MARKING CRITERIA AND SUBJECT BENCHMARKS

MARKING CRITERIA AND SUBJECT BENCHMARKS

Marking scheme for undergraduate work

The standard (numerical) marking scheme used for all undergraduate work in the School is as follows:

Modules in the degree programmes are organised into four major areas: modules on literature/culture, modules on linguistics, modules on film, and language modules. Non-language modules in the degree programmes are taught at three different levels, with benchmarks for each of the levels; language modules are taught at six different stages, also with benchmarks for each of the stages. Benchmarks tell you what you should know and do at each level or stage. This includes knowledge and skills which are specific to the disciplines and/or the language(s) you are studying as well as knowledge and skills which are transferable to other spheres. Marks for undergraduate work are judged relative to the level or stage at which the modules are taught. When marking, examiners bear in mind these benchmarks in conjunction with the grade criteria. Benchmarks are provided below for each of the three major areas:

Level benchmarks for modules on literature/culture

Level 4: At this level students are expected to demonstrate:

• Basic factual and conceptual knowledge of the field of study
• Command of the essential terminology
• Basic research, analytical and problem-solving skills
• Basic awareness of the complexity of the subject, and of issues and implications of tasks set
• Awareness of the basic historical, theoretical and/or critical approaches to the subject
• Capacity to apply this knowledge, with guidance, to the tasks set
• Capacity to analyse primary texts or other relevant cultural products and to put them into context
• Basic awareness of the formal attributes of primary texts and cultural products
• Capacity to synthesise findings and to communicate them effectively and concisely, and to present them in a format appropriate to the discipline
• Ability to construct a coherent argument

Level 5: At this level students are additionally expected to demonstrate:

• Detailed knowledge of major discipline(s) and awareness of a variety of relevant concepts/contexts/frameworks
• Capacity to analyse a range of texts/cultural products and to place them in their contexts with minimum guidance
• Awareness of the complexity of the subject and of the tasks set, ability to identify key issues and to discern the most appropriate approaches
• Ability to work within major theories/critical frameworks of discipline
• Capacity to distinguish between these theoretical/critical approaches, to compare them and their implications
• Ability to synthesise a range of ideas and to re-think them in the light of a given task
• Capacity to challenge received opinion and to begin to develop own criteria and judgement
• Awareness of the formal attributes of primary texts and cultural products
• Capacity to communicate findings effectively and in a format appropriate to the discipline
• Ability to construct a coherent argument

Level 6: At this level students are additionally expected to demonstrate:

• Comprehensive and detailed knowledge of major discipline(s), and of areas of specialisation
• Capacity to identify own strengths and learning needs, autonomy to plan and carry out study and research tasks and to use, with minimum guidance, the full range of resources and methodologies for the discipline available
• Capacity to analyse abstract concepts and texts or cultural products without guidance, using a range of historical, theoretical and critical approaches appropriate to the subject, with confidence and fluidity
• Capacity to contextualise a wide range of concepts, texts and cultural products from a variety of perspectives
• Confidence in identifying and defining the complexity of subject(s) or problem(s) and ability to engage with the implications and contradictions resulting from that complexity
• Confidence in use of own criteria and judgement and in challenging of received opinion
• Capacity to analyse comprehensively the formal attributes of primary texts and cultural products
• Capacity to engage effectively in debate and to produce professionally presented pieces of written work following the norms appropriate to the discipline
• Ability to construct a coherent argument

Level benchmarks for modules in linguistics

Level 4: At this level students are expected to demonstrate:

• Basic factual and conceptual knowledge of the field of study
• Command of essential terminology
• Command of the core concepts
• Ability to think systematically about language structure and language use
• Ability to apply core analytical tools
• Ability to follow linguistic argumentation
• Ability to apply linguistic argumentation to data, with appropriate guidance
• Ability to follow theoretical explanations of linguistic phenomena
• Capacity to communicate findings effectively and in a format appropriate to the discipline

Level 5: At this level students are additionally expected to demonstrate:

• Detailed knowledge of particular theoretical models for understanding language
• An understanding of how these models are situated in broader contexts relevant to language
• Ability to tackle some of the primary literature
• Ability to apply the concepts of these theoretical models to linguistic data with guidance
• An understanding of the link between data and theory in linguistics more generally
• Ability to collect and organise data
• Ability to construct an argument in linguistics

Level 6: At this level students are additionally expected to demonstrate:

