of zero