coursework marking criteria

Assessment guidance for students

Where to find important information about assessment if you are a student on a taught course..

• About the guide

The following important information concerns the assessment of students on taught courses of the University. This should be read alongside the information in your department or course handbook.

• Important assessment information

To prepare for your assessments and understand how you will be assessed, it is important that you familiarise yourself with some key resources:

The Academic Integrity Test, training and support

Information on the University’s assessment regulations - please also see your Department or Course Handbook for any regulations specific to your course. Speak to your Director of Studies if you have any questions about this or if you are unsure what applies to you.

Your department feedback policy, which contains more information on how you will receive feedback on your assessed work - if you’re unsure where to find it, please ask your Director of Studies .

Our guide to Academic Appeals

Information on penalties for Academic Misconduct

The most up-to-date information on exams and other assessments is available on the Exams and Assessments webpage.

Guidance on arrangements for exams, including schedules, academic integrity, accessing and submitting online exams, and dealing with issues, is available on the Exams and Assessments webpage.

You can find information on the timing of the assessment periods in the University’s academic year charts . In the event of unavoidable disruption these dates may be subject to change.

If you think you might need alternative exam arrangements (for example, because of a disability), please seek advice from the Disability Service and inform your Director of Studies as early as possible.

To ensure all submissions are considered fairly, you will be expected to hand in all assessed coursework, dissertations and projects by a specified date and time. Please refer to your Department or Course handbook in the first instance for more information.

Coursework extensions

If there are valid circumstances preventing you from meeting a deadline, you should contact your Director of Studies or the Unit Convenor to discuss an extension. It is important that you do this as soon as possible and before the deadline.

More information about coursework extensions is available on the Exams and Assessments webpage, including what is normally considered a valid reason and evidence for an extension request.

Late penalties

Please note that:

if you submit work more than five working days after the submission date, you will normally receive a mark of 0 (zero), unless you have been granted an extension

if you submit work up to and including five working days after the submission date, the maximum possible mark will be the pass mark, unless you have been granted an extension

if it is submitted after the deadline, it might not be possible to mark your coursework anonymously

• Word counts

Coursework will normally have a word limit or word range to give you an indication of the depth and detail of work required and help ensure all students’ work can be compared. If you don’t observe the word range or limit set a penalty will be applied.

The word range or limit and any penalty will be confirmed when you receive the assignment. Make sure you understand what is included when calculating the total word count (for example, if contents pages, appendices, footnotes and bibliographies are included).

You'll be required to confirm the word count when you submit your coursework.

You should check your Department or Course handbook and with your Director of Studies if you have questions about word counts and penalties.

• Circumstances that might affect your assessment

Individual Mitigating Circumstances (IMCs) are the conditions which temporarily prevent you from undertaking assessment or significantly impact your performance in assessment.

Full information about IMCs including how to make a claim, what is normally considered valid reasons and evidence, how decisions are made, what actions can and cannot be taken as a result, and sources of support and guidance is available on the Individual Mitigating Circumstances (IMCs) webpage.

You are expected to be familiar with the available guidance so that you understand the process and timescales should such circumstances arise, including who to speak to if you know of a potential IMC that may affect your assessment.

• Assessment processes

Assessment and marking processes at the University are designed to ensure that assessment of your work is fair and consistent, and that academic standards are appropriate and comparable between the University and other higher education institutions.

This is achieved in several ways, including:

use of assessment criteria, marking schemes and grade descriptors for marking

use of anonymous marking, where practical

moderation of assessment questions and of marking (a process of independent checking)

through formal bodies responsible for assessment decision-making at the University: Boards of Examiners for Units, Boards of Examiners for Programmes, and Boards of Studies.

The assessment marks you are given initially by markers are provisional up until the point that they have been confirmed by a Board of Studies.

Your confirmed results will be released on SAMIS , the University’s student records system, on a set date. An academic appeal can only be made in relation to a confirmed result.

All assessments you complete during your course are marked according to:

Marking criteria (or assessment criteria) - these are the knowledge, understanding and skills which it has been identified that students should demonstrate in the assessment, and which are considered during marking. They are based on the unit learning outcomes being assessed.

Marking schemes - these are detailed descriptions of how specific numbers of marks should be assigned against individual components of an answer within the assessment task.

Grade descriptors - these are descriptions of the levels of achievement required to get a result within a given band of marks (for example 70% or more).

You will be made aware of the relevant assessment criteria and any relevant grade criteria when you receive your assessment tasks.

• Anonymous marking

The University has adopted a principle of anonymous marking to protect students and staff from bias, and the perception of bias, in the marking process. It applies to all assessment where practical. It is not possible to mark all assessment anonymously as either you will be identifiable even if you do not use your name (for example, in presentations, group work, laboratory work) or it might not be practical, or in your interest, to do so. You will be informed when assessment cannot be marked anonymously.

Both the setting and the marking of assessment are independently checked through processes known as moderation. In setting assessment moderation makes sure it will test the relevant learning outcomes for the unit and contains appropriate levels of challenge. When marking, moderation makes sure this is consistent and in line with the relevant assessment criteria, marking scheme and grade descriptors. Moderation is conducted by internal examiners (other academics in the department) and by an External Examiner (see below).

Scaling is an adjustment of unit marks that may be used in certain circumstances. Information on scaling, including why and how it is used is on the scaling webpage.

• External Examiners

External Examiners have an important role in assuring the academic standards are appropriate and assessment processes are fair.

External Examiners:

review draft assessment questions and samples of assessed work

participate in Boards of Examiners’ decision-making

give independent feedback and advice throughout the year

submit an annual written report on the course(s) they are appointed to

At least one External Examiner is appointed for each taught course or group of courses at the University and will be someone from another university or professional organisation who is qualified and experienced in the relevant field of study.

External Examiner annual reports, and departmental responses to those reports, are made available to students and are discussed by Staff/Student Liaison Committees (SSLCs).

Students can engage with the process through which the University considers and responds to External Examiners’ comments and suggestions through the University’s student representation mechanisms . However, it’s not appropriate for individual students to make direct contact with External Examiners.

