University Marks Scale, Marking Descriptors for
Postgraduate Master ProgrammesSkills Assessment
A. Marking Scale for Postgraduate Master Students
1 For Postgraduate Master degrees, marks awarded on individual modules are categorised
as follows:

Mark	Description	Class
90 to 100	Outstanding	Distinction
80 to 89	Excellent
70 to 79	Very Good
60 to 69	Comprehensive	Merit
50 to 59	Competent Pass	Pass
40 to 49	Compensable Fail	Fail
30 to 39	Deficient
0 to 29	Extremely Weak

B. Introduction to assessment tasks
2 Assessment tasks in the subjects studied within the University lie between two extreme
types:

2.1	Type A tasks where there is a correct answer and little or no opportunity for alternative approaches or displays of insight. For time-constrained assessments,

the assessor must ensure that there is a reasonable allowance of time for the
student to be able to recall, work out and write down the correct answer.
Examples: the definition of a term or unit, a schematic or diagrammatic figure, a
graph showing the relationship between characteristics, the implementation of a
standard procedure (e.g., a calculation), a computer programme to carry out a
straight-forward task.
2.2 Type B tasks where there is no definitive right answer; a range of possible
answers could satisfy, to a greater or lesser extent, the question posed. The
assessor can provide a sample answer that indicates one general approach to
answering the question, the main points expected, the quantity and depth of
points expected, etc. There is no logical limit to the number of relevant points
that a student could make. Therefore the assessor has to apply some form of
constraint on the length of answer (e.g., time in an exam or word-count in a
coursework submission) and must therefore make his/her assessment bearing in
mind the best answer that could reasonably be expected from a student at that
level of study under the prevailing conditions (e.g., exam or coursework).
Examples: a discussion or evaluation of a concept or theory, a design solution to
an open-ended problem, a report on a project, essay writing.
2.3 Many assessments lie between these extremes. For instance, a report on a
laboratory exercise will have definable ‘correct’ aspects (report structure,
grammar, experimental arrangement and procedure, format of tabulated and
graphed results) but there are also opportunities for the student to demonstrate
understanding and originality in discussing and evaluating the results, suggesting
experimental improvements and drawing conclusions. Taught Postgraduate
dissertation is a Type B task. Since the assessment of dissertation is a more
complex process, it is dealt with in a separate section in 5.
3 Assessment of Type A Tasks

3.1	Students will have been given (or referred to a source for) the required definition, figure or procedure and may have been told how it would be assessed (e.g. reproduce it, describe it, carry it out). The assessor will set the assessment task, bearing in mind how it relates to the
3.2

module Learning Outcomes. He/she will then prepare the correct answer and an
associated Marking Scheme (the total marks available being allocated to the
various steps in the answer, according to volume and difficulty of the work
required).
3.3 Answers will be marked according to the extent and correctness of each student’s
progress through the steps. The examiner should distinguish between correctness
of the process and accuracy of the mathematics (thus a student who follows the
correct process but makes an arithmetic error in an early step will get the wrong
answer but may be awarded most of the marks).
4 Assessment of Type B Tasks

4.1 4.2

Students may or may not be formally taught the subject matter of the task. The assessor will set the assessment task, bearing in mind how it relates to the

module Learning Outcomes. He/she may provide (or refer to a source for)
guidance on how to tackle the task and perhaps an outline of some aspects of
the answer or an example answer to a related task. Alternatively students may
be required to develop their own approaches to the task. Unless timeconstrained, the assessor must indicate the length of answer expected.
Furthermore, he/she may provide the criteria by which student submissions will
be assessed, and the relative weighting of criteria, for example: extent to which
the requirements and constraints of the task have been satisfied; correctness of
use and interpretation of relevant knowledge; extent of coverage of the topic;
evidence of wider reading; display of insight, understanding, originality, creativity,
etc.; quality of analytical and problem-solving skills; quality of communication
skills.