• Comprehensive and detailed knowledge of particular theoretical models for understanding language
• Ability to tackle more technically challenging primary literature
• Capacity to identify own strengths and learning needs, autonomy to plan and carry out study tasks and use, with minimum guidance, the full range of resources for the discipline available
• Ability to apply the concepts of the theoretical models to linguistic data with minimal guidance so as to construct (partial) analyses
• Ability to collect and organise data with a full understanding of the methodological implications of the process

Level benchmarks for modules in film studies

Level 1: At this level students are expected to demonstrate: 

• A basic factual, conceptual and historical knowledge of the field of study
• Awareness of the basic terminology and key concepts
• Basic research, analytical and problem-solving skills
• Ability to conduct a sequence, or mise-en-scene, analysis
• Capacity to place film texts into their cultural, historical and political contexts
• Ability to construct a coherent argument
• Capacity to communicate ideas effectively in a format appropriate to the discipline
• Capacity to identify own learning needs and to develop strategies for improvement
• (and for students who opt to study film production) Video production skills in the areas of camera, sound, editing and lighting to a basic level of competence
• (and for students who opt to study film production) The ability to write and devise a screenplay with a narrative structure using the required standard and format

Level 2: At this level students are additionally expected to demonstrate:

• A cultivated and critical sense of a wide range of different theories of film resulting in a more detailed factual, conceptual and historical knowledge of the field of study
• Confidence in the use of essential terminology and key concepts
• Strong research, analytical and problem-solving skills
• The ability to use sequence, or mise-en-scene, analysis, within a wide range of tasks with minimum guidance

• Sophisticated understanding of the relationship between film texts and their cultural, historical and political contexts
• (and for students who opt to study film production) The ability to demonstrate video production skills related to the directing of drama in terms of working with performers, preparing a script and blocking and staging action
• (and for students who opt to study film production) The ability to write a script as an adaptation of a prose text and the ability to write an original screenplay to a good standard in terms of format and layout and in relation to narrative drama (incl. plot, characterization, genre)

• Capability and confidence in communicating ideas in a format appropriate to the discipline

Level 6: At this level students are additionally expected to demonstrate:

• The development of in-depth knowledge of selected theories of film relevant to topics covered and resulting in areas of specialization
• Strong research, analytical and problem-solving skills deployed within a wide range of tasks with minimum guidance

• Autonomy to plan and carry out study and research tasks and to use, with minimum guidance, the full range of resources and methodologies for the discipline

• Capacity to construct a coherent argument that will challenge received opinion and demonstrate marked independence of thought
• (and for students who opt to study film production) The ability to produce a complete and coherent narrative drama combining both the skills of video production and scriptwriting developed at levels one and two.

Stage benchmarks for language modules

Languages for which the School offers degrees (Catalan, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish) are taught from Stage 1 to Stage 6.

Benchmarks for the six stages described below are defined in accordance with the criteria used in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). A table of language modules indicating their respective stages and the corresponding CEFRL nomenclature, and pathways followed by students in the various departments of the School, can be found at the end of this section of the handbook.

Stage 1: At this stage students are expected to:

• Understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases concerning needs of a concrete type
• Introduce him/herself and others and ask and answer questions about personal details
• Interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly
• Write simple, isolated phrases and sentences, showing some control of simple grammatical structures

Stage 2: At this stage students are expected to:

• Understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. personal information, likes and dislikes, shopping, local geography, studies, employment)
• Communicate in simple, everyday situations requiring a direct exchange of information and requests for information
• Describe in simple terms his/her background, immediate environment and matters of immediate need     
• Write a series of simple phrases and sentences linked with simple connectors, displaying greater control of grammatical structures

Stage 3: At this stage students are expected to:

• Understand straightforward, factual information and  the main points on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, leisure, university, etc.
• Produce simple connected texts on topics which are familiar or of personal interest
• Describe orally and in writing, presenting these as a linear sequence of points, experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans
• Write short, simple essays on relevant topics, expressing thoughts on abstract and cultural topics, showing sound grammatical knowledge

Stage 4: At this stage students are expected to:

• Understand the main ideas of complex speech and texts, live or broadcast, on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation
• Interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity, and give clear detailed presentations on a range of relevant subjects, expanding and supporting ideas with subsidiary points and relevant examples
• Produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects; synthesise and evaluate information and arguments from a number of sources and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options
• Write an essay with a relatively high degree of grammatical control which develops an argument systematically, using a limited number of cohesive devices to produce clear, coherent discourse