If you are dissatisfied with the process or outcome of an assessment, and are considering whether to raise this either informally or formally, please familiarise yourself with the University’s procedures for student complaints and academic appeals .

• Understanding your results

Information on how results are considered by Boards of Examiners is available on the Exams and Assessment webpage.

• Supplementary assessment

If you fail a unit you may need to do ‘supplementary assessment’ before starting the next stage of your course. This might involve re-doing coursework or re-sitting an exam. Each unit’s method of supplementary assessment is shown in the online Unit Catalogue .

If you must do supplementary assessment, you will normally take them during the summer (August). You can find information on the supplementary assessment period in the University’s academic year charts .

On this page

• Undergraduate study
• Find a course
• Open days and visits
• New undergraduates
• Postgraduate study
• Find a programme
• Visits and open days
• New postgraduates
• International students
• Accommodation
• Schools & faculties
• Business & partnerships
• Current students
• Current staff

Academic Quality and Policy Office

• Academic Integrity
• Academic Student Support
• 2: Changes for 2023/24
• 3: Academic integrity
• 4: Academic awards and programme structures
• 5: Recognition of prior learning
• 6: Academic student support
• 7: Suspension of study
• 8: Supplementary year
• 9: Forms of assessment
• 10: Conduct of assessment
• 11: Reasonable adjustment to assessment because of disability or other reason
• 12. Submission and considering the impact of student circumstances
• 13: Feedback to students
• 14: Marking practices: benchmarking and calibration
• 15: Marking criteria and scales
• 16: Moderation and treatment of marks
• 17: Anonymity
• 18: Penalties
• 19: Pass marks
• 20: Boards of examiners
• 21: Appeals against decisions of boards of examiners
• 23: Treatment and publication of results
• 24: Admission and study (UG)
• 25: Programme structure and design (UG)
• 26: Study abroad (UG)
• 27: Industrial placements (UG)
• 28: Intercalation (UG)
• 29: Processing and recording marks (UG)
• 30: Student progression and completion (UG modular)
• 31: Student progression and completion (UG non-modular)
• 32: Awards and classification (UG modular)
• 33: Awards and classification (UG non-modular)
• 34: Admission and study (PGT)
• 35: Programme structure and design (PGT)
• 36: Extension of study (PGT)
• 37: Processing and recording marks (PGT)
• 38: Student progression and completion (PGT)
• 39: Awards and classification (PGT)
• Temporary amendments for 2019/20
• Temporary amendments for 2020/21
• Temporary amendments for 2021/22 and after
• Temporary amendments for 2022/23
• Annexes to the Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes
• Assessment and Feedback Strategy
• Institutional Principles for Assessment and Feedback
• Feedback to Students
• External Examiners
• Committees and Groups
• Degree Outcomes Statement
• Educational Partnerships
• Postgraduate Education
• Programme and Unit Development and Approval
• Quality Framework
• Student Surveys
• Undergraduate Education
• Unit Evaluation

Related links

• Education and Student Success
• Bristol Institute For Learning and Teaching
• QAA Quality Code

Education and Student Success intranet

University home > Academic Quality and Policy Office > Assessment and Feedback > Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes > 15: Marking criteria and scales

15. Marking Criteria and Scales

15.1   Marking criteria are designed to help students know what is expected of them. Marking criteria differ from model answers and more prescriptive marking schemes which assign a fixed proportion of the assessment mark to particular knowledge, understanding and/or skills. The glossary  provides definitions for: marking criteria, marking scheme and model answer.

15.2   Where there is more than one marker for a particular assessment task, schools should take steps to ensure consistency of marking. Programme specific assessment criteria must be precise enough to ensure consistency of marking across candidates and markers, compatible with a proper exercise of academic judgment on the part of individual markers . 

15.3   Markers are encouraged to use pro forma in order to show how they have arrived at their decision. Comments provided on pro forma should help candidates, internal markers and moderators and external examiners to understand why a particular mark has been awarded.  Schools should agree, in advance of the assessment, whether internal moderators have access to the pro forma / mark sheets completed by the first marker before or after they mark a candidate’s work.

15.4   Detailed marking criteria for assessed group work, the assessment of class presentations, and self/peer (student) assessment must be established and made available to students and examiners.

15.5   In respect of group work, it is often desirable to award both a group and individual mark, to ensure individuals’ contributions to the task are acknowledged. The weighting of the group and individual mark and how the marks are combined should beset out in the unit specification .

University generic marking criteria

15.6   The common University generic marking criteria , set out in table 1, represent levels of attainment covering levels 4-7 of study. Establishing and applying criteria for assessment at level 8 should be managed by the school that owns the associated programme, in liaison with the faculty . A new level-specific University generic marking criteria ( UoB only ) has been agreed for introduction from 2024/25.

15.7   The common marking criteria are designed to be used for an individual piece of assessed student work. The descriptors give broad comparability of standards by level of study across all programmes as well as level of performance across the University. They reflect the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications but need to be benchmarked against subject specific criteria at the programme level.

15.8   Faculties, with their constituent schools, must establish appropriately specific and detailed marking criteria which are congruent with the University-level criteria and, if appropriate, the level of study. All forms of programme-specific marking criteria must be approved by the Faculty .

Marking scales

15.9      Assessment must be marked and returned as an integer using one of the sanctioned marking scales, as follows:

•            0-100 marking scale
•            0-20 marking scale

or using a pass/fail marking scheme (see 10.33).

Any mark on the chosen marking scale can be used.

A five-point A-E marking scale is only available for programmes in the School of Education.

Standard setting in marking is permitted in programmes where it is a professional accreditation requirement.

15.10   Schools should utilise the marking scale that is best suited to the form of assessment. This and the marking criteria for the assessment should be established prior to its commencement.

15.11    Where the averaging of different component marks within an assessment or the outcome of two markers creates an assessment mark with a decimal point, markers should reconcile any significant difference in marks and make a deliberate academic decision as to the exact mark on the scale that should be awarded. Otherwise the mark will be rounded to the nearest integer and returned (if on the 0-20 marking scale, then this should take place before converting to a mark on the 0-100 scale).

