Generic Level 9 Dissertation Marking Scheme Rubric

Criteria Description Weighting 0 – 39% 40 – 49% 50 – 59% 60 – 69% 70% +

Abstract and Ability to 10% No articulation of Limited reference Solid positioning Well-articulated Excellent positioning
introduction summarise, why the research to existing theory of the research rationale for the of the research, with
articulate and question is and the value of in the context of study proposed, clear evidence of
explain the thesis worthy of study. the research the study at firmly positioned in insight and value of
topic. To frame No references being proposed. hand with some existing literature research. Deep
the research topic provided and no Very limited reference to the with good breadth of
and develop overview of overview of extant referencing. knowledge
rationale for methodology nor methodology or literature. A Methodology demonstrated and
same within
findings. findings provided solid attempt at proposed is clearly articulated in
relevant theory
in a disjointed overview of appropriate and relation to study
and literature.
fashion. methodology findings of value contribution.
and findings alluded to.
provided.

Literature Ability to 20% Very limited use Limited use of Reasonable use Comprehensive use Critical application
Review determine, of theory and theory and of theory and of relevant theory and critique of
situate, and concepts. No concepts. concepts but and concepts. relevant theory and
synthesise evidence of Presented in a lack of breadth Evidence of breadth concepts. Evidence
appropriate critical insight disjointed, basic in literature in literature review. of breadth and
theoretical and very limited summary fashion reviewed. What Presented in a depth of literature
concepts within evidence of without any is presented is manner which has reviewed.
an overall
literature – text evidence of well done but is evidence of critical Presented in a
conceptual
book based and critical insight. limited in scope application and logical and free
framework.
dated. and would provides some flowing manner
Ability to frame
insights. using the most up to
proposed study
 within the benefit from date material.
relevant academic broadening out. Identification of
literature. literature gaps and
shortcomings and
ability to illustrate
the importance of
literature to own
study.
Demonstrates how
literature influences
instrumentation in
methodology.

Research Ability to 5% Objectives are Objectives may Objectives have Objectives have Objectives have
Question formulate and inadequately be specified but been clearly been clearly been clearly
articulate robust, specified. not achieved. specified and specified and are specified and are
well formed, Research Research achieved to appropriate. The creative and
credible and question(s) are question stands some extent, objectives have appropriate.
realistic research not clearly apart from the with clear link been fully achieved. Objectives have
questions, articulated or are literature and the back to the There is clear logical been fully achieved
research too broad to be link between the literature and flow between the or surpassed. The
propositions
researched two is not the findings articulation of research is novel or
appropriate for
adequately. evident. from the study. research objectives stretching in terms
study.
and other parts of of
the dissertation.

Methodology Ability to 20% Alternative Alternative A reasonable The methodology Alternative

determine, methodologies methodologies attempt made at selected has been methodologies have
situate, and not considered have not been justifying the justified and been fully
 synthesise and method considered and selected critiqued. Clear considered and the
appropriate selected not only limited methodology by understanding of chosen methodology
methodological justified. justification for reference to the importance of a fully justified. In
concepts within Significant errors selected previous studies. robust approach to addition to that
an overall in the application methods. Some Evidence of undertaking the required for a 60-
conceptual of methodology. errors in consideration of study with evidence 69%, there may also
framework. Description of application. appropriate to support this in be evidence of
Thoughtful
potential scales and/or terms of research philosophical
development of a
methodologies link to themes design. Sampling positioning. The
research
without derived from technique, research application has been
methodology
application of literature. The instrument and rigorously carried
appropriate to
any to study. methodology procedure for data out.
proposed study.
has been collection and
completely analysis clearly
carried out. articulated. The
methodology has
been competently
carried out. The
outlined
methodology has
been applied and, if
not, logical reasons
why not have been
offered.

Analysis Academic and 20% Pedestrian or Some attempt at A reasonable Rigorous analysis of Rigorous and
and/Findings scholarly poor attempt to analysis although attempt has findings. creative analysis of
presentation of analyse the with some been made to Demonstrates the findings.
findings and findings. problems. analyse the ability to synthesise Demonstrated the
 justification for Implications and Implications and findings. data collected and ability to synthesise
same. limitations not limitations not However, the relevant theory. data collected and
understood. well understood. synthesis of data Shows an relevant theory.
Basic charts Presented in collected and understanding of Insightful
and/or graphs order of relevant theory the limitations and conclusions which
presented – gathering without is not fully implications of the appreciate
without any any editing – no achieved. study. Good linkage limitations and
evidence of ability to Implications and back to literature implications of the
rigours analysis. distinguish limitations not and the implications study.
Excess of between fully highlighted.
irrelevant peripheral and appreciated.
information. key findings. Somewhat bland
presentation.