Stage 5: At this stage students are expected to:

• Understand and recognise a wide range of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms and a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning
• Express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions, and give detailed presentations on complex subjects, integrating sub-themes
• Use language flexibly and effectively for social and academic purposes
• Produce clear, well-structured, detailed text showing a high degree of grammatical accuracy, on complex subjects, underlining the relevant issues, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices

Stage 6: At this stage students are expected to:

• Understand with ease virtually everything heard or read whether live or broadcast
• Summarise information from different spoken and written sources, give critical appreciation of relevant material, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent presentation
• Exploit a comprehensive and reliable mastery of a very wide range of language to formulate thoughts precisely and maintaining consistent grammatical control of complex language; express him/herself spontaneously and very fluently using an effective logical structure and differentiating finer shades of meaning,  even in more complex situations, in order to eliminate ambiguity

Marking criteria for undergraduate work

Since the criteria used in judging language modules are rather different from those used in judging non-language work (modules on literature/culture, linguistics and film), they are outlined in separate sections below.

Criteria for marking modules on literature/ culture, linguistics and film

Examiners bear in mind a number of different criteria when determining what mark to award. One relates to the coverage of the particular topics or questions addressed: relevant issues should be identified and implications addressed. You are expected to display an understanding of relevant criticism. Argumentation is expected to be clear, consistent and balanced, and should be supported by relevant evidence and exemplification. Depending on the nature and difficulty of the topic, an appropriate level of originality, imagination, insight or ingenuity in exemplification, argument, approach, problem statement or solution is expected. From a presentational point of view, work should be neat and tidy, clearly structured, well written, precise and directly relevant to the topic, without unnecessary digression or errors in spelling or grammar, with proper attention to presentation of examples, citation and the form in which bibliographical information is presented. Technical terms should be used correctly. Conciseness is important (e.g., length restrictions should be adhered to).

Not all of the criteria below apply equally to all kinds of assignments (essays, exercises, transcriptions, practical projects, sequence analyses, etc.). In general, weakness in one area may be compensated by extra strength in another. A brief outline of the qualities expected of a piece of work in a non-language module at a given level is presented below:

Work of A-grade Standard: A piece of work will normally be awarded an A grade, and be considered of excellent standard, if it displays the following:

1. Follows the assignment brief; is confident in handling key terms and concepts; may also productively challenge and question key terms and concepts
2. Excellent knowledge/understanding of the topic of the assignment; excellent knowledge/understanding of the wider subject area, including relevant theoretical/critical approaches; the assimilation and integration of additional material not directly covered in the module
3. A coherent line of argument throughout the assignment backed up with excellent analysis; an ability to go beyond the arguments presented in the critical literature; evidence of independent and/or original thinking
4. An appropriate and elegant structure that ensures excellent organisation of material and detail
5. Excellent command of language, including accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation; the use of a suitable scholarly register; fluency, flair and an assured use of difficult and specialised terminology
6. Impeccable referencing and bibliography presented according to the School of Languages, Linguistics and Film’s preferred referencing system
7. Excellent presentation of work (word processed in at least 11 point font, one and a half line spacing, pages clearly numbered, etc.).

Note – a piece of assessed work that is excellent in all these criteria should be awarded the highest possible grade of 85%.

Work of B-grade Standard:  A piece of work will normally be awarded a B-grade mark, and be considered good, if it displays the following:

1. Follows the assignment brief; is confident in handling key terms and concepts
2. Good knowledge/understanding of the topic of the assignment; good knowledge/understanding of the wider subject area, including relevant theoretical/critical approaches
3. A coherent line of argument throughout the assignment backed up with good analysis; good understanding and synthesis of the arguments presented in the critical literature
4. An appropriate structure that ensures good organisation of material and detail
5. Good command of language, including accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation; the use of a suitable scholarly register
6. Good referencing and bibliography presented according to the School of Languages, Linguistics and Film’s preferred referencing system
7. Good presentation of work (word processed in at least 11 point font, one and a half line spacing, pages clearly numbered, etc.).