Exceptions to the sanctioned marking scales

15.12   Highly structured assessments that are scored out of a total number less than 100 may be utilised where each mark can be justified in relation to those marks neighbouring it. In these cases, the mark must be translated onto the 0-100 point scale, mapped against the relevant marking criteria, and students informed of the use of this method in advance of the assessment in the appropriate medium (e.g. on Blackboard).

Reaching the ‘Unit Mark’ (see also Sections 29 and 37 )

15.13    Marks gauged on the 0-20 scale should be translated to a point on the 0-100 scale before entry into the VLE to calculate the overall unit mark for the purposes of progression and classification (see table 2 ).

15.14   The 0-20 point scale is a non-linear ordinal scale; for example, a mark on the 0-20 point scale IS NOT equivalent to a percentage arrived at by multiplying the mark by 5. Table 2 provides an equivalence relationship between the scales to enable the aggregation of marks from different assessment events to provide the overall unit mark which will be a percentage. This is illustrated below for a notional unit.

In this example, the MCQ uses all points on the 0-100 scale whereas all the other assessments use the 0-20 point scale .

To achieve the final unit mark each component mark needs to be adjusted as:

15.15      The overall unit mark must be expressed as a percentage as the University’s degree classification methodology is based on the percentage scale.

15.16       The final programme or taught component mark will be calculated by applying the agreed algorithm to the unit marks (see sections 32 and 39 ).

  TABLE 1:   Generic Marking Criteria mapped against the three marking scales

  TABLE 2: Relationship between the three marking scales

University of Bristol Beacon House Queens Road Bristol, BS8 1QU, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 928 9000 Contact us

Information for

• New students

Connect with us

Study at bristol.

• Students' Union
• Sport, exercise and health
• Find a researcher
• Faculty research
• Impact of our research
• Research quality and assessment
• Engaging with the public

About the University

• Maps and travel
• Tours and visits
• The University on film
• Explore the city of Bristol
• Board of Trustees

Support the University

• Alumni and friends
• Working at Bristol
• Job listings

A–Z of the University

• Terms and conditions
• Accessibility statements
• Privacy and cookie policy
• Modern Slavery statement
• © 2024 University of Bristol

King's College London

Marking, college framework, document profile.

• College Marking Framework

The College Marking Framework includes:

• Marking Models
• College Marking Schemes
• College Marking Criteria

The framework is an important reference point for setting and maintaining academic standards across the College. It provides guidance for all assessment practices and promotes consistency across taught programmes with the aim of enhancing the student experience of assessment. This College Marking Framework was endorsed by the Academic Standards Subcommittee (ASSC) and approved by College Education Committee (CEC) in November 2021. The framework was noted for information by Academic Board in December 2021. It was piloted in some faculties in 2022-23 and is the College Marking Framework for all faculties from September 2023.

The College Marking Criteria also provides a frame for the setting of learning outcomes and supports faculties and assessment sub-boards in refining their faculty, discipline or assessment-specific marking criteria.

Step-Marking Guidance for Faculties

• Step-Marking Guidance for Faculties, 2023-24
• Step-Marking Guidance for Students

Previous Framework (before 2023/24)

The previous College Marking Framework and the Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate Marking Criteria are available here:

• Undergraduate Marking Criteria
• Taught Postgraduate Marking Criteria

What is the marking process?

Marking of summative assessments is undertaken by the relevant Module Leader, sometimes with the assistance of other members of academic staff.

To ensure fairness in marking the University has a policy of anonymous marking which is applied to all exam scripts and the vast majority of coursework, although there may be exceptions to this where the format of the assessment means anonymisation is not possible (for instance, when assessing a presentation). The marker will therefore not see your name when marking and you should avoid including it anywhere in the work you submit.

The markers use marking criteria which are shared with you as part of the programme or module materials on Learn and which are designed to help you to understand what is expected of you in the assessment. These criteria then enable the markers to award marks in a consistent and transparent manner. The final agreed marks for your assessment will be recorded as a percentage whole number (i.e. ranging from zero to 100).

What happens if I submit my work late?

It is very important to submit your work before the assessment deadline and check that you have submitted the correct file. Please note that any reference to 'assessment deadline' on this page includes any agreed extension you may have.

If, however, you have missed the assessment deadline, it is still important that you submit your work as soon as possible. If you have not yet submitted any files, then you can usually make a late submission for up to 4 hours beyond the deadline via the original submission point.

If the submission point is no longer available, or if you have already submitted a file (e.g. partial work), you should email your work to your School Administration Team as soon as possible. If you realise before the deadline that you need to change your submission you MUST change the file name to indicate its version (e.g. v1, v2 etc.). Any new uploads will overwrite any previous files if they have the same file name , so adding a version number will ensure that you don't lose earlier submissions.

In accordance with Regulation VII, any assessed work which is submitted late will be subject to a penalty. Your work will be deemed late if it is submitted after the submission deadline. This applies even if it is late by just one second (so, for an 11am deadline, work submitted at one second past 11am would be considered late).

The penalty applied for late work depends upon the assessment category: assessments such as presentations, lab tests and all types of examinations are classed as Fixed-time Assessments meaning they have a fixed start- and end time, whereas assessments like essays, reports and projects are classed as Due Date Assessments meaning they have a set deadline by which the assessment must be submitted. In the case of Due Date Assessments, the penalty also depends on how long after the deadline the work was submitted. A full list of assessment types and details of the late penalties that apply are given under the assessment category headings below.

Late Due Date Assessments

Due Date Assessments are those which have a set deadline (time and date) by which the work must be submitted. A full list of assessment types which are categorised as Due Date Assessments is given below:

For Due Date Assessments, the following penalties for late submission apply:

Up to four hours late

If you submit a Due Date Assessment no more than four hours after the deadline (plus any agreed extension), your work will be accepted for marking but the raw mark will be reduced by 10% of the mark achieved. Your mark will be rounded to the nearest whole number (for example, a mark of 51% would become 46% and a mark of 66% would become 59%). Your assessment marks shown on Learn (or released by Module Leaders through other means) will be the raw marks before the penalty has been applied. This is important to ensure that your marks accord with the feedback you receive on your work. Your official marks, which will have the penalty applied, will be published at a later point through the University’s MyResults system (see the link below).

