PLEASE NOTE: All CMIT modules have now been withdrawn,
and are unavailable for the 2010/11 academic year
These web pages and lecture notes are left as reference for those students
requiring CMIT modules to complete their programme only, and are not an
indication of modules currently offered.
Assessment Criteria
Mark Scheme
CMIT accepts students from all disciplines, many of whom will have specialised for two or three years in their own field. We recognise that there are different approaches to academic work and make every effort to reward submissions based on effort and achievement rather than style and convention.
We use the University's Generic Mark Scheme to assess module submissions. This allows us to accept assessment work in the style of students' own academic disciplines rather than impose our own. The mark scheme is included below for reference.
In some cases additional criteria are necessary (for example, compliance with commercial design standards). In these cases additional information will be provided during the course of the module, and should be used in addition to the Generic Mark Scheme.
BAND
|
DESCRIPTION: Work within the below mark ranges demonstrates the following characteristics:
|
MARK RANGE |
OUTSTANDING |
Unique, outstanding and insightful work, which is either of publishable quality in a reputable journal or attains the professional standards expected for the discipline without the need for revision. It is difficult to see how it could be improved in any way.
|
90%+ |
EXCEPTIONAL |
Originality, a critical awareness of the principles and practices of the discipline, thorough comprehension of the assessment’s requirements, exceptional ability, insightful, fully realises learning outcomes for the assessment and develops them far beyond normal expectations
|
80 – 89% |
EXCELLENT |
Real insight, originality, logical and articulate, demonstrates a comprehensive coverage of subject matter, engagement with scholarship and research, very good analytical ability, no major flaws
|
70 – 79% |
VERY GOOD |
Sound and well thought out, organised, secure knowledge of subject, appropriate use of critical references, broadly realises the intended learning outcomes, well expressed, good analytical skills
|
60 – 69% |
COMPETENT |
Competent, largely descriptive in approach, generally sound, adequate or routine knowledge of subject, generally satisfactory
|
50 – 59% |
WEAK |
Some evidence of learning outcomes having been achieved, but muddled, poorly argued, inadequate deployment of critical method, lacking focus, lacking depth of understanding, some important elements missing, a significant error, seriously deficient analytical skills
|
40 – 49% |
POOR |
Little to no evidence of learning outcomes having been achieved. Heavily marred although brief signs of comprehension, basic misunderstandings or misinterpretations, demonstrates almost no ability to meet the requirements of the assessment
|
26 – 39% |
INCOMPETENT |
Brief, irrelevant, confused, incomplete
|
0 – 25% |