Undergraduate Marking Criteria
Overview
The History department has two sets of marking criteria, one for written work and one for seminar contribution. Both are mapped to the University's 20-Point Marking Scale, but are more specific to the expectations of a History assignment.
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.
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.
Frequently asked questions
Marking Criteria for Written Work
This criteria applies to essays, take home assessments, and dissertations.
What is being assessed?
- Argument: does the work give a persuasive answer to the question, with good use of evidence?
- 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?
- Analysis and Engagement: does the work reflect on, engage with, and critically analyse, the sources, theories, methods, and/or debates that it is discussing?
- Presentation and Voice: is the work clearly written and logically organised? Is it written in a clear individual voice?
- Academic Practice: 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.
Understanding the difference between a 2.2, a 2.1 and a first class essay
The table below provides an overview of the feedback that you might expect to see for a 3000 word essay receiving either a 58, a 65, or a 74, to help you understand the expectations at the different levels.
| Criteria | Mark of 58 | Mark of 65 | Mark of 74 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary | The work will likely make some good points, demonstrating some good knowledge and research, but the argument either doesn't fully answer the question, relies too heavily on description, or makes claims it doesn't substantiate. In other words, the material is there, but there is a lack of detailed analysis to raise the work to a higher level. |
This is good work, often ambitious and promising, identifying the right questions and engaging with the right sources (usually those on the relevant reading list), and has a clear line of argument. There is analysis in the essay, but it could be developed further in terms of evidence, critical engagement, and independent thinking. In other words, the analytical work has started, but stops before it is complete. This is a solid foundation to build upon for a higher mark in future. |
This is very good work that is strongly argued, with a clear sense of its own position on the topic, based on critical analysis of primary source evidence. There may be some high quality independent research that goes beyond the reading list, and a writing style that is enjoyable to read, demonstrating the development of an identifiable individual voice. The analysis might be able to be developed further, however, and feedback will point to ways of refining the argument, or probing the question, as a way to achieve an even higher mark. |
| Argument | The essay will attempt to address the question, but the argument may not actually answer the question, may lack nuance, or may be underdeveloped. It may lack supporting evidence, rely too much on describing events rather than analysing them, or it may make unsupported claims. | The argument will be clear and coherent, but may be a little simplistic or superficial, and may be in need of development or further evidence, especially in terms of primary sources. | The argument is nuanced, clear, focused, and effective. The essay uses evidence and examples well to support the argument, demonstrating clear critical engagement with the secondary sources. However the discussion could be developed further, and with more depth. |
| Knowledge and Understanding | There is a good level of knowledge and understanding of the topic, covering a range of points and examples, but the essay may rely too much on a limited range of secondary sources, or on inappropriate sources like low-quality websites. | There is solid knowledge and understanding and a good amount of research has been done, drawing on a bibliography based in appropriate secondary literature, though there might be a few gaps that result in a weaker argument. | There is a strong knowledge base evident in the essay, demonstrating both depth and range of understanding, although there may be places where it could be pushed even further. |
| Analysis and Engagement | There is some attempt to engage with historiography or scholarly debates, but this might lack depth, with limited analysis of relevant methods or theories, or missing key debates. | The analysis includes close reading of sources, and engages with a range of scholars, but may lack sophistication or depth. The work might use sources as evidence without fully interrogating them, making assertions rather than arguments. | The work critically analyses sources to build its own argument rather than simply reporting what they say, and engages with debates at a level where they can challenge, qualify, or build on them. |
| Presentation and Voice | Aspects of the writing may be unclear, muddled, or grammatically incorrect, and there may be an overreliance on quotations which limits the sense of individual voice. The structure or organisation of the essay may be hard to follow, repetitive, or not clearly outlined in the introduction. |
The essay is clearly written and fluent, though there may be a few minor errors or typos. There may be suggestions for improvements to structure or paragraphing, often in relation to the introduction. | The writing style is engaging, confident, focused, and fluent, with an individual voice that makes the essay a pleasure to read. The structure is clear, and the essay develops with a logical flow. There might be a few areas for stylistic improvement. |
| Academic Practice | Markers may point to specific errors in academic practice, especially around paraphrasing, quotations, and citations. |
Academic practice is generally expected to be good, with minor and specific issues flagged where necessary, especially around formatting. | There may be little comment on academic practice, as it is expected to be correct at this level, and therefore only a few very minor issues will be highlighted. |
Marking Criteria for Seminar Contribution, Participation, and Engagement
What is being assessed?
- Participation: Does the student attend regularly? Is there evidence that the student has prepared for the seminar? Does the student participate in small and/or large group discussions or other seminar activities? Does the student participate in any online forums or other required activities before or after the seminar?
- Engagement: Does the student demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the set readings? Does the student reflect on, engage with, and critically analyse, the sources, theories, methods and/or debates in the readings or under discussion? Does the student give evidence- and argument-driven responses to seminar questions?
- Contribution: Do the student's ideas extend the discussion? Do they ask useful or probing questions of the readings and of other students? Do they approach the conversation in an inclusive way?
- Oral Communication: Does the student express their ideas clearly and persuasively? Does the student treat others in the room with respect? Does the student have a clear individual voice?
- Reflection [for assessments with a reflective submission only]: Can the student accurately evaluate, and critically reflect upon, their contribution to seminars?
The sections below explain what is expected for each of these criteria at each level.