Level 3 dissertation marking criteria

Criterion	1	1	1	2.1	2.2	3	Marg fail	Clear fail	Poor fail	Very poor fail
Publishable in a good journal	+(+)	(+)
Shows originality and insight	++	+	(+)
Critical evaluation of the literature and of the data	++	++	+	(+)
Demonstrates depth of knowledge and understanding of the data	++	++	++	+	(+)
Synthesises (brings together in a new and distinctive way) relevant information	++	++	++	+(+)	+	(+)
Logically organised and clearly written	++	++	++	++	(+)	(+)
Literature correctly cited and referenced	++	++	++	++	+	(+)	(+)
Presents adequate selection of relevant information	++	++	++	++	+	(+)			+	(+)
Contains some relevant content	++	++	++	++	++	+	+	+	(+)

Class	Range	Description
1	90-100	Outstanding: All the qualities of an excellent dissertation, but conceptually innovative and original. In addition the work should be virtually publishable as it stands, by itself or as a significant component of a review article, in a good journal. Difficult to recommend improvements.
1	80-89	Excellent: Critically evaluates the literature and the data within it. Demonstrates a thorough comprehension and a depth of knowledge of the literature on the topic, with evidence of insight into its associated implications. Synethsis of literature as good as can be expected at this level, with evidence of original thought. Content is accurate, logically organised and articulate. Some areas for improvement noticeable.
1	70-79	Very good: Demonstrates a depth of knowledge and comprehension of the literature on the topic and provides evidence of some insight into associated implications. A very good synthessis of the literature with some evidence of critical evaluation, but tending towards description rather than originality. Content is accurate, logically organised and articulate.
2.1	65-69	Good: Demonstrates sound interpretation and comprehension of the topic with a reasonable depth of knowledge, but limited evidence of critical evaluation. Well-organised and well-presented dissertation that reviews and synthesises a good selection of relevant literature. Content is accurate, logically organised and articulate.
2.1	60-64	Fairly good: Demonstrates interpretation and comprehension of the topic with some depth of knowledge, but largely descriptive in approach. Fairly well-organised and well-presented dissertation that reviews and synthesises an adequate selection of relevant literature. Content is mostly accurate, logically organised and articulate.
2.2	55-59	Pedestrian: Demonstrates some interpretation and comprehension of the topic. Organisation and presentation adequate, but may show lack of breadth or depth of knowledge. Reviews a selection of relevant literature with some synethsis, but may be overly focused on a few sources or aspects. Some weakness in accuracy, logic, or expression.
2.2	50-54	Weak: Demonstrates comprehension of the topic. Organisation and presentation mostly adequate. Reviews a selection of relevant literature with some synthesis, but may be overly focused on a few sources or aspects. Weaknesses in accuracy, logic, organisation or expression.
3	45-49	Poor: Demonstrates some comprehension of the topic and presents evidence of some sound knowledge derived from the literature, but incomplete or irrelevant in part. Presentation is week. Lapses in accuracy, logic and / or organisation.
3	40-44	Very poor: Demonstrates some comprehension of the topic and presents evidence of some sound knowledge derived from the literature, but with omissions or factual errors. Presentation is weak. Some serious lapses in accuracy, logic and / or organisation.
Fail	35-39	Marginal Fail: Demonstrates some comprehension of the topic and some evidence of knowledge of the literature, but with some serious omissions or factual errors. Presentation is poor. Some serious lapses in accuracy, logic and / or organisation. Lacks evidence that an adequate range of the intended learning outcomes of the dissertation have been met.
Fail	25-34	Clear Fail: Demonstrates some comprehension of the topic, but with minimal knowledge of the literature. Presentation is poor. Serious lapses in accuracy, logic and / or organisation. Lacks evidence many of the intended learning outcomes of the dissertation have been met.
Fail	15-24	Poor Fail: Little evidence of comprehension of the topic. Presentation is poor. Relevant content almost absent. Virtually no evidence that any of the intended learning outcomes of the dissertation have been met.
Fail	1-14	Very Poor Fail: Virtually no evidence that the topic has been comprehended. Relevant content virtually absent. Virtually no evidence that any of the intended learning outcomes of the dissertation have been met.
Fail	0	Complete Fail: No relevant content and no evidence that any of the intended learning outcomes of the dissertation have been met.