When an examiner starts to mark your written work, she does so with refer-ence, consciously or subconsciously, to what is called a ‘marking scheme’.
Marking schemes are used for a number of reasons. First, the alternative is to depend on the examiner plucking a figure out of her head – e.g. ‘85%’ – or, worse, failing a student, but on what basis? Second, a marking scheme intro-duces guidelines that all staff can use and against which student dissertations can be judged, ensuring consistency of approach and fairness to students.
Third, marking schemes allow institutions to keep a record of their student work, including assessment rationale, so that external auditors can see that the standard of student work and assessment is appropriate and reflects agreed university and national criteria. Finally, marking schemes are there to assist you, the student, in understanding how your work will be assessed.
Figure 9.5 Viva advice
A common mistake by students
A common mistake by students is to develop their dissertation without refer-ence to the marking scheme. This is stupid. You are being tested that your dissertation meets pre-determined criteria, so why ignore the stated criteria or pay it lip service?
What does a marking scheme look like? Dissertation marking schemes come in all shapes and sizes, but they have certain elements in common, regardless of how they are constructed. They will have a place for the student’s name to be entered (usually at the top of the page), the specific areas that the student dissertation is to be marked on (together with the maximum marks achievable for each area), a space for the actual marks to be entered, including the total mark achieved, and a section for examiner comments. Appendix G is an example of a simple marking sheet. Let us look closely at the completed marking sheet in Appendix H, which is reproduced here in a smaller version (Figure 9.6).
Notice that there are two different marks: a total mark of 85% (bottom right-hand of marking sheet) as well as an ‘AGREED MARK’ of 87% (near the top right-hand corner of the marking sheet). Why is this? This is because it is unlikely that your dissertation will be marked by just one member of staff. To
Figure 9.6 Sample completed marking sheet
ensure consistency of marking it is normal practice for two members of staff to mark the same dissertation, as a means of providing checks and balances. The different marks for Pat Houston’s dissertation occurs as a result of one member of staff (Dr John Biggam) giving a mark of 85% while another member of staff (in this case Dr Alan Hogarth) – looking at the same dissertation and completing a duplicate marking sheet – arrives at a different mark. They have got together to compare their marks and have come to an agreement about the final mark, 87%. The fact that the student’s mark has been increased from 85% to 87%
suggests that the mark given by Dr Alan Hogarth was greater than Dr John Biggam’s mark, although not significantly so, and that they have come to an agreement on what mark to award the student. A significant difference of opinion (e.g. one marker giving 25%, while another awards a mark of, say, 90%) suggests that at least one of the markers has not understood the marking criteria (or, equally problematic, is not a specialist in the subject area). If the markers cannot work out their differences, then a third marker may be called in to adjudicate or an external examiner may be asked to offer a view.
An alternative approach to marking dissertations involves the use of qualita-tive terms – Poor, OK, Good, Very Good, Excellent – which are then, in turn, converted into quantitative marks. This approach is based on the marking of final year ‘honours’ dissertations where, typically, a dissertation mark between 40–49 equates to a 3:3 classification; a mark between 50–59 equates to a 2:2 classification; a mark between 60–69 equates to a 2:1 classification; and 70+ equates to a first class classification. If the pass mark for your dissertation is 40, then each of these qualitative terms would equate to the bandings shown in Table 9.1.
If the pass mark for the dissertation was 50 instead of 40, then the qualitative bandings would move up correspondingly: Poor < 50; OK equates to between 50 and 60; Good, between 60 and 69; Very Good, between 70 and 79; and Excellent, 70+.