4.3	He/she may prepare a sample answer that is within the length constraint and matches the stage of development of understanding of the best students. He/she

should check that, by applying the stated criteria, the answer would be assessed
as at least ‘Very Good’. Some adjustment of the criteria may then be necessary.
2
5 Assessment of Postgraduate Master Programme Dissertation/ Research Project
5.1 Master’s programme, shall involve a substantial piece or pieces of independent
work which together with other range of assessed modules reflect the level of
further intellectual development appropriate to the equivalent of 18 months’
advanced study beyond Honours degree level. This independent research
consisting of a single project or dissertation module would be worth 20 credits
for taught Master programme students or 40 credits for Master of Research
programme students.

5.2	Students may discuss with the programme director to propose a specific topic related to their area of programme study for their dissertation; Or Students may

be offered a range of choices on a research project with a nominated supervisor
appropriate to the allocated pathway.
5.3 Then the Taught Master programme students should be allocated a supervisor
who provides general guidance on the progress of the student’s work on the
dissertation/ research project. The Master of Research programme student
should be allocated both a supervisor and another co-supervisor in the related
area to provide additional support when and where appropriate and to be
responsible for guidance and supervision of the dissertation/ research project.
5.4 The department and the programme should provide (or refer to a source for)
guidance on how to tackle the task. The module specification must indicate the
length of dissertation expected. Furthermore, students should be provided with
the criteria by which student submissions will be assessed, and the relative
weighting of criteria, for example: extent to which the requirements and
constraints of the task have been satisfied; correctness of use and interpretation
of relevant knowledge; extent of coverage of the topic; evidence of wider
reading; display of insight, understanding, originality, creativity, etc.; quality of
analytical and problem-solving skills; quality of communication skills.
5.5 Exemplars from previous year students’ dissertations together with the feedback
of those exemplars may be made available, after the permission from the
students are obtained. The actual mark of the exemplar can be omitted if the
student of the dissertation requires, but the quality of the exemplar against the
assessment criteria must be clear to students (e.g. the description in the Marking
Scales as listed in A. 1 could be used to indicate the quality of the exemplar).
5.6 The assessed component (e.g. dissertation proposal, proposal presentation, or
oral examination) and its weighting of the Dissertation/ Research project Module
can be decided by each programme according to specific programme learning
outcomes as defined. For Master of Research programme students, each
candidate should undergo an oral examination of no more than 30 minutes with
two internal examiners on their research project(s) to validate the standard of
grading of the programme.
5.7 The dissertation writing should be reviewed and marked independently by the
supervisor and another expert from XJTLU in the related discipline area (namely
‘Marker’), with detailed feedback against the assessment criteria provided. Each
marker will submit separately their mark sheet with assessment criteria and
3
calculation to the Module Leader of the Dissertation/Research Project Module. It
is not permissible for the supervisor and the second marker to communicate with
each other details of marks awarded to the same student work. The mark
assigned will be the average of the two marks if the marks awarded by the two
assessors are within the same description (see listed in A. 1 Marking Scale for
Postgraduate Master Students). In the case where the two marks are
significant different (above 10%) or fall across a description boundary, the
submitted dissertation should be marked independently by a third marker whose
view should prevail after she or he has also reviewed the marks and mark-sheets
of the other two markers. In this instance, the External Examiner should be
made aware that that a third marker was used.
C. General Marking Descriptors for Postgraduate Master Assessment
6 The university has general requirements for work at Masters level. The overarching
standards set govern the interpretation of the performance criteria for specific courses.
The subject specific criteria for each programme can be developed by each department.

