Download Marking Criteria for MML Part II & Linguistics IIB Dissertations and more Slides Linguistics in PDF only on Docsity!
MARKING CRITERIA
OPTIONAL DISSERTATION (MML PART II) & DISSERTATION (LINGUISTICS PART IIB)
In the following marking criteria higher grades should demonstrate not only the qualities specified for that class but also all the qualities expected of lower grades. Please note: Examiners should not deduct marks for a choice of topic. All topics/titles have been approved by Heads of Department (MML) or the Chair of the Linguistics Tripos Examiners. The number of supervisions allowed for the MML Optional Dissertation is the same as any other scheduled paper. Four supervisions are allowed for the Linguistics IIB Dissertation. Mark Class Keyword Content/ Argumentation Research/ Presentation Subdivision 80 - 85 I* Dist.
OUTSTANDING
The dissertation represents either a new approach to a topic or a very thorough overview of traditional arguments that have been evaluated critically, leading to a clear and strong conclusion. The argument underlying the dissertation is sophisticated and challenging; the point of view is clear and confident. The dissertation could serve as the basis for a future graduate research project or even be considered as the plan for a scholarly article. Extensive background research is supplemented with thorough critical and analytical assessment of the major contributions; primary and secondary source materials are handled with dexterity and critical acumen; presentation and referencing are immaculate. 75 - 79 70 - 74
I
EXCELLENT
VERY GOOD
Demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of the topic in its broader context; is very well structured with clear expression and judicious illustration. The argument represents an interpretive and considered approach to the question, not excessively reliant on secondary sources, with an added attempt to present an individual argument. Demonstrates extensive use of available research resources. Primary and secondary sources are handled judiciously and analyzed. Polished presentation and referencing. 75 - 79: Shows unquestioned mastery of the topic and confidence in the exposition. 70 - 74: Consistently well-crafted, independent and enterprising. 60 - 69 II.1 GOOD A good, sound argument containing competent discussion of the topic while demonstrating good overall knowledge of the field. The dissertation should show signs of clarity and organization with appropriate selection of material, though it might not go much beyond standard interpretations. Competent use has been made of available research resources. Account is taken of secondary sources, although perhaps not uniformly or exhaustively. Presentation and referencing are very good. 65 - 69: Cogent and resourceful arguments. 60 - 64: Keeps to a fairly routine but valid set of ideas.
Mark Class Keyword Content/ Argumentation Research/ Presentation Subdivision 50 - 59 II.2 FAIR Average level of argumentation containing basic ideas. Shows knowledge of the field but not beyond what is found in scholarly summaries. The structure is adequate but often not very well developed and illustration is not always to the point. Secondary sources substituting for first- hand knowledge of primary materials. While use of secondary literature is acknowledged, it is not dealt with critically or analytically. Presentation and referencing will often have inconsistencies. 55 - 59: A number of ideas of interest are discernible but the whole is flawed by inconsistencies in argument, referencing or presentation. 50 - 54: Marked tendency towards padding; paucity of own ideas, and/or simplistic narrative treatment (eg synopsis) at the lower level. 40 - 49 III POOR Very basic approach; does not have a consistent thesis; ideas are unstructured or tacked together; often irrelevant and undirected argumentation; little apt illustration. The dissertation should nonetheless show some knowledge of source material. Little or inappropriate use of available research resources has been made. Ideas will often be heavily dependent on the work of others, amounting to no more than uncritical paraphrase; possibly sloppy presentation and severely inconsistent referencing. 45 - 49: A valid but commonplace underlying argument is discernible, but marred by bad presentation and organization. 40 - 44: Directionless, often padded, showing evidence of great haste and little attempt to mount an argument of any kind. 15 - 39 F FAIL Fails to demonstrate knowledge or understanding of source material. Little attempt to present any evaluation or the evaluation is hasty and ill-considered. Very few research resources are used or acknowledged; presentation will often show extreme carelessness. Examiners may call any candidate to sustain his or her dissertation in a viva voce examination to help ascertain in which of these categories a dissertation should be placed. Dissertations must be not more than 10,000 words in length, including abstracts, quotations, footnotes and endnotes but excluding preliminary material (title page, contents page), automatically generated material (such as headers, footers, numbers on label sections, notes and other structural units), appendices, bibliographies and required lists of experimental materials (Linguistics). An Examiner who has reason to believe that a dissertation has exceeded the word limit and thus infringed the rubric, should ask the Faculty Office to ascertain the exact word count. One mark will be deducted for every 100 words or part thereof over the maximum limit. NB. The terms "primary and secondary sources" and "research resources" may refer to existing literature as well as empirical data. Approved 27 11 2017