Discussion Reflective and 15% Lack of rigour or Limited linkage to Discussion of Discussion section Discussion section is
scholarly any link to previous findings is not as draws together in a extensive and
discussion of previous literature and/or thorough or robust manner the thorough with
study. literature and/or aims and detailed as implications of the evidence of critical
aims and objectives of possible. Light findings in light of evaluation of the
objectives of study. Inability to touch in previous research. study at hand in
study. Candidate draw out key approach but The practical terms of the
makes claims far findings. Limited does draw on implications are literature
beyond what has or no discussion practical thoughtful and advancement and
been found and of the practical implications and robust. There is limitations coupled
fails to fully grasp implications of future research evidence of future with practical
the limitations or the study directions. research direction considerations. The
transferability of findings. No in light of the discussion is
findings. reference to insightful and critical
rather than
 future research limitations repetitive and
directions. contained therein. descriptive.

Conclusion Provide fitting 5% Conclusion is Conclusion is Conclusion is The conclusion Conclusion is a

and insightful rushed and ill brief but does solid. section is fitting climax to the
conclusion to the considered. Too attempt to draw appropriate and research at hand.
work undertaken. brief to be together the appears considered Draws the reader’s
meaningful and contribution of and unrushed. attention to the
lacks any rigour. the work as a salient points in a
whole. critical and insightful
manner.

Presentation Consistent with 5% Poor Reasonable Satisfactory Good presentation Excellent

and scholarly presentation presentation but presentation and structure with presentation and
referencing standards of a with inconsistent inconsistencies in with consistent logical flow which is structure with
level 9 or incorrect referencing. referencing and critical in the main rigorous and
dissertation. referencing Lacks a logical clear structure rather than extensive
evidence. flow and can be and logical flow descriptive. Broad referencing evident.
Evidence of difficult to follow of material. reference list which Critical and
spelling errors at times. Adequate is up to date and reflective writing
and/or lack of reference list relevant. style which is
English covering key considered and
competence at readings in the accomplished.
this level. area.
References are of
a poor quality
and limited in
number.
Overall Generic Grade Bands

Grade Band Description

A dissertation that achieves a grade of 70+ has normally achieved very high (excellent) standards in all the marking criteria or
exceptionally high standards in some with very high and/or high standards in others. It normally demonstrates: an extremely well-
focused argument; a sustained engagement with existing research on the topic; an assured presentation of the relevant theoretical
70+ overall aspects of the project; confidence and maturity in the writing; an exciting breakthrough in research proficiency or critical stance, or
other evidence of successfully achieved independent perspective. A grade of 70+ indicates an excellent achievement, and a very high
professional standard of presentation that includes an advanced standard of English expression and grammar. Such a grade is difficult
to achieve at Level 9 and should be the exception rather than the rule!
A dissertation that achieves a grade of 60-69 has normally achieved high (very good) standards in all the marking criteria or very high
(excellent) standards in some with high (very good) and/or good standards in others. It normally demonstrates: a consistent and well-
60-69 focused argument; a coherent engagement with existing research on the topic; a reasonably consistently assured presentation of the
relevant theoretical aspects of the project; very good writing standards; an independent approach, although this may be not clearly or
evenly achieved. A grade of 60-69 indicates a very good standard at Level 9.
A dissertation that achieves a grade of 50-59 has normally achieved good standards in all the marking criteria or high (very good)
standards in some with good and/or satisfactory standards in others. It normally demonstrates: a consistent argument; a reasonably
50-59 consistently coherent engagement with existing research on the topic; a good presentation of the relevant theoretical aspects of the
project; good writing standards; some independence in approach. It lacks an overall critical stance and is descriptive in the main. A
grade of 50-59 indicates a good standard at Level 9.
A dissertation that achieves a grade of 40-49 has normally achieved satisfactory standards in all the marking criteria or good standards
in some marking criteria with satisfactory and/or borderline standards in others. It normally demonstrates: an adequate argument; a
reasonable engagement with existing research on the topic; an adequate presentation of the relevant theoretical aspects of the
40-49 project; satisfactory writing standards; some evidence of an attempt at an independent approach. It lacks depth and breadth of
reading in addition to critical engagement with the material. It is descriptive in nature and lacks the ability to distinguish between
peripheral and key findings. The logical flow of the material could be improved. A grade of 40-49 indicates a satisfactory standard at
Level 9.
A dissertation that achieves a grade of 35-40 has normally achieved satisfactory standards in some of the key marking criteria (those
weighted more heavily) with borderline or fail standards in others (less heavily weighted). There is no pass by compensation for the
35-40
dissertation so the awarding of a 35-40 is an indication to the candidate that the work requires minor revision to bring it up to
standard in a specific/limited number of areas.
 A dissertation that achieves a grade of less than 35 normally achieved borderline and/or fail standards in all the key criteria
0-34 demonstrating a lack of understanding of the requirements of the task set. Candidates achieving such a mark should recognise that
their work requires major revisions across a number of key sections in order to meet the requirements set at Level 9.