Information for Examiners

All written work will be submitted to supervisors as a first draft. Supervisors will provide detailed feedback to the student in order to assist them in preparing the final submission. The first draft will not be graded. The supervisors role in reading the first draft should be advisory. They should not be actively involved in the writing of the final draft. Supervisors may advise on only 1 draft prior to submission.

Group Projects

The Group Project supervisor(s) will prepare a written appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the final thesis, along with detailed comments on the contribution made by each student and a suggested grade for each. In order to facilitate the assessment of individual contributions to the Group Project, supervisors will provide a mark for the thesis as an entity, and an individual mark for each student that reflects their performance throughout the group project, and thus each students contribution to the work described. Each student will be required to submit his or her own version of the thesis discussion which will provide a third mark. The average of the three marks will constitute the students final mark for the group project. A second marker will be drawn from the School of Animal Biology staff to provide an independent assessement of the thesis as a whole, and each students separate discussion. When two or more Group projects are run concurrently, the Honours co-coordinator will review the sets of results to ensure that criteria have been applied fairly and, if need arises, formally meet with the other member of the Examining Committee and all Group Project supervisors to resolve any differences in assessment. The views of students concerning the contribution from themselves and from other members of the project may be sought through separate and group interviews with the supervisor(s) and Examining Committee.

Individual Projects

Assessment of Individual Projects is undertaken by all members of the Advisory Panel. This Panel will assess the Literature Review and Research Proposal as well as the final thesis. The Honours coordinator will act as a common marker for the final theses. All Panel members are required to submit their separate assessments to the Honours coordinator before  meeting to agree the thesis mark. The Honours coordinator will attend the final thesis meeting, where all members of the Panel will hear and comment on the views of each other on the academic merit of the thesis. The Honours coordinator will review the final judgment of the panel in light of the individual comments of each Panel member to ensure that criteria for assessment have been applied fairly and accurately and to ensure comparability of standards between assessments. In the case that the panel are unable to agree on a final mark, or where individual assessements are widely disparate, that thesis will be referred to other members of the School for their independent judgments.

All results for all components of the course, are forwarded to the Examiners’ Meeting of the full School of Animal Biology and from there the final grades are forwarded to the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences.

In the case of projects conducted across two or more schools, all members of the Advisory Panel mark the thesis, and the results are reviewed by a comparator from the relevant schools before submission to the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences.

Guidelines for grading

H1, upper first: HD+ (90-100%)

An exceptional thesis dealing with an intellectually demanding topic. The thesis shows considerable flair, demonstrating major innovation in conceptualisation within a sound theoretical framework.

The thesis shows: appropriate structure; sound critical appreciation of previous knowledge, from which is developed a challenging and defensible thesis; robust, scientific methodology; mastery of analytical methods, including statistics; clear understanding of the major gains and limitations of the results and of future directions to follow; clear recognition of non-standard results and recognition of their significance and implications; sound integration of the results within the thesis – ie. there is a robust defence of the thesis. The thesis is written using excellent expression and it thoughtfully presents data through appropriate table and/or figure formats.

This grade acknowledges a student of outstanding research potential.

H1, lower first: HD- (80-89%)

As for HD+ but with some slight weakness, for example in arguments that do not exploit fully either the results presented or links with the findings and conclusions of others presented in the literature.

This grade acknowledges a student of high research potential.

H2A, upper A: D+ (75-79%)

A thesis showing sound conceptualisation, methodology, analysis and discussion, but lacking the flair and innovation of a H1 category.

This grade acknowledges a student of above average research potential.

H2A, lower A: D- (70-74%)

A thesis representing a sound study with well structured arguments leading to development of hypotheses, appropriate methodologies and statistical treatment and reasonable interpretation of results but no outstanding strengths.

This grade acknowledges a student of average research potential.

H2B, lower second: CR (60-69%)

The basic thrust of the thesis is acceptable, but having a major weakness in one area, including conceptual inconsistencies, omissions of relevant literature or non-recognition of limitations of methodology.

H3, third class: Pass (50-59%)

A thesis containing misconceptions, inconsistencies or omissions, and/or unrecognised deficiencies in methodology, and/or misinterpretation of the statistical analysis and/or lack of integration with theoretical or empirical framework.

Fail: N+ (<50%)

For a thesis with major problems in conceptualisation or execution, or inability to present arguments coherently and with clarity.