The above policy came into effect from the beginning of the 2023/24 academic year. This policy does not apply to any work relating to 2022/23 or earlier where previous policy applied (in 2022/23, this was to award a mark of zero for all late submissions, regardless of the assessment type and the degree of lateness).

More than four hours late

If you submit a Due Date Assessment more than four hours after the deadline (plus any agreed extension), a mark of zero will be awarded for your work. This is the mark that you will see on Learn.

Late Fixed-time Assessments

Fixed-time Assessments are those which have a fixed start- and end-time, or the assessment takes place in a relatively short window (usually no more than 24 hours) which has a fixed start- and end-time. A full list of assessment types which are categorised as Fixed-time Assessments is given below:

If you submit a Fixed-time Assessment after the deadline (plus any agreed extension), a mark of zero will be awarded for your work. This is the mark that you will see on Learn (with the exception of examinations where marks are only published at the end of each Semester through the University’s MyResults system).

What if I had a good reason for submitting my work late?

If you have submitted work late due to circumstances outside of your control, you should submit a mitigating circumstances claim by the deadlines published in the Student Handbook.

What happens if I submit an incorrect file?

When uploading your work, it is your responsibility to ensure that you submit the correct file, so we strongly encourage you to check this at the point of submission.

If, however, you do submit an incorrect file for an assessment, you should submit the correct file as soon as you realise. You should do this through the original submission method if it is still before the deadline (plus any agreed extension). However, if you experience any issues in doing this, you should email your work directly to your School Administration Team without delay.

If you need to submit the correct work after the deadline (plus any agreed extension), you should immediately email your work directly to your School Administration Team and, after doing this, follow up with a brief explanation about what went wrong in submitting the work originally. Coursework submitted before the submission deadline (plus any agreed extension) will take precedence over any work submitted late, even if you originally submitted an incorrect file. Schools can make exceptions to this for Due Date Assessments if they agree the original (on-time) work was submitted in error and the correct work is submitted within four hours of the submission deadline (plus any agreed extension). In these instances, the penalties covered under the above section on “what happens if I submit my work late?” apply.

What if I had a good reason for submitting an incorrect file?

If you submitted the wrong file(s) due to circumstances outside of your control and you were unable to re-submit the correct file(s) before the submission deadline, you should submit a mitigating circumstances claim by the deadlines published in the Student Handbook.

• How does the University ensure marking is consistent and fair?

School of Social and Political Science

Marking descriptors.

• Coursework marking scheme
• Dissertation marking scheme

A1 (90-100%)

An answer that fulfils all of the criteria for ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair in tackling issues, yielding a product that is deemed to be of potentially publishable quality, in terms of scholarship and originality.

A2 (80-89%)

An authoritative answer that provides a fully effective response to the question. It should show a command of the literature and an ability to integrate that literature and go beyond it. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to the conclusion. Sources should be used accurately and concisely to inform the answer but not dominate it. There should be a sense of a critical and committed argument, mindful of other interpretations but not afraid to question them. Presentation and the use of English should be commensurate with the quality of the content.

A3 (70-79%)

A sharply-focused answer of high intellectual quality, which adopts a comprehensive approach to the question and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. It should show a willingness to engage critically with the literature and move beyond it, using the sources creatively to arrive at its own independent conclusions.

B B- (60-63%) B (64-66%) B+ (67-69%)

A very good answer that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The question and the sources should be addressed directly and fully. The work of other authors should be presented critically. Effective use should be made of the whole range of the literature. There should be no significant errors of fact or interpretation. The answer should proceed coherently to a convincing conclusion. The quality of the writing and presentation (especially referencing) should be without major blemish. Within this range a particularly strong answer will be graded B+; a more limited answer will be graded B-.

C C- (50-53%) C (54-56%) C+ (57-59%)

A satisfactory answer with elements of the routine and predictable. It should be generally accurate and firmly based in the reading. It may draw upon a restricted range of sources but should not just re-state one particular source. Other authors should be presented accurately, if rather descriptively. The materials included should be relevant, and there should be evidence of basic understanding of the topic in question. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded C+; a weaker answer will be graded C-.

D D- (40-43%) D (44-46%) D+ (47-49%)

A passable answer which understands the question, displays some academic learning and refers to relevant literature. The answer should be intelligible and in general factually accurate, but may well have deficiencies such as restricted use of sources or academic argument, over-reliance on lecture notes, poor expression, and irrelevancies to the question asked. The general impression may be of a rather poor effort, with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for a short answer that at least referred to the main points of the issue. Within this range a stronger answer will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.

An answer with evident weaknesses of understanding but conveying the sense that with a fuller argument or factual basis it might have achieved a pass. It might also be a short and fragmentary answer with merit in what is presented but containing serious gaps.

An answer showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and pedestrian use of inadequate sources.

An answer that falls far short of a passable level by some combination of short length, irrelevance, lack of intelligibility, factual inaccuracy and lack of acquaintance with reading or academic concepts.

An answer without any academic merit which usually conveys little sense that the course has been followed or of the basic skills of essay-writing.

A dissertation that fulfils all of the criteria for an ‘A2’ (see below) and in addition shows an exceptional degree of insight and independent thought, together with flair and originality in tackling both methodological and substantive issues. These should be seen as yielding a product that is of potentially publishable quality in terms of scholarship, originality and contribution to the field.

An authoritative dissertation that displays a sophisticated grasp of issues raised in the literature and develops an appropriate design and methodology to address a clearly-articulated set of questions stemming from that literature. The analysis should achieve a high level of quality early on and sustain it through to its own independent conclusions. It should also show an ability to be reflexive, pointing to lessons learned from the research and making suggestions where appropriate as to how future studies in the area might benefit from experience gained in the course of the investigation. Referencing, presentation and use of English should be of commensurately high quality.

