Southampton Business School: Undergraduate Grade Descriptor
Undergraduate Grade Descriptor for MANG1022 - Technologies that Shaped the Business World: Digital Age


Percentage 0 - 24 25 – 39 40 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70 - 79 80 - 100
Degree Class Fail Compensatable Fail* Third class Class 2.2 Class 2.1 First Class First class
Addresses task
set.


Weighting 15%

Misunderstands the
task, no central
argument evident.
No/inappropriate
evidence of reading.
Little or no ability to
use information
effectively.
No/inadequate
focus and direction.
Limited
understanding of
the task.
Limited evidence of
reading. Patchy
evidence of
appropriate use of
information.
Limited focus and
direction
throughout.
Poor understanding
of the task.

Some evidence of
reading the
literature.
Information applied
with some
consistency.
Inconsistent focus
and direction
throughout.
Reasonable
understanding of
the task.
Appropriate use of
literature.
Reasonable use of
information but not
always relevant to
the task. Mostly
consistent focus and
direction
throughout.
Good understanding
of the task.

Evidence of
extensive reading.
Good use of
information, relating
it clearly to the
context of the task.
Clear focus and
direction
throughout.
Very good
understanding of
the task.
Evidence of
comprehensive
reading. Very good
use of information,
relating it very
clearly to the
context of the task.
Very clear focus and
direction
throughout.
Excellent
understanding of
the task.
Evidence of very
comprehensive
reading.
Outstanding ability
in the use of
information to
support points.
Exceptionally clear
focus and direction
throughout.
Shows knowledge
and
understanding of
theory and
concepts.

Weighting 15%

No/inadequate
evidence of
knowledge and
understanding of
theory and
concepts.

Limited and patchy
evidence of
knowledge and
understanding of
theory and
concepts. Limited
discussion.
Some evidence of
superficial critical
knowledge and
understanding of
theory and
concepts. Basic
discussion.
Level of critical
knowledge and
understanding of
theory and concepts
is sound but lacks
depth. Reasonable
discussion.
Good level of critical
knowledge and
understanding
evident of theory
and concepts. Clear
discussion.
Critical knowledge
and understanding
of theory and
concepts is applied
in a comprehensive
and concise manner.
Very clear
discussion.
Critical knowledge
and understanding
of theory and
concepts is applied
in a highly
comprehensive and
concise manner.
Exceptionally clear
discussion.
Clearly presented,
rigorously argued
and focussed
analysis.

Weighting 15%

No analysis, no
central argument
evident.
Mostly descriptive,
with minimal
analysis. Limited
coherent argument.
Basic and
sometimes
irrelevant analysis
evident. Argument is
basic and poorly
constructed.

Analysis is
reasonable with
some reliance on
description. Some
confusion evident
but most argument
is appropriate.
Clear and effective
analysis. Argument
has structure and is
legitimate.

Comprehensive and
precise analysis.
Well-structured
argument that
provides very good
clarity.

Excellent analysis,
precise and concise.
Exceptionally well-
structured argument
that provides
excellent clarity.
*Compensatable fail is only possible for compulsory or optional modules, subject to University of Southampton Progression Regulations.
2
Percentage 0 - 24 25 – 39 40 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70 - 79 80 - 100
Degree Class Fail Compensatable Fail* Third class Class 2.2 Class 2.1 First Class First class
Shows
independent
thinking.

Weighting 15%

No/inadequate
evidence.


Limited evidence.

Poor evidence.


Reasonable
independent ideas
evident.

Good independent
thinking is evident


Evidence of very
good Independent
thinking and original
views.
Excellent
innovative/original
ideas presented.
Supports
arguments with
clear and effective
examples/
evidence.

Weighting 10%

No/inadequate
examples/evidence.

Limited
examples/evidence.
Poor evidence
and/or basic
examples.


Reasonable relevant
examples/evidence.

Good relevant
examples are
evident and clearly
articulated. Good
evidence to support
arguments.
Very good relevant
examples are
evident, very clearly
articulated. Very
good evidence to
support arguments.
Excellent relevant
examples are
evident,
exceptionally clearly
articulated and
evidenced to the
task. Excellent
evidence to support
arguments.
Scope of relevant
literature
including
reference list in
the Harvard style.

Weighting 15%

No/inadequate
evidence of reading
of the core text or
beyond.

No/inadequate
reference list.
Limited or no
evidence of reading
of the core text or
beyond.

Limited reference
list with significant
omissions and
errors.
Evidence of some
use of literature but
with numerous
omissions.

Basic reference list
with many
omissions and/or
errors.
Appropriate
coverage of relevant
literature but with
omissions.

Reasonable
reference list but
with some omissions
and/or errors.
Good coverage of
relevant literature.

Good reference list
with minimal
omissions and/or
errors.
Comprehensive
coverage of relevant
literature.

Very good reference
list with minimal
errors.
Excellent coverage
of relevant
literature.

Excellent reference
list.
Well-structured
with appropriate
introduction and
conclusions.

Weighting 15%

No/inadequate
structure.
Limited structure. Poor structure with
basic introduction
and conclusions.
Adequate structure
with reasonable
introduction and
conclusions.
Good structure with
clear introduction
and conclusions.
Very good structure
with concise,
comprehensive
introduction and
conclusions.
Excellent structure
with exceptionally
clear introduction
and conclusions.
















































































































































































































































































































































































学霸联盟