1. Phase C

2. Phase C What’s different about Stage II?
Sharing good academic practice
Break
Sling your hook: activity
Grammatical abuses: Quiz
Lunch

3. What’s Different About Stage 2
Moving forward to stand still

4. Module Descriptors Stage 1 (C)ertificate
…knowledge of concepts and principles …ability to evaluate
these ...to evaluate and interpret data …to develop lines of
argument …to make sound judgements…
University of Kent (2008) ‘Credit Framework - Annex 2: Descriptors’, available at
(accessed 22 Aug 2008)

5. Module Descriptors Stage 1 (C)ertificate
…knowledge of concepts and principles …ability to evaluate
these ...to evaluate and interpret data …to develop lines of
argument …to make sound judgements…
Stage 2/3
(I)ntermediate
…critical understanding …apply concepts and principles
beyond original contexts …knowledge of methods of enquiry
…ability to evaluate critically …understanding of the limits
of their knowledge…
University of Kent (2008) ‘Credit Framework - Annex 2: Descriptors’, available at
(accessed 22 Aug 2008)

6. Module Descriptors Stage 1 (C)ertificate
…knowledge of concepts and principles …ability to evaluate
these ...to evaluate and interpret data …to develop lines of
argument …to make sound judgements…
Stage 2/3
(I)ntermediate
…critical understanding …apply concepts and principles
beyond original contexts …knowledge of methods of enquiry
…ability to evaluate critically …understanding of the limits
of their knowledge…
Stage 2/3
(H)onours
Mix of ‘H’ & ‘I’ level modules depends on structure of degree programme –
240 credits over stage 2/3 – at least 90 credits must be at level H (for award of an honours degree)
Often (but far from always) 120 (C) Stage 1
120 (I) Stage 2
120 (H) Stage 3
…systematic understanding of field of study …coherent and
detailed knowledge …some at the forefront of a discipline
…conceptual understanding …solve problems …describe and
comment on current research …appreciate uncertainty,
ambiguity and limits of knowledge …manage own learning
…use primary sources…
University of Kent (2008) ‘Credit framework - Annex 2: descriptors’, available at
(accessed 22 Aug 2008)

7. Assignment Marking Criteria
2:2
…satisfactory …adequate organisation …full answer …some grasp of theory
…little insight …mostly accurate, but limited …no real development of argument
…clear enough to be understood… lacks originality …more than minor
inaccuracies, errors and omissions…
Department of Psychology, University of Kent (2007), ‘Marking criteria for undergraduate coursework, ’,
available at dying/learning-resources/marking-criteria.pdf (accessed 26 Aug 2008)

8. Assignment Marking Criteria
2:1
…comprehensive …well-organised …clear and logical argument …evidence of
understanding …adequate evidence linked accurately to theory …states ideas
and develops clearly …ideas supported with arguments …use of concepts,
theories and research findings largely precise… minor factual errors or
inaccuracies allowable...
2:2
…satisfactory …adequate organisation …full answer …some grasp of theory
…little insight …mostly accurate, but limited …no real development of argument
…clear enough to be understood… lacks originality …more than minor
inaccuracies, errors and omissions…
Department of Psychology, University of Kent (2007), ‘Marking criteria for undergraduate coursework, ’,
available at dying/learning-resources/marking-criteria.pdf (accessed 26 Aug 2008) 8

9. Assignment Marking Criteria1
…excellent …high level of independent research and originality …wide
knowledge of the subject …comprehensive understanding …originality and flair
…goes beyond essential reading and lectures …appreciation of all major points
…well-written …critical …logical...
2:1
…comprehensive …well-organised …clear and logical argument …evidence of
understanding …adequate evidence linked accurately to theory …states ideas
and develops clearly …ideas supported with arguments …use of concepts,
theories and research findings largely precise… minor factual errors or
inaccuracies allowable...
2:2
…satisfactory …adequate organisation …full answer …some grasp of theory
…little insight …mostly accurate, but limited …no real development of argument
…clear enough to be understood… lacks originality …more than minor
inaccuracies, errors and omissions…
Department of Psychology, University of Kent (2007), ‘Marking criteria for undergraduate coursework, ’,
available at dying/learning-resources/marking-criteria.pdf (accessed 26 Aug 2008) 9

10. Assignment Marking Criteria1
…excellent …high level of independent research and originality …wide
knowledge of the subject …comprehensive understanding …originality and flair
…goes beyond essential reading and lectures …appreciation of all major points
…well-written …critical …logical...
2:1
…comprehensive …well-organised …clear and logical argument …evidence of
understanding …adequate evidence linked accurately to theory …states ideas
and develops clearly …ideas supported with arguments …use of concepts,
theories and research findings largely precise… minor factual errors or
inaccuracies allowable...
2:2
…satisfactory …adequate organisation …full answer …some grasp of theory
…little insight …mostly accurate, but limited …no real development of argument
…clear enough to be understood… lacks originality …more than minor
inaccuracies, errors and omissions… 3
…deficient in organisation and scope …insufficient reading, evidence …ideas
unclear, illogical, inconsistent …contains errors, omissions, irrelevancies.
Department of Psychology, University of Kent (2007), ‘Marking criteria for undergraduate coursework, ’,
available at dying/learning-resources/marking-criteria.pdf (accessed 26 Aug 2008) 10

11. Assignment Marking Criteria1
…excellent …high level of independent research and originality …wide
knowledge of the subject …comprehensive understanding …originality and flair
…goes beyond essential reading and lectures …appreciation of all major points
…well-written …critical …logical...
2:1
…comprehensive …well-organised …clear and logical argument …evidence of
understanding …adequate evidence linked accurately to theory …states ideas
and develops clearly …ideas supported with arguments …use of concepts,
theories and research findings largely precise… minor factual errors or
inaccuracies allowable...
2:2
…satisfactory …adequate organisation …full answer …some grasp of theory
…little insight …mostly accurate, but limited …no real development of argument
…clear enough to be understood… lacks originality …more than minor
inaccuracies, errors and omissions… 3
…deficient in organisation and scope …insufficient reading, evidence …ideas
unclear, illogical, inconsistent …contains errors, omissions, irrelevancies.
Fail
…deficient …substantial errors, omissions, irrelevancies… little acceptable or
relevant information …little familiarity with subject… no more information than
expect from a lay person …no academic content/words/sense…
Department of Psychology, University of Kent (2007), ‘Marking criteria for undergraduate coursework, ’,
available at dying/learning-resources/marking-criteria.pdf (accessed 26 Aug 2008) 11