Work of C-Grade Standard:  A piece of work will normally be awarded a C-grade mark, and be considered satisfactory, if it displays the following:

1. Follows the assignment brief; satisfactory handling of key terms and concepts
2. Satisfactory knowledge/understanding of the topic of the assignment; satisfactory knowledge/understanding of the wider subject area, including relevant theoretical/critical approaches
3. An identifiable line of argument throughout the assignment backed up with satisfactory analysis; some problems understanding and synthesising the arguments presented in the critical literature
4. A functional structure that ensures satisfactory organisation of material and detail
5. Satisfactory command of language, including reasonably accurate spelling, grammar and punctuation; the use of a suitable scholarly register
6. Satisfactory referencing and bibliography presented according to the School of Languages, Linguistics and Film’s preferred referencing system
7. Satisfactory presentation of work (word processed in at least 11 point font, one and a half line spacing, pages clearly numbered, etc.).

Work of D-grade Standard:  A piece of work will normally be awarded a D-grade mark, and be considered weak, if it displays the following:

1. Does not always stick to the assignment task set; problems handling key terms and concepts
2. Weak knowledge/understanding of the topic of the assignment; weak knowledge/understanding of the wider subject area, including relevant theoretical/critical approaches
3. Weak argument throughout the assignment not well integrated with weak analysis; problems understanding and synthesising the arguments presented in the critical literature
4. A weak and incoherent structure that does not ensure satisfactory organisation of material and detail
5. Weak command of language, including inaccurate spelling, grammar and punctuation; failure to use a suitable scholarly register
6. Inconsistent and/or incomplete referencing and bibliography; does not follow the School of Languages, Linguistics and Film preferred referencing system
7. Weak presentation of work (not word processed, illegible font, pages not numbered, etc.).

Work of E-grade Standard:  A piece of work will normally be awarded an E-grade mark, and be considered poor, if it displays the following:

1. Does not always stick to the assignment task set; problems handling key terms and concepts
2. Poor knowledge/understanding of the topic of the assignment; poor knowledge/understanding of the wider subject area, including relevant theoretical/critical approaches
3. Poor argument throughout the assignment not well integrated with weak analysis; problems understanding and synthesising the arguments presented in the critical literature
4. A poor and incoherent structure that does not ensure satisfactory organisation of material and detail
5. Poor command of language, including inaccurate spelling, grammar and punctuation; failure to use a suitable scholarly register
6. Inconsistent and/or incomplete referencing and bibliography; does not follow the School of Languages, Linguistics and Film preferred referencing system
7. Poor presentation of work (not word processed, illegible font, pages not numbered, etc.).

Work of less than E-grade Standard:  A piece or work will normally be awarded a fail if it shows a number of significant shortcomings, such as the following:

1. Does not stick to the assignment task set; severe problems handling key terms and concepts
2. Little or no knowledge/understanding of the topic of the assignment; little or no knowledge/understanding of the wider subject area, including relevant theoretical/critical approaches
3. No argument throughout the assignment and no analysis; no understanding or synthesis of the arguments presented in the critical literature
4. Non-existent structure that leads to disorganised presentation of material and detail
5. Very poor command of language, including inaccurate spelling, grammar and punctuation; failure to use a suitable scholarly register; the marker may find it impossible to actually read the assignment
6. No references or bibliography; does not follow the School of Languages, Linguistics and Film preferred referencing system; may contain plagiarised material.
7. Extremely poorly presented.

Note - narrative or descriptive (rather than analytical) essays will not normally be given a grade higher than C.

Criteria for marking language modules

Work of A-grade Standard:

Excellent command of all language skills outlined at each given stage

Work of B-grade Standard:

Good command of all language skills outlined at each given stage

Work of C-grade Standard:

Satisfactory command of all language skills outlined at each given stage

Work of D-grade Standard:

Limited command of all language skills outlined at each given stage

Work of E-grade Standard:

Poor command of all language skills outlined at each given stage

Work of less than E-grade Standard:

         Inadequate command of all language skills outlined at each given stage

Language work is normally assessed on the basis of quality of content and quality of language.

Students should note that descriptive rather than analytical essays will not normally be given a grade higher than C.

The normal mark for work which is of clear A-grade standard (with no significant shortcomings) is 75; for work which is of clear B-grade standard it is 65; for work of clear C-grade standard it is 55; for work of a clear D-grade standard, 47 and for work of clear E-grade standard, 43. Marks are correspondingly higher or lower for work which is a little above or below average work in the relevant class. For example, work which is overall of A-grade standard but contains a few minor shortcomings might be awarded a mark of 72. The normal maximum mark for work which is truly exceptional in every respect is 85.

LANGUAGES TAUGHT IN THE SCHOOL OF LANGUAGES, LINGUISTICS AND FILM