6.1	For submitted course work (Task A or Task B), students’ achievement is categorised as follow:

Knowledge and Understanding	Intellectual Skills	Transferable Skills
100%	The best answer that could reasonably be expected from a student at that level of study under the prevailing conditions (ie, exam or coursework)
90-99% ‘Outstanding’	Total coverage of the task set. Exceptional demonstration of knowledge and understanding appropriately grounded in theory and relevant literature.	Extremely creative and imaginative approach. Comprehensive and accurate analysis. Well argued conclusions. Perceptive self assessment.	Extremely clear exposition. Excellently structured and logical answer. Excellent presentation, only the most insignificant errors.
80-89% ‘Excellent’	As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses or gaps in knowledge and understanding.	As ‘Outstanding’ but slightly less imaginative and with some minor gaps in analysis and/or conclusions.	As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses in structure, logic and/or presentation.
70-79% ‘Very Good’	Full coverage of the task set. Generally very good demonstration of knowledge and understanding but with some modest gaps. Good grounding in theory.	Some creative and imaginative features. Very good and generally accurate analysis. Sound conclusions. Some self assessment.	Generally clear exposition. Satisfactory structure. Very good presentation, largely free of grammatical and other errors.

4

60-69% ‘Comprehensi ve’	As ‘Very Good’ but with more and/or more significant gaps in knowledge & understanding and some significant gaps in grounding.	As ‘Very Good’ but analysis and conclusions contain some minor weaknesses.	As ‘Very Good’ but with some weaknesses in exposition and/or structure and a few more grammatical and other errors.
50-59% ‘Competent’ Pass	Patchy coverage of the task set. Patchy knowledge and understanding with limited grounding in literature. Just meets the threshold level at the bottom end.	Rather limited creative and imaginative features. Patchy analysis containing significant flaws. Rather limited conclusions. No self-assessment. Just meets the threshold level at the bottom end.	Competent exposition and structure. Competent presentation but some significant grammatical and other errors. Just meets the threshold level at the bottom end.
40-49% ‘Compensable Fail’	Some parts of the set task likely to have been omitted. Major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Some significant confusion. Very limited grounding. Falls just short of the threshold level.	No creative or imaginative features. Analysis and conclusions rather limited. Falls just short of the threshold level.	Somewhat confused and limited exposition. Confused structure. Some weaknesses in presentation and some serious grammatical and other errors. Falls just short of the threshold level.
25-39% ‘Deficient’	As ‘Compensable Fail’ but with major omissions and/or major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Falls substantially below the threshold level.	As ‘Compensable Fail’ but analysis and/or conclusions may have been omitted. Falls substantially below the threshold level.	As ‘Compensable Fail’ but with more serious weaknesses in presentation and/or grammar. Falls substantially below the threshold level.
0-25% ‘Extremely Weak’	Substantial sections of the task not covered. Knowledge & understanding very limited and/or largely incorrect. No grounding in theory.	No creative or imaginative features. Analysis extremely weak or omitted. No conclusions.	Largely confused exposition and structure. Many serious grammatical and other errors.

The overarching standards set below govern the interpretation of the performance
criteria for dissertation at Postgraduate Master level. The subject specific criteria for
each programme will be interpreted within the flowing general:
5

a. Knowledge and Understanding of Concepts and Literature
80% – 100% “Outstanding” or “Excellent”	-With most of the key references recommended for this subject assessment, the work shows that the student has extended and insightful understanding of the main concepts and theories dealt with in the programme, and has in addition drawn on other resources, and has been able to integrate this understanding into a coherent framework.
70% – 79% “Very Good”	– With most of the key references recommended for this subject assessment, the work shows that the student has comprehensive and insightful understanding of the main concepts and theories dealt with in the programme, and has been able to integrate this understanding into a coherent framework
60% – 69% “Comprehensive”	-With a wide range of appropriate sources recommended for this subject assessment, the work shows that the student has understood the main concepts and theories dealt with in the programme, without any misunderstanding, and has integrated the key ideas from these sources into a coherent framework.
50% – 59% “Competent Pass”	-With a sufficient range of key sources recommended for this subject assessment, this work shows that the student has understood a major part of the content of the programme at the conceptual and theoretical level, and has been able to use these sources relevantly, although there is some misunderstanding.
40% – 49% “Compensable Fail”	-With a limited range of sources recommended for this subject assessment, this work shows the little evidence of understanding at the conceptual and theoretical level, also there are some omissions or misunderstandings in the student’s handling of the theories and concepts dealt with in the programme, and these texts have been used for the most part relevantly but with superficial understanding.
0 – 39% “Deficient” or “Extremely Weak”	-With little or no evidence of familiarity with any of the sources recommended for this subject assessment, there little or no evidence of understanding of the theories and concepts, detailed knowledge or reading that dealt within the programme, or the theories and concepts are handled in a way that shows considerable misunderstanding or omission. Those sources which are used are largely used irrelevantly or with misunderstanding.

