Southampton Business School: Postgraduate Module Grade Descriptor
Postgraduate Grade Descriptor for MANG6529 Information Systems and Digital Technologies


Percentage 0 - 34 35 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70 - 79 80 - 100
Degree Class Fail Compensatable fail* Pass Merit Distinction Distinction
Task

Addresses all of the task
set as explained in the
coursework specification
document.

Weighting: 15%
Task set is not
addressed. It is very
difficult to understand
what was being said.
Task set is partially
addressed. It was only
possible to understand
parts of this, and not
enough to make sense
of what was being said.
Task set is addressed,
but the details lack
depth. The discussion
and presentation were
satisfactory but some
points including, but
not limited to,
examples, evidence,
and/or argumentation
were unclear.
Task set is addressed in
a competent
meaningful way. The
use of more detailed
information was
understandable and
linked clearly to the
central points.
Additional information
used to support the
central arguments. This
was done very clearly
and effectively.
Use of additional
information was
excellent. Complicated
material and ideas
drawn together and
exceptionally clearly
used to support the
central question.
Theory

Shows an understanding
of theory and concepts,
and ability to critically
assess them, which is in
line with the coursework
specification.

Weighting: 15%
The use and/or
understanding of
theory is very poor or
absent. It is not
possible to understand
the central question or
main points.
The use and/or
understanding of
theory is unclear.
Inadequate explanation
of main question and
additional points.
There is a satisfactory
discussion built on
appropriate theory.
Main points were clear
enough.
A good explanation of
theoretical concepts.
The central question
and main points were
clearly explained and
related.
The theoretical
discussion was very
clear. Main points
highlighted and
complex information
relevant to the central
topic used.
The theoretical
discussion was clear
and main points
highlighted and related
to the central topic.
Included highly
complex information
which was
exceptionally clearly
and convincingly
presented.
Analysis

Provides a clearly
presented, rigorously
argued and focused
analysis, which is in line
with the task set and
theory.

Weighting: 20%
Incorrect or very little
analysis of key aspects
of area of study, and
little conceptual
understanding of ideas
and techniques of
discipline.
Insufficient evidence of
analysis of key aspects
of area of study and
poor linking to
theoretical ideas and
techniques of
discipline.
Generally competent
systematic analysis of
key aspects of area of
study and appropriate
linking to conceptual
ideas and techniques of
discipline. Some
reliance on description.
Good systematic
analysis of key aspects
of area of study and
good conceptual
understanding of ideas
and techniques of
discipline.
Competent ability to
systematically analyse
and synthesise
information. Analysis is
relevant and mostly
effective. Argument is
well sustained,
structured and
legitimate.
Comprehensive
systematic analysis of
key aspects of area of
study and very good
conceptual
understanding of ideas
and techniques of
discipline.
High degree of ability
to structure and
synthesise information
and argument that
provides clarity
throughout the work.
Analysis appropriate
and precise.
Exceptional systematic
analysis of key aspects
of area of study and
excellent conceptual
understanding of ideas
and techniques of
discipline.
Very high degree of
ability to structure and
synthesise information
and argument that
provides clarity
throughout. Analysis is
most comprehensive.

The work may be of
publishable quality.
*Compensatable fail is only possible for compulsory (non-core) or optional modules, subject to University of Southampton Progression Regulations.
2
Percentage 0 - 34 35 – 49 50 – 59 60 – 69 70 - 79 80 - 100
Degree Class Fail Compensatable fail* Pass Merit Distinction Distinction
Independent Thinking

Shows independent
thinking. This may also
involve appraising the
bigger picture and
thinking outside the box.
Supports arguments with
clear and effective
examples/evidence.

Weighting: 20%
No clear signs of
independent thinking.
Weak signs of
independent thinking.
This work primarily
repeats the concerned
texts and/or fails to
appraise the wider
context.
Some signs of
independent thinking,
which are reflected in
the attempt to expand
the discussion and/or
linking different
concepts.
Good signs of
independent thinking,
which are reflected in
linking theoretical
concepts, providing
clear examples and/or
additional evidence to
support the main
argument.
Very good signs of
independent,
innovative and original
thinking, which are
reflected in strong
linking of theoretical
concepts, providing
powerful examples
and/or additional
evidence with
appropriate discussion
to support the main
argument.
Exceptional signs of
independent,
innovative and original
thinking, which are
reflected in going
above and beyond
critical linking of
theoretical concepts.
Critical and
contemporary
examples and/or
additional evidence
with appropriate
discussion to critically
illustrate the main
argument.
References

Relevant literature is
covered and referenced in
the Harvard style.

Weighting: 15%
Very limited/no
evidence of use of
literature.
Incorrect or no
citations or references
included.
Limited use of
literature.
Poor referencing with
numerous omissions
and errors.
Reasonable use of
literature.
Generally accurate and
consistent referencing
in the Harvard style but
with some errors.
Good use of literature.
Accurate and
consistent referencing
in the Harvard style
with few errors.
Very good use of
literature.
Very accurate and
consistent referencing
in the Harvard style,
with very few errors.
Excellent use of
literature.
Exceptionally accurate
and consistent
referencing using the
Harvard style with no
errors.
Structure

Provides a well-structured
document with
appropriate headings such
as introduction and
conclusion

Weighting: 15%

Incorrect or no
structure found in the
document.
Limited structure found
with textual errors,
very little use of
appropriate headings.
Satisfactory document
structure. Some or all
headings are present.
Some errors present,
which may be related
to document sections,
textual flow and/or
choice of words.
Good document
structure. Clear textual
flow and choice of
words.
Very good document
structure with very
confident textual flow
and choice of words.
Exceptional document
structure, with very
clear headings,
sections.
Excellent textual flow
and choice of words.