An exploration of common misconceptions in language teaching in the EFL context

In arriving at a judgement of the mark to be given for an assessment or the dissertation, the

following broad College assessment criteria are used. Throughout the year, students are given

lettered grades only as an indication of the grade boundary within which their mark falls.

Numbered marks will be available only once the Board of Examiners has met in November.

and critical ability

• Authoritative, full understanding of all the issues with originality in analysis
• Full range of sources used selectively to support argument
• Coherent and compelling argument well presented

originality and independent thought, ability to make informed judgements. Highest professional standards of

presentation

publishable quality, professional standards of presentation

the ability to analyse primary sources critically, very good standards of presentation. These criteria have been

applied to the MA programme as follows. A mark of 70 or above is awarded when students show:

• Wide reading
• Relevant literature has been selected and interpreted
• A very good grasp of the major substantive and theoretical issues relevant to the chosen topic
• A well developed understanding of the relationship between theory and practice, where appropriate
• Independent analytical thinking, critical insight, sophisticated reasoning and creativity
• Very well structured, well – focused and coherent argument
• Very well presented with accurate and appropriate referencing

• Independent, critical evaluation of full range of theories with some evidence of originality
• Complex work and concepts presented, key texts used effectively
• Argument concise and explicit

• Relevant literature has been selected and interpreted
• The student has read around the topic and has looked at a range of ideas and synthesised relevant points

to make a coherent argument

• A grasp of the relationship between theory and practice, where appropriate

• Some evidence of critical insight and creativity
• Well presented with accurate and appropriate referencing

B 60 – 64: Well developed relevant argument, good degree of accuracy and technical competence.

principles

• Some capacity to reflect critically but with no significant evidence of originality
• Sound knowledge base of primary and secondary sources
• The argument is developed but lacks fluency

C 50 – 54: Broadly satisfactory, narrow argument, contains inaccuracies

show evidence of most of the following:

• The most obvious literature has been interpreted and used correctly but you are left thinking ‘yes but you’ve

missed out a couple of key authors’

• The argument is coherent in parts but is weak in others
• There is some evidence that the student understands what has been read
• Some evidence of critical insight or creativity
• There will be indications that the student has grasped fundamental concepts and procedures in the field
• The work is adequately presented and referenced

limited critical ability

• Lack of understanding and focus
• Limited sources
• Argument not fully developed and lacks structure
• Patchy overall knowledge, presentational weakness, little evidence of independent

thought

• Shows almost no insight into the problem or topic
• Irrelevant sources and/or out of date sources
• Argument not developed, confused and incoherent
• Fundamental mistakes, poor/unacceptable presentation

a fail when students do not satisfy the above criteria. The work will show many of the following

faults:

• Relevant literature has either not been interpreted correctly or used inappropriately
• The student has not looked at a range of relevant ideas;
• The student has not synthesised relevant points to make a coherent argument;
• Research involved in the writing of module work may be poorly organised and

inadequately discussed.

• Work may also be given a mark below 50 for poor presentation i.e. of a standard not

consistent with that expected for work at this level. The general impression will be that

this work is not yet at Master‟s level.

received a mark of 60 or above. Students are strongly advised to examine these assignments in

order to gain a „feel‟ for what has been accepted as good academic work.

Many of the very best assignments:

• have a strong introduction which says what will be explored in the assignment
• have been carefully sectioned with sub-headings
• have clear summaries/conclusions which pick up the question/issue from the title
• have been carefully proof-read (a hard copy – not just a machine spell check)
• have an up to date literature base or, if older work is used, its use is justified
• do not just provide a list/account of the literature/key arguments but debate/dialogue with

the points being rehearsed

• are thoughtful, raise questions, explore contrasting points of view

• use of bullets to list points. This does not make an argument and should be avoided
• lack of proof-reading which leads to typographical errors and (in some cases) means that

meaning/argument is not always clear

• lack of adequate referencing – the assignment contains direct quotations which have no

page reference attached

• sometimes the assignments are repetitious – points made in the assignment are cut and

pasted to the end to work as a conclusion

• where students construct their own titles these are sometimes too vague and need

clarification. This lack of focus means that the assignment will be less well organised/lack

clarity

• in some cases, not all parts of the set question are addressed
• some care needs to be taken with reference to literature which precedes the National

Curriculum etc. (literature not relevant)

• in some cases, the names of key writers are incorrectly typed up
• in some assignments, students just report what they have read. A good mark requires

some discussion and analysis

• plagiarism: remember that plagiarism is a serious examination offence and will be

dealt with accordingly