6

b. Research Design and Implementation
80% – 100% “Outstanding” or “Excellent”	– Very well focused and appropriate research aims and context with clear research questions and operational definitions fully specified; – Excellent and original research design and implementation with data collection methods are justified with critical reflection and detailed evaluation of alternatives; – Both reliability and validity are well evaluated; – Presentation of findings is clear and thorough; – Full conclusions with its significance of the research are drawn and reflected.
70% – 79% “Very Good”	– Clearly focused research aims and context; – Clear and appropriate research questions and operational definitions fully specified; – Very good and original research design and implementation; data collection methods are justified with evaluation of alternatives; – Both reliability and validity are evaluated; – Presentations of findings are clear and thorough; – Full Conclusions are drawn and evaluated.
60% – 69% “Comprehensive”	– Worthwhile and well formulated research aims and context – Clear and appropriate research questions and some discussion of operational definitions; – Good research design and implementation; data collection methods are justified with some reference to alternatives; – Some awareness of validity and reliability; – Clear presentation of findings; – A range of conclusions is drawn.
50% – 59% “Competent Pass”	– Research aims and context may be unfocused, but with clear research questions; – Competent research design and implementation; data collection methods are justified but with little evaluation of alternatives; – Some awareness of validity and reliability; – Adequate presentation of findings; – Some conclusions are drawn.

7

40% – 49% “Compensable Fail”	– Unfocused research aims and context, with research questions are sketchily outlined; – Weak research design and implementation, with little evaluation to the data collection method or alternatives; – Reluctant discussion in validity and reliability; – Unclear presentation of findings and conclusions.
0 – 39% “Deficient” or “Extremely Weak”	– Unclear research aims and little context conveyed, with unclear or unspecified research questions; – Inadequate research design and implementation, with no rationale for data collection method; – Validity and reliability are not discussed at all in the work; – Incomplete or confused presentation of findings; – No attempt to draw conclusions.
c. Critical Reflection and Analysis
80% – 100% “Outstanding” or “Excellent”	– Impressive critical ability and understanding, demonstrated by extended critical discussion of most of the issues dealt with in the subject assessment; – Outstanding analysis of new empirical material and/or original analysis of existing primary or secondary sources.
70% – 79% “Very Good”	– Excellent critical discussion of most of the issues dealt with in the subject assessment; – Excellent analysis of new empirical material and/or original analysis of existing primary or secondary sources.
60% – 69% “Comprehensive”	– Thoughtful critical discussion of a wide range of the issues dealt with in the subject assessment, but discrepancies and shortcomings may not be fully explored; – Good analysis of new empirical material and/or original analysis of existing primary or secondary sources, but does not display the outstanding ability or critical acuity.
50% – 59% “Competent Pass”	– Competent evidence of good effort and sound argumentation, but the discussion is largely conducted from one perspective; – Adequate analysis of new empirical material and/or original analysis of existing primary or secondary sources but could be developed more fully and critically.