When your dissertation marker reads your dissertation he may, in the first instance, rate the various key chapters – Introduction, Literature Review, Research Methods, etc. – using the aforementioned qualitative terms: ‘The Table 9.1 Relationship between qualitative terms
and quantitative banding
Qualitative term Quantitative banding
Poor <40
OK Between 40 and 49
Good Between 50 and 59
Very Good Between 60 and 69
Excellent 70+
Intro is OK . . . The Literature Review is very good . . . the chapter on Research Methods is excellent . . .’ His next step might then be to translate his qualitat-ive views into marks. So if he rates your dissertation ‘sections’ as shown in Table 9.2 then he has come to the conclusion that your overall dissertation is OK because most of the sections in your dissertation are OK (the good Litera-ture Review and the poor Conclusion also average out to an OK) and so you merit a basic pass ranging from 40 to 49 (Table 9.2). For this grading system, if you wanted to secure a mark of between 60 and 69 then you would need to ensure that each of the sections in your dissertation were very good. Similarly, if you are seeking a mark of 70+, then you need to aim for excellence in each major section of your dissertation. The problem with qualitative marking is that where parts of the dissertation are weighted, for example, if the Literature Review was worth twice the marks awarded to the Introduction, it can be difficult to fit such a relationship into the qualitative ↔ quantitative model.
Nonetheless, it is a simple approach that staff and students can use to gauge the overall worth of a dissertation.
When students submit their final dissertation, they ought to ask themselves what mark they would give to their own dissertation. When you are reviewing your work, either individual sections, or the final submission, it is a worth-while exercise to consider what mark you believe your work merits, using either the straight-forward quantitative approach (‘I think this is worth a 65’) or using the qualitative model (‘This is good so I reckon I deserve between 50 and 59’). In that way, you will begin to think like a marker, checking your efforts against the set criteria. You can even have some fun by getting your friends to ‘mark’ yours, while you reciprocate for them, each giving the other a completed marking sheet with marks, including comments.
Getting good marks is not rocket science. It requires hard work and an understanding of what is expected of you. There are easy marks to pick up for your abstract, referencing and aims and objectives. If you have grasped how to write an abstract, follow a style of referencing and know how to clarify your overall aim and related objectives, then you really ought to be securing top Table 9.2 Example of converting qualitative terms
Dissertation sections Qualitative ‘mark’ Quantitative banding
Abstract OK Between 40 and 49
Introduction OK Between 40 and 49
Literature Review Good Between 50 and 59
Research Methods OK Between 40 and 49
Findings OK Between 40 and 49
Conclusion and Recommendation Poor < 49
Referencing and quality of writing OK Between 40 and 49
marks in each of these tasks, as did Pat Houston in the sample marking sheet.
Students who lose marks for each of the aforementioned areas to do so because they do not know what they are doing and are reduced to guessing about how to complete each of the tasks. For the Literature Review you are essentially getting your marks for the breadth and depth of literature studied, relevant to your overall aim and research objectives, in a way that is not merely descrip-tive, but exhibits critical evaluation of pertinent literature. For the Research Methods you gain marks for explaining and justifying your design decisions, that they are appropriate for your study. Marks for the Findings and Discussion concentrate on your ability to analyse the results of your empirical research in relation to your Literature Review and to your declared research objectives.
Your Conclusion needs to provide cyclical closure, i.e. that you summarize your results, provide final comments, make recommendations, and review your own work (either from a critical perspective or lessons learned, or both).
When you start your dissertation get hold of the marking scheme that will be used by your tutors, as well as any accompanying explanatory notes. Make sure that you understand it and use it as a checklist to ensure that, as you develop your dissertation, you are ticking all the right boxes (‘Have I justified the need for my research?’, ‘Are my research objectives clear and achievable?’,
‘Is my review of literature extensive, showing critical evaluation?’, and so on).
When you attend meetings with your supervisor, ask your supervisor the same questions (‘Are you convinced that I have justified the need for my research?’,
‘In your view, are my research objectives clear and achievable?’, and so on).
Prior to submitting your completed dissertation, go over the marking scheme again to check that you have made no damaging omissions (one colleague’s dissertation student failed to notice that he had absent-mindedly forgotten to include his list of references).
One last point on dissertation marking schemes: if there is no marking scheme, or set of marking guidelines, then you can legitimately ask your insti-tution how they – markers – arrive at a mark for your work and, at the same time, ensure consistency of approach? They may be leaving themselves open to the claim that their approach to dissertation marking is subjective and unfair.