A dissertation of high intellectual quality, which has clearly-stated aims, displays a good grasp of methodological issues and maintains a sophisticated level of analysis throughout. While presenting the data obtained from the research accurately, the discussion should move beyond a mainly descriptive account of the results, to develop its own comments, points and interpretations.

A very good dissertation that shows qualities beyond the merely routine or acceptable. The research question should be clearly stated and an appropriate methodology used to test or answer it, with effective use made of the literature. There should be no significant errors of either fact or interpretation. The presentation and use of the research data should be accurate and the discussion should show a willingness to speculate on their implications for theoretical, empirical or practical developments in the area. Referencing and the quality of the writing should be without major blemish. The answer should cover the question fully and present only relevant material. Within this range a particularly strong dissertation will be graded B+; a more limited one will be graded B-.

A satisfactory dissertation, though showing elements of the routine and predictable. While generally accurate and firmly based in the reading, it will tend to draw on a more restricted set of sources. It will probably also be based on less clearly-stated aims and/or a less coherent methodology. Indeed, it is the grasp and handling of methodological issues that will most likely differentiate between the B and C grades. The data will be presented accurately, if rather descriptively, although there should be no serious weaknesses in their portrayal or interpretation. Factual errors and misunderstandings of concepts and authors may occasionally be present but should not be a dominant impression. The quality of writing, referencing and presentation should be acceptable. Within this range a stronger dissertation will be graded C+; a weaker one C-.

A passable dissertation, which displays some familiarity with relevant literature and the issues under investigation. The aims may be poorly articulated and this incoherence will undermine the quality of the research. The work should be intelligible and factually accurate, but will contain deficiencies such as restricted use of sources, poor expression and failure to analyse or discuss the implications of the data in anything more than a thin and descriptive way. The general impression will probably be of a rather poor effort with weaknesses in conception or execution. It might also be the right mark for an obviously hastily-executed piece of research which attempted to address a relevant set of questions. Within this range a stronger piece of work will be graded D+; a bare pass will be graded D-.

A dissertation showing clear lack of understanding of the nature of research, but conveying the sense that with clearer aims and better developed instruments it might have achieved a pass. It might also clearly have been written in a hurry, with some merit, but serious gaps, in what is presented.

Work showing seriously inadequate knowledge of the subject, with little awareness of the relevant issues or literature, major omissions or inaccuracies, and limited use of inadequate sources. It could also be the mark for a very short answer with some relevant material.

Work falling short of a passable level by some combination of poor methodology, unclear aims, incoherence, factual inaccuracy and lack of familiarity with basic concepts or literature.

A dissertation containing no academic merit or evidence that the author understands the nature of the research enterprise, or made a serious effort to address the topic.

This website works best with JavaScript switched on. Please enable JavaScript

• Centre Services
• Associate Extranet
• All About Maths

GCSE Design and Technology

• Specification
• Planning resources
• Teaching resources
• Assessment resources
• Introduction
• Specification at a glance
• 3.1 Core technical principles
• 3.2 Specialist technical principles
• 3.3 Designing and making principles

Scheme of assessment

• Non-exam assessment administration
• General administration
• Appendix 1: Links to maths and science

Find past papers and mark schemes, and specimen papers for new courses, on our website at aqa.org.uk/pastpapers

This specification is designed to be taken over two years.

This is a linear qualification. In order to achieve the award, students must complete all assessments at the end of the course and in the same series.

GCSE exams and certification for this specification are available for the first time in May/June 2019 and then every May/June for the life of the specification.

All materials are available in English only.

Our GCSE exams in Design and Technology include questions that allow students to demonstrate their ability to:

• recall information
• draw together information from different areas of the specification
• apply their knowledge and understanding in practical and theoretical contexts.

Aims and learning outcomes

Courses based on this specification must encourage students to:

• demonstrate their understanding that all design and technological activity takes place within contexts that influence the outcomes of design practice
• develop realistic design proposals as a result of the exploration of design opportunities and users’ needs, wants and values
• use imagination, experimentation and combine ideas when designing
• develop the skills to critique and refine their own ideas whilst designing and making
• communicate their design ideas and decisions using different media and techniques, as appropriate for different audiences at key points in their designing
• develop decision making skills, including the planning and organisation of time and resources when managing their own project work
• develop a broad knowledge of materials, components and technologies and practical skills to develop high quality, imaginative and functional prototypes
• be ambitious and open to explore and take design risks in order to stretch the development of design proposals, avoiding clichéd or stereotypical responses
• consider the costs, commercial viability and marketing of products
• demonstrate safe working practices in design and technology
• use key design and technology terminology including those related to: designing, innovation and communication; materials and technologies; making, manufacture and production; critiquing, values and ethics.

Assessment objectives

Assessment objectives (AOs) are set by Ofqual and are the same across all GCSE Design and Technology specifications and all exam boards.

The exams and non-exam assessment will measure how students have achieved the following assessment objectives.

• AO1: Identify, investigate and outline design possibilities to address needs and wants.
• AO2: Design and make prototypes that are fit for purpose.
• design decisions and outcomes, including for prototypes made by themselves and others
• wider issues in design and technology.
• technical principles
• designing and making principles.

Assessment objective weightings for GCSE Design and Technology

Assessment weightings.

The marks awarded on the papers will be scaled to meet the weighting of the components. Students’ final marks will be calculated by adding together the scaled marks for each component. Grade boundaries will be set using this total scaled mark. The scaling and total scaled marks are shown in the table below.

Non-exam assessment

The Non-exam assessment will contribute towards 50% of the students overall mark. The NEA project in its entirety should take between 30-35 hours to complete and consist of a working prototype and a concise portfolio of approximately 20 pages of A3 paper, equivalent A4 paper or the digital equivalent.

