Undergraduate Grading Descriptors
Grading Descriptors for levels 4, 5 and 6 have been developed to align with the Quality Assurance Agency’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (2008) and the SEEC Credit Level Descriptors for Higher Education (2010). The appropriate descriptors for the level of study that students are undertaking should be made available to students in all programme and module documentation.
The descriptors outlined in this document are necessarily generic as they need to be applicable to all academic disciplines. They aim to provide a framework for articulating expected standards of students’ work. The framework provides clear and consistent statements to describe student performance which, in turn, facilitate transparency in feedback to students, helping students to understand how to improve their performance.
2 Using the grading descriptors: some key principles
The descriptors included here outline the key features and general characteristics of assessed work associated with each grade-band. However, in order that students are able to understand exactly how they are being assessed and the standard of work they are expected to achieve, their work should always be assessed against published assessment criteria. A programme of study’s published assessment criteria differ from grading descriptors as they create a direct link between the learning outcomes of the module(s) under study, the generic grading descriptors contained in this document and the particular level of study (i.e. Level 4, 5 or 6) at which the student is working. For further information on the differences between Levels 4, 5 and 6 please refer to the Quality Assurance Agency’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (2008) available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/FHEQ08.pdf
The grading descriptors outlined in this document are not mutually exclusive. Students’ work may demonstrate some characteristics of, for example, the 50-59 and 60-69 categories. The final grade for the work should always be matter of academic judgement based on the balance of this. Examiners should be prepared to award the full range of marks and should interpret the descriptors in the context of their discipline, field of study or area of practice. The emphasis given to each descriptor, and the way it is used in the published assessment criteria will necessarily vary depending on the nature of the assessment task, the level of study and the disciplinary area. For example, module leaders will need to be able to identify and explain what exemplary, outstanding, excellent, good or satisfactory looks like in relation to the learning outcomes of their module in order that students are able to understand why they have received the grade they have and how they could improve their work.
In relation to this, where Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements or course-specific requirements indicate a pass/threshold mark which is different to the University norm outlined in this framework, additional marking/grading criteria should be provided to students with an explanation as to why and how this differs from the norm. Work representing unsafe or unfit practice, for students registered on professional courses with fitness to practise requirements, will be marked as a fail.
Type Of Service: Academic paper writing
Type Of assignment: Case study
Subject: Social studies
Number of sources: 1
Academic Level: Undergraduate
Paper Format: Harvard
Line Spacing: Double
Language style: UK English