School of Law
Postgraduate Feedback Sheet

Please complete only those sections marked with an asterisk.

*Student Reg No: / Agreed Mark:
*Module Code/Title:
*Question No: / *Actual Word Count:

To be completed by markers:

First Marker Name: / Mark:
Second Marker Name: / Mark:

Feedback Grid

Criteria on the grid are simplified guides to strengths and weaknesses with ticks indicating the examiner/s’ ratings for this piece of work. They are an ‘aide-memoir’ for markers but are not equally weighted, nor weighted the same for each piece of work. Assessors may judge other aspects such as innovation, effort, idiosyncrasy, flair, misunderstanding, repetition, verbosity, opinion and so forth, so the same grid references on feedback forms may not result in the same overall mark either between students or between pieces of work. The grid indicates the elements students can develop in order to improve their coursework.

Excellent / Very good / Good / Adequate / Weak / Poor
Research
Content / Impressive. Independent research. Great breadth of sources. Sophisticated content. Beyond requirement for the module. Professional standard. / Relevant, independent research. Sources used with skill to support thorough content. Very good example of PG work / Evidence of relevant research, mostly effectively used to support good content. Good PG work. / Sufficient evidence of research and reading. Some omissions or inaccuracies in content. Adequate for PG
Oddly used / Lacking sufficient, properly used or accurate research. Some essential content missing or wrong. Not PG standard. / Little discernible use of research
or misuse or abuse of research. Weak or irrelevant content. Well below PG standard.
Rating
Structure
Focus / Clear, confident interpretation of the question. Innovative, coherent, apposite response. Experienced and well organised. / Structurally and argumentatively coherent response to the question. Shows mature skill. / Fairly well structured. Argument relevant to the question. Evident competency. / Fair attempt at a developed argument but not always focused on the question or lacks confidence. / Structure illogical, disorganised,
and/or drifts off the question. Lacks academic approach. / Unstructured, disorganised and/or doesn’t relate to the question. Shows inexperience or failure to understand task.
Rating
Critical Ability / Rigorous. Deeply interrogative. Offers solutions or raises new queries. Advances area. Doctoral/ professional standard. / Sophisticated, mature critical analysis with intellectual rigour and original insight. Doctoral potential / Sufficiently critical reasoning, evident understanding but little originality / More descriptive than analytic. Showing some understanding
Just PG level / Anecdotal, descriptive and uncritical. Understanding Too superficial or limited for PG work. / Hearsay, subjective opinion or just wrong with little evidence of understanding. Well below PG level
Rating
Style
References / A pleasure to read and perfectly referenced. Lucid, stylish and appropriate to formal published academic work. / Confident, clear, accurate and appropriate style. Effective communication. Accurate referencing. VG example of PG style / Appropriate PG style with only occasional spelling and/or grammatical errors. References mostly done to PG standard / Attempts academic style but needs editing or with errors of spelling, grammar and /or missing / inaccurate refs. / Uneven style, with spelling, grammar and syntax errors.
Showing lack of care. Slight, missing or inaccurate referencing / Mostly unintelligible; poor style/presentation and/or much too brief. Sparse or wrong references.
Not academic standard.Very odd style and poor referencing rendering the content rather dubious.
Rating