Students' work should consist of an investigation into a contextual challenge, defining the needs and wants of the user and include relevant research to produce a design brief and specification. Students should generate design ideas with flair and creativity and develop these to create a final design solution (including modelling). A manufacturing specification should be produced to conclude your design findings leading into the realisation of a final prototype that is fit for purpose and a final evaluation. Students should investigate, analyse and evaluate throughout the portfolio and evidence all decisions made.

Six criteria are produced for assessment and there are a number of points within each. Each band should be viewed holistically when marking assessments. Students who produce no work for a criterion or work that is below a GCSE standard should be awarded zero.

The criteria should not be viewed as a linear process to be followed in a step by step manner. Rather, students should be encouraged to follow the iterative design process and assessors encouraged to award marks where they are deserved and can be evidenced. You should ensure that the criteria are assessed accurately and students are not rewarded for quantity of work but the quality of work produced.

With the assessment process being viewed holistically it is vital that students clearly record their work so it is clear where the marks can be awarded. It is also essential that teachers provide clear annotation to support their assessments.

Setting the task

Students will be required to undertake a small-scale design and make task and produce a final prototype based on a design brief produced by the student.

The contextual challenges for the task will be set by AQA and allow students to select from a list issued to schools via e-AQA. The contexts will change every year and will be released on 1 June in the year prior to the assessment being submitted.

Taking the task

With reference to the context, students will be expected to develop a specific brief that meets the needs of a user, client or market.

The task must be of an appropriate level of complexity and contain a degree of uncertainty of the outcome so that students can engage in an iterative process of designing, making, testing, improving and evaluating.

Students must produce a final prototype based on the design brief that they have developed, along with a written or digital design folder or portfolio.

Students must produce a written or digital design folder clearly evidencing how the assessment criteria have been met, together with photographic evidence of the final manufactured prototype.

Students should produce a concise folder. We recommend that this folder does not exceed 20 pages of A3 paper, equivalent A4 paper or the digital equivalent.

Students who do not follow these guidelines will penalise themselves by not meeting the expectations of the assessment appropriately.

Students that exceed the recommended length will self-penalise by not being appropriately focused on the demands of the task. Students that produce work that is shorter than the recommended page count will self-penalise by not allowing appropriate coverage of the assessment objectives.

Time limits

We recommend that students should spend 30–35 hours on their NEA unless there are specific access requirements that should be considered.

We expect students to be selective in their choice of material to include, and to manage their time appropriately.

Students are free to revise and redraft a piece of work before submitting the final piece for assessment. You can review draft work and provide generic feedback to ensure that the work is appropriately focussed. In providing generic feedback you can :

• provide feedback in oral and/or written form
• explain syntax in general terms
• advise on resources that could be used
• remind students of the key sections that should be included in their final folder

In providing generic feedback you cannot :

• correct a student’s work
• provide templates, model answers or writing frames
• provide specific guidance
• provide specific feedback to students on how to improve their projects to meet the requirements of the marking criteria
• give examples of how to implement
• provide feedback where a student has produced an incomplete stage and this is sufficient to allow progression to the next stage.

A clear distinction must be drawn between providing feedback to students as part of work in progress and reviewing work once it has been submitted by the student for final assessment. Once work is submitted for final assessment it cannot be revised. It is not acceptable for you to give, either to individual students or to groups, feedback and suggestions as to how the work may be improved in order to meet the marking criteria.

In accordance with the JCQ Instructions for conducting NEAs, any support or feedback given to individual students which has not been provided to the class as a whole must be clearly recorded on the CRF and the student’s mark must be appropriately adjusted to represent the student’s unaided achievement.

Assessment criteria

Guidance on applying the marking criteria

Level of response marking instructions are broken down into mark bands , each of which has a descriptor. The descriptor for the mark band shows the average performance for the level required . Before you apply the mark scheme to a student’s project, review both the prototype and portfolio and annotate it and/or make notes on it to show the qualities that are being looked for. You can then apply the marking criteria. Start at the lowest band of the marking criteria and use it as a ladder to see whether the work meets the descriptor for that band . The descriptor for the band indicates the different qualities that might be seen in the student’s work for that level. If it meets descriptors for the lowest band then go to the next one and decide if it meets this, and so on, until you have a match between the band descriptor and the student's work. You can compare your student’s work with the standardisation examples to determine if it is the same standard, better or worse. When assigning a level you should look at the overall quality of the work. If the project covers different aspects of different levels of the mark scheme you should use a best fit approach for defining the level and then use the variability of the work to help decide the mark within the band .

• where the student’s work fully meets all statements, the highest mark should be awarded
• where the student’s work mostly meets all statements, the most appropriate mark in the middle of the range should be awarded
• where the learner’s work just meets the majority of statements, the lowest mark should be awarded.

There will be instances where a student fully meets for example 3/4 statements but only just meets the other. In this scenario a best-fit approach should be taken. If, in this scenario, the range of marks within the band was 16-20, then a mark of 18/19 would be appropriate.

The assessment criteria for the NEA are split into six sections as follows.

Section A: Identifying & investigating design possibilities (10 marks)

By analysing the contextual challenge students will identify design possibilities, investigate client needs and wants and factors including economic and social challenges. Students should also use the work of others (past and/or present) to help them form ideas. Research should be concise and relate to their contextual challenge. Students are also advised to use a range of research techniques (primary/secondary) in order to draw accurate conclusions. Students should be encouraged to investigate throughout their project to help inform decisions.

Section B: Producing a design brief & specification (10 marks)

Based on conclusions from their investigations students will outline design possibilities by producing a design brief and design specification. Students should review both throughout the project.

Section C: Generating design ideas (20 marks)

Students should explore a range of possible ideas linking to the contextual challenge selected. These design ideas should demonstrate flair and originality and students are encouraged to take risks with their designs. Students may wish to use a variety of techniques to communicate. Students will not be awarded for the quantity of design ideas but how well their ideas address the contextual challenge selected. Students are encouraged to be imaginative in their approach by experimenting with different ideas and possibilities that avoid design fixation. In the highest band students are expected to show some innovation by generating ideas that are different to the work of the majority of their peers or demonstrate new ways of improving existing solutions.