8

40% – 49% “Compensable Fail”	– Deficient critical ability with little critical discussion of the issues dealt with in the subject assessment; – Inadequate analysis of new empirical material and/or original analysis of existing primary or secondary.
0 – 39% “Deficient” or “Extremely Weak”	– No evidence of critical ability, as the work largely consists of anecdotal or descriptive content; – Inability to interpret or analysis of new empirical material and/or original analysis of existing primary or secondary sources, as the work largely consists of unsupported assertions or unquestioned assumptions. – At worst, an inadequate dissertation lacking background reading or proper analysis.
d. Originality and Creativity
80% – 100% “Outstanding” or “Excellent”	– Outstanding piece of research of publishable quality, demonstrated by location of the research within wider theoretical and epistemological debates; – Excellent original creative research design and full conclusions that discuss the original findings of the research and its contribution to the wider literature.
70% – 79% “Very Good”	-Excellent piece of research that is potentially of publishable quality, demonstrated by the contribution of the research to the theoretical and epistemological debates; – Very good and original research design with original and creative approach in thinking.
60% – 69% “Comprehensive”	– Very good and well-executed piece of research, which is clearly located within wider theoretical and epistemological debates; – The work partially demonstrated contribution to the wider literature that characterizes distinction level dissertations.
50% – 59% “Competent Pass”	– Competent and well-organized piece of research, with evidence showing good effort and sound outcome but pedestrian or lacking in imagination and critical insight; – Fail to demonstrate the contribution of the research to the wider literature.

9

40% – 49% “Compensable Fail”	– Ineffective piece of research, with deficient in effort in producing an original and creative research; – Undue faith in the literature, with no evidence of original critical analysis or discussions.
0 – 39% “Deficient” or “Extremely Weak”	– Insufficient effort to complete a reasonable piece of work, conveying little or no value of the research; – Inability to interpret results sensibly, with no evidence in originality or creativity in the work.
e. Constructing Academic Discourse
80% – 100% “Outstanding” or “Excellent”	-The quality of the writing, expression of ideas, logical and critical argumentations and conformity to conventions of referencing are consistent with the quality required for publication in an academic/ professional journal.
70% – 79% “Very Good”	-Outstanding quality of writing, with advanced skills in expressing ideas clearly, structuring argumentation logically and referencing accurately, and with the good potential to achieve the quality required for publication in an academic/ professional journal.
60% – 69% “Comprehensive”	-Consistent understanding is demonstrated in a well-structured, clear and appropriate manner, which conforms to conventions of academic writing.
50% – 59% “Competent Pass”	-The work demonstrates understanding and expression/ application of ideas in a style which is mostly logical, coherent, fluent and appropriate to the conventions of academic writing.

10

40% – 49% “Compensable Fail”	-For most part, the work demonstrates a logical and coherent structure, but with poor organization, poor expression and uncritical approach sections of the argument; but some sections become confused or undeveloped, or stylistically inappropriate, and do not conform to the conventions of academic writing.
0 – 39% “Deficient” or “Extremely Weak”	-The work lacks a logical and coherent framework or the expression of the ideas is confused or underdeveloped, or stylistically inappropriate; and the work demonstrates low input of effort and superficial write-up, and does not conform in any way to the conventions of academic writing.

Approval and Revision Log

19 September 2012	University Learning and Teaching Committee	New Policy approved subject to minor wording corrections in marking descriptions in C (6.2) to match with section A.
10 December 2012	ULTC Chair’s Action	The use of the word “incompetent” in section (d) Originality and Creativity 40-49% was replaced with “ineffective”.
9 April 2014	ULTC	The following two sentences added to item 5.7: “Each marker will submit separately their mark sheet with assessment criteria and calculation to the Module Leader of the Dissertation/Research Project Module. It is not permissible for the supervisor and the second marker to communicate with each other details of marks awarded to the same student work.”

11

Tags: academicwriting, assignment, assignmentdue, assignmenthelp, assignmenthelper, assignmenthelpers, assignments, assignmentsdue, assignmentssuck, assignmentstress, assignmenttime, assignmentwriting, college, dissertation, essay, essayhelp, essaywriting, essaywritingservice, homework, homeworkhelp, researchpaper, student, studentlife, students, thesis, thesiswriting, university, universityassignment, writing