英国留学硕士论文评分标准详解

albatrus

英国的老师经常说的一句话就是：“小组讨论是多人完成的，但是论文必须独立完成。”所有的学生都要从小组讨论中提炼出自己的观点。同小组的学生之间观点近似并没有关系，但是论述的理由必须是自己独立思考的结果。英国老师非常注重学生自己的观点。一般能在论文中提出自己观点的学生都会被老师好好嘉奖一番。          英国留学硕士写论文的时候，老师会给一份清单，让学生找自己有兴趣的话题，而选择同一个话题的人一般就分到一个组。然后，老师会给学生一大叠相关的资料，学生要自己分工回去阅读并做笔记，看完后同一小组的人相互讨论这个话题。这样做最大的好处在于，每个学生可以节省下不少阅读时间，同时，每个学生在向他人转述资料的过程中锻炼了总结和概括大意的能力。
          英国留学硕士论文评分标准MarkCriteria
          Distinction:70+
          Comprehensivecoverageofrelevantissues
          Independentandeffectiveresearchandthinking
          Excellentorganizationandillustrationofarguments
          Excellentrangeofreferencetotheappropriateprimaryandsecondarysources
          Clearandlucidacademicwritinginadiscriminatingregister
          Near-faultlesspresentationinaccordancewiththeappropriateacademicconventions.
          Ethicalissuescentraltoallaspectsoftheproject
          Thoughtfulprojectinformedbybackgroundreadingandmakingexcellentuseofdata.Clearevaluationofmethodologicallimitations
          Sophisticated,subtleandprobinganalysisthroughout,withnear-faultlessuseoflinguisticterminology
          Merit:60–69
          Thoroughcoverageofrelevantissues
          Substantialevidenceofeffectiveresearchandindependentthinking
          Veryclearandeffectiveorganizationandillustrationofarguments
          Widerangeofreferencetotheappropriateprimaryandsecondarysources
          Clearacademicwritinginanappropriateregister
          Verygoodpresentationinaccordancewithappropriateacademicconventionswithevidenceofcarefulproofreadingandcorrection.www.17net.net
          Carefulandinformedapproachtoethicalissues
          Thoughtfulprojectdesign,withgooduseofdata
          Detailedandthoroughanalysisthroughout,withaccurateuseoflinguisticterminology
          Pass:50–59
          Faircoverageofrelevantissues,butwithsomegaps
          Evidenceofresearch,withsomeindependentthinking
          Afairrangeofreferencetotheappropriateprimaryandsecondarysources,butwithsomesignificantomissions
          Writinginanacademicregisterwithsatisfactorylevelsofprecisionandclarity
          Goodpresentationinaccordancewithappropriateacademicconventions,butevidenceofinsufficientlythoroughproof-readingandofsomeshortcomingsinreferencing,bibliography,citationandmattersofstyle.
          Somethoughtgiventoethicalissues,andconformstotheUniversityguidelines
          Coherentlydesignedproject,thoughnotalwaysactingonbackgroundreadingormethodologicallimitationstoanalysedataeffectively
          Someanalysisofferedinsupportofarguments,withlargelyaccurateuseoflinguisticterminology.
          Fail:49-40
          Significantoversightsinthecoverageofrelevantissues
          Littleevidenceofresearch
          Littlecriticalanalysisoftextsandconcepts
          Littleevidenceofindependentthinking
          Weaklyconceived,withalackofclarityandpurposeintheorganizationandillustrationoftheargument
          Alimitedrangeofreferencetoprimaryandsecondarysources
          Writinginaninappropriateregister,withlackofclarityandprecision
          Inaccuratepresentation,evidenceofweakorinconsistentuseofacademicconventions,poorproof-readingandseriousproblemswithreferencing,bibliography,citation,formattingorstyle.
          DoesnotfullyconformtotheUniversityguidelinesforethicalresearch
          Insubstantialprojectdesignproducinglittleorpooranalysisofdata.Majormethodologicallimitations
          Littleorinaccurateanalysis,withpooruseoflinguisticterminologyorconventions.
          Below40Poorcoverageofthetopic
          Verylittleevidenceofresearch
          Poorand/orderivativeuseofsecondarysources
          Organizationofmaterialisincoherent,withseriouserrorsinwrittenexpressionanduseofacademicconventions
          Seriouserrorsinuseoflinguisticterminologyandconventions

          NB.Workwhichisplagiarisedorunethicalwillincurpenaltiesandmaybeawardedamarkofzero.