Composites Design and Manufacture (Plymouth University teaching support materials) Guidelines for the marking of honours degree assessments

Lecture PowerPoint

Reading Lists

Review papers

Subject Index

The marking of honours degree assignments, is not simply a measure of the amount of work done.
A broad interpretation of the expectations for each degree category follows (see also the generic grade descriptors document).
Note that the actual mark given will depend on a balance of all the aspects indicated.
It will be weighted to reflect the evidence presented for the work done pro rata to the proportion of the module marks allocated for the assignment
and the credit rating of the module. To achieve a bare pass (40%) a student might expect to dedicate 6 hours/week throughout for each ten credit module!.

Third Class Honours (40-50%)
Little evidence of the context (technical/industrial/commercial) of the work beyond that delivered in the module.
No significant consideration of health and safety issues.
Use of the correct techniques, skills and tools, but without consideration of all relevant conditions and probably providing incomplete answers [MNJ].
Inadequate presentation of all steps in the analysis.
No record of calibration of the instrumentation.
No/limited consideration of the variability in the results.
Poor report structure.

Lower Second Class Honours (50-60%)
Limited evidence of the context of the work, including references.
Limited consideration of health and safety issues.
Use of the correct techniques, skills and tools, appropriately applied and giving correct results.
Presentation of all necessary steps in the analysis.
Calibration of the instrumentation considered.
Consideration of the extent of variability in the results.
Structured report with content not always complying with headings.

Upper Second Class Honours (60-70%)
Good evidence of the context of the work, including short literature survey.
Good consideration of health and safety issues.
Consideration of related environmental, economic, social, ethical and professional issues.
Use of the correct techniques, skills and tools, appropriately applied and giving correct results, with consideration of the assumptions and limitations thereof.
Presentation of all necessary steps in the analysis with comment.
Calibration of the instrumentation clearly documented.
Consideration of the extent and causes of variability in the results.
Structured report with content complying with headings.

First Class Honours (>70%)
Extended evidence of the wider context of the work with reference to contemporary work (ie recent academic/technical journals).
Risk analysis, if appropriate, including health and safety issues.
Critical judgment of related environmental, economic, social, ethical and professional issues.
Use of the correct techniques, skills and tools, appropriately applied and giving correct results, with critical consideration of the assumptions and limitations thereof.
Presentation of all necessary steps in the analysis with critical comment (ideally in an Appendix linked from the body text).
Calibration of the instrumentation clearly documented and critically appraised.
Triangulation of the results obtained against an independent method.
Consideration of the extent, causes and routes to minimisation of variability in the results.
Clearly written report with internal cross-referencing as required.
Evidence of original thought especially in the context of “quality of life and wealth creation”.
Report displays engineering flair and imagination [DJG].

Higher degrees

The Harris Report [1] defined the various postgraduate qualifications as follows:

• Masters – subject specific titles (e.g. MEcon): these titles should be used for courses of ≥120 credits or around 9 months full-time in length, (which must also contain <30 UG credits or <25% UG material).
• Masters – generic titles (e.g. MA or MSc): these titles should be used for courses of ≥180 credits or ≥1 year full-time in length, which must meet all the following conditions:
• the taught coursework contains >90 PG credits or >75% PG material – and in total the course contains >135 PG credits
• the proportion of time spent on a research project or dissertation (or equivalent for practice–based) is ≥25% of the course
• the method of assessment includes examination of the project by an examiner with responsibility for the masters programme and dissertation
• MPhil: This title should be used for courses of >180 credits or 1-2 years full-time in length which must meet all the following conditions:
• a substantial proportion of time (≥50% of the course) is spent on a research project or dissertation (or equivalent for practice-based)
• the method of assessment includes individual external examination of the project or dissertation
• PhD/DPhil: this title should be reserved for a qualification awarded on the basis of an individually produced piece of research which is free-standing and makes an original contribution to the subject area.  The target for completion of the degree should be three years for a full-time student.

University of Southampton [2] has defined the difference between MPhil and PhD as follows:

• The PhD: for the award of PhD, candidates must demonstrate that they have mastered a special field and made an original personal contribution to the understanding of a problem, or to the advancement of knowledge or to the generation of new ideas.   Candidates will also need to demonstrate a deep understanding and awareness of the background of the subject.
• The MPhil:The MPhil differs from the PhD in terms of the depth of study required and the extent of the personal contribution to knowledge.  It requires competence in conducting an independent enquiry, as well as in the use of appropriate research methods and techniques.  Candidates must also demonstrate satisfactory background knowledge of the subject.

The Quality Assurance Agency Discussion paper about doctoral programmes suggested that "doctorates are awarded to students who have demonstrated:

1. the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research or other advanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline, and merit publication
2. a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or area of professional practice
3. the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems
4. a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic enquiry.

Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to:

1. make informed judgements on complex issues in specialist fields, often in the absence of complete data, and be able to communicate their ideas and conclusions clearly and effectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences
2. continue to undertake pure and/or applied research and development at an advanced level, contributing substantially to the development of new techniques, ideas, or approaches

and will have:

3. the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and largely autonomous initiative in complex and unpredictable situations, in professional or equivalent environments".

1. Martin Harris, Review of Postgraduate Education, HEFCE Report M14/96, May 1996.
2. University of Southampton Calendar 1997/98, Section VI - Regulations For Higher Degrees in all Faculties, page 168.