Section D: Developing design ideas (20 marks)

Students will develop and refine design ideas. This may include, formal and informal 2D/3D drawing including CAD, systems and schematic diagrams, models and schedules. Students will develop at least one model, however marks will be awarded for the suitability of the model(s) and not the quantity produced. Students will also select suitable materials and components communicating their decisions throughout the development process. Students are encouraged to reflect on their developed ideas by looking at their requirements; including how their designs meet the design specification. Part of this work will then feed into the development of a manufacturing specification providing sufficient accurate information for third party manufacture, using a range of appropriate methods, such as measured drawings, control programs, circuit diagrams, patterns, cutting or parts lists.

Section E: Realising design ideas (20 marks)

Students will work with a range of appropriate materials/components to produce prototypes that are accurate and within close tolerances. This will involve using specialist tools and equipment, which may include hand tools, machines or CAM/CNC. The prototypes will be constructed through a range of techniques, which may involve shaping, fabrication, construction and assembly. The prototypes will have suitable finish with functional and aesthetic qualities, where appropriate. Students will be awarded marks for the quality of their prototype(s) and how it addresses the design brief and design specification based on a contextual challenge.

Section F: Analysing & evaluating (20 marks)

Within this iterative design process students are expected to continuously analyse and evaluate their work, using their decisions to improve outcomes. This should include defining requirements, analysing the design brief and specifications along with the testing and evaluating of ideas produced during the generation and development stages. Their final prototype(s) will also undergo a range of tests on which the final evaluation will be formulated. This should include market testing and a detailed analysis of the prototype(s).

Academic Manual

• 3. Module Assessment

Section 3: Module Assessment

Published for 2023-24

3.1 Overarching Principles

3.2 forms of assessment, 3.3 assessment methods and tasks, 3.4 digital assessment, 3.5 language of assessment, 3.6 attendance requirements & eligibility for assessment, 3.7 pass mark, 3.8 marking scale , 3.8.1 requirements , 3.8.2 pass/ fail modules and components , 3.8.3 numeric marking scale.

3.8.4 Letter Grade Marking Scale

3.8.5 Conversion of Marks

3.9 component assessment, 3.10  requirements to pass a module, 3.11 no attempt or minimal attempt at assessment, 3.12 deadlines & late submissions.

Modules at Levels 4, 5 and 6:

Modules at Level 7:

3.13 Word Counts

3.14 academic integrity, advice for students.

Further information and advice for students about assessment is available on the  Examinations & Awards webpages .

Recent Changes

A guide to changes to the regulations are available from the  Recent Changes  page.

• Visits and Open Days
• Jobs and vacancies
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Accommodation
• Student Guide
• Student email
• Library and IT services
• Staff Guide
• Staff email
• Timetabling

Classics & Archaeology

Featured story.

How is Coursework Marked and Returned?

Marking criteria.

• CLAS Marking Criteria General Assessment .PDF download
• CLAS Marking Criteria Languages .PDF download

When Will I Get My Marks?

Staff members have three weeks in which to mark assignments AND complete due moderation, so you should not expect to receive feedback on your assignments until this process is complete.

Your assignments are returned on Moodle, where you submitted them, with the mark and feedback on performance supplied. You are responsible for reaching and absorbing the feedback on your assessments. You should make an appointment with your lecturer or seminar leader if you have any questions about the comments they have given you.

How is My Work Marked?

All assessed work is marked according to Kent’s Marking Scale and the CLAS Marking Criteria (below).

Your lecturers and seminar leaders put in a lot of time and effort to comment on your work in an effort to help you improve your writing and reasoning.

It is important that you read this feedback and use it to improve your next writing assignment using the CLAS Cover Sheet.

If you do not include a complete CLAS coversheet, your marks will be withheld on moodle and KentVision until you submit it.

The Provisional Status of Marked Work

When your work is returned, the mark is still provisional because all second and third year marks are “moderated” by internal and external examiners. Marks are not fully finalized until the Board of Examiners meets in June.

What is “Moderation”?

According to the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), moderation allows us to ensure that the assessment criteria have been applied appropriately, reflecting the shared understanding of the markers, and an approach which enables comparability across academic subjects (in particular recognising that students may be studying more than one subject). Moderation focuses on the marks awarded to the full set of assessed work for a task, module or programme, in the context of the academic standards for the award. It is therefore separate from the question of how differences in marks between two or more markers are resolved, and is not about making changes to an individual student’s marks.

Appeals Against the Recommendations of Boards of Examiners

Appeals from students will be considered in the following circumstances:

(i) where there is reasonable ground supported by objective evidence to believe that there has been administrative, procedural or clerical error of such a nature as to have affected the recommendation of the Board of Examiners; or

(ii) where there is evidence of illness or other misfortune such as to cause exceptional interference with academic performance and which the student was, for good reason, unable to submit by the published deadline; or

(iii) where evidence relating to illness or other misfortune submitted under extenuating circumstances procedures within the prescribed time limit was not properly considered by the Board of Examiners.

(iv) Appeals that are based on mitigating circumstances which, without good reason, were not brought to the attention of the Board of Examiners through extenuating circumstances procedures at the appropriate time will not be considered.

In all cases, appeals must be submitted to the appropriate Division Support Office and will be considered only where:

• submitted by means of the Appeal Form (contact the taught programmes coordinator: ([email protected])
• accompanied by a letter explaining in full the grounds for the appeal and the remedial action sought from the Board of Examiners;
• providing all necessary documentary evidence substantiating the grounds of the appeal;
• submitted within the applicable deadline.

External Examiners

For information about the External Examiner(s) responsible for the CLAS programmes, see: https://www.kent.ac.uk/teaching/qa/extexaminers/local/ee-info-students.html

Home | Contact us | Staff | Students | iExeter (Staff and Students) | Site map | 中文网

• Alumni and supporters
• Our departments
• Visiting us
• Academic Partnerships Handbook
• Approval and Revision of Taught Modules and Programmes Handbook
• Assessment, Progression and Awarding: Taught Programmes Handbook
• Credit and Qualifications Framework
• Exceptional Circumstances Handbook
• External Examining Handbook
• 1 - Provision of information by Faculties to students
• 2 - Faculty Management of Education: Code of Good Practice
• 3 - Evaluating teaching: guidelines and good practice
• 4 - Generic University Assessment Criteria for Taught Programmes: Guidance Notes for Staff
• 5 - Teaching and Research
• 6 - Guidelines for constructing a code of practice in teaching and learning
• 7 - Periods of Study and Changes to registration status for taught postgraduate students: statement of procedures
• 8 - Academic personal tutoring: code of good practice
• 9 - Dissertation or project supervision/tuition for the degree of masters (excluding MPhil programmes): code of good practice
• 10 - Peer and self assessment in student work: principles and criteria
• 11 - Taught student/staff liaison committees: code of good practice
• 12 - Student absence
• 13 - Procedures for the interruption and voluntary withdrawal of taught students
• 14 - Temporary Visa Interruption and Withdrawal
• 15 - Unsatisfactory Student Progress and Engagement
• 16 - Accreditation of Prior Learning
• 17 - NOT IN USE
• 18 - Student placements
• 19 - Study and work experience abroad
• 20 - University Prizes
• 21 - Part-time teachers
• 22 - Exeter Learning Environment
• 23 - English Language Support for International Students: statement of procedures
• 24 - NOT IN USE
• 25 - Student Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity and Adoption Policy
• 26 – Inclusive Practice within Learning & Teaching
• 27 – Registration
• 28 – Guidance for Group Work
• 29 – Taught Student Attendance and Engagement Policy
• 30 - Reading Lists Policy
• 31 - Employment of postgraduate students
• Postgraduate Research Handbook
• Quality Review & Enhancement Framework
• Student Cases Handbook
• Special Provisions for Online Programmes (including those offered in partnership with Keypath Education)
• Special Provisions for Healthcare Programmes
• Special Provisions for Degree Apprenticeships
• Special Provisions for Programmes with Accreditation Licenced by the Engineering Council

Chapter 4 - Generic University Assessment Criteria for Taught Programmes: Guidance notes for staff

4 - generic assessment.

Generic Criteria for Assessment RQF - Level 3 Generic Criteria for Assessment RQF - Level 4 Generic Criteria for Assessment RQF - Level 5 Generic Criteria for Assessment RQF - Level 6 Generic Criteria for Assessment RQF - Level 7

Introduction The assessment criteria below characterise the level of complexity, demand and relative autonomy expected of your students at each level of the curriculum. The ‘by level’ structure maps to the Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF) curriculum levels, and is underpinned by the need for your students to progress from one level to the next. These criteria draw on QAA 1 and SEEC 2 guidelines,

How should the generic criteria be used? These criteria are designed to be a reference point for assessment criteria in your subject area. Where the generic criteria are deemed by subject leaders to be sufficient, they can be used directly for assessing students’ learning in that subject. Subject groups are encouraged to use the generic criteria as a basis for evaluating and developing their own, more subject-specific criteria for each level of their own taught curriculum. This is particularly appropriate for numeracy-based STEMM subject areas. In addition, you may well need more specialised criteria for particular forms of assessment, for example oral and group assessments. The Academic Development Team can provide examples of these, and can help you to develop them in ways appropriate for your subject. 

The generic criteria can also help guide you in writing Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) at each level of the curriculum, including those needed for programme specifications and module descriptors. On a programme overall, students should be able to demonstrate achievement at the appropriate level across the different descriptor categories, including those described as ‘skills for life and employment’. The generic criteria can therefore help guide you in the design of your programmes.

There should be a logical relationship between your module’s ILOs and the criteria used for assessing student learning on that module, at that level of the curriculum.

Applying the ‘best fit’ principle Generic descriptors can provide only broadly based guidance for assessment. A useful principle when using them is to look for the ‘best fit’ band. For example, a student assignment may display one or two of the characteristics in the 70-85% band and most of those in the 60-69% band, but may not quite achieve the standard of the 60-69% band in one or two areas. The best fit in that case is likely to be within the 60-69% band. You should also bear in mind that a single student assignment is unlikely to be complex enough to meet all of the stated criteria for a given level of attainment, so there does not need to be evidence for every descriptor in a band in order for a student to gain marks in that band: the ‘best fit’ principle applies. Having achieved the full degree award at a given level, however, students should have been able to demonstrate learning at the appropriate level in all of the categories: knowledge and understanding, cognitive skills, use of research-informed literature, and skills for life and employment. Subject specialists are best placed to translate the generic descriptors into subject-specific language and details for a given topic and form of assessment. 1 Quality Assurance Agency Quality Code 2 Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer http://www.seec.org.uk/academic-credit/seec-credit-level-descriptors-2010 Accessed 24 August 2017

Last reviewed September 2022

Generic Criteria for Assessment RQF Level 3

Download:  Generic Criteria for Assessment RQF at Level 3

Generic Criteria for Assessment at RQF Level 4

Download:  Generic Criteria for Assessment RQF at Level 4 ‌

Generic Criteria for Assessment at RQF Level 5

Download: Generic Criteria for Assessment RQF at Level 5

Generic Criteria for Assessment at RQF Level 6 

(Bachelor's degree with Honours)

Download:  Generic Criteria for Assessment RQF at Level 6

Generic Criteria for Assessment for RQF Level 7

(Masters Programmes)

 Download: Generic Criteria for Assessment RQF at Level 7

Last reviewed July 2021 (referencing links update February 2023)

Back to top

Using our site  |  Freedom of Information  |  Data Protection  |  Copyright & disclaimer  |  Privacy & Cookies  | 

• My View My View
• Following Following
• Saved Saved

Bar exam alternatives gain American Bar Association backing

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Karen Sloan

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Karen Sloan reports on law firms, law schools, and the business of law. Reach her at [email protected]

Read Next / Editor's Picks

Industry Insight Chevron

David Thomas

Mike Scarcella, David Thomas

Karen Sloan

Henry Engler