英国留学硕士论文评分标准详解。英国的老师经常说的一句话就是：“小组讨论是多人完成的，但是论文必须独立完成。”所有的学生都要从小组讨论中提炼出自己的观点。同小组的学生之间观点近似并没有关系，但是论述的理由必须是自己独立思考的结果。英国老师非常注重学生自己的观点。一般能在论文中提出自己观点的学生都会被老师好好嘉奖一番。
英国留学硕士写论文的时候，老师会给一份清单，让学生找自己有兴趣的话题，而选择同一个话题的人一般就分到一个组。然后，老师会给学生一大叠相关的资料，学生要自己分工回去阅读并做笔记，看完后同一小组的人相互讨论这个话题。这样做最大的好处在于，每个学生可以节省下不少阅读时间，同时，每个学生在向他人转述资料的过程中锻炼了总结和概括大意的能力。
英国留学硕士论文评分标准Mark Criteria
Distinction:70+
Comprehensive coverage of relevant issues
Independent and effective research and thinking
Excellent organization and illustration of arguments
Excellent range of reference to the appropriate primary and secondary sources
Clear and lucid academic writing in a discriminating register
Near-faultless presentation in accordance with the appropriate academic conventions.
Ethical issues central to all aspects of the project
Thoughtful project informed by background reading and making excellent use of data. Clear evaluation of methodological limitations
Sophisticated, subtle and probing analysis throughout, with near-faultless use of linguistic terminology
Merit:60–69
Thorough coverage of relevant issues
Substantial evidence of effective research and independent thinking
Very clear and effective organization and illustration of arguments
Wide range of reference to the appropriate primary and secondary sources
Clear academic writing in an appropriate register
Very good presentation in accordance with appropriate academic conventions with evidence of careful proofreading and correction.www.17net.net
Careful and informed approach to ethical issues
Thoughtful project design, with good use of data
Detailed and thorough analysis throughout, with accurate use of linguistic terminology
Pass:50–59
Fair coverage of relevant issues, but with some gaps
Evidence of research, with some independent thinking
A fair range of reference to the appropriate primary and secondary sources, but with some significant omissions
Writing in an academic register with satisfactory levels of precision and clarity
Good presentation in accordance with appropriate academic conventions, but evidence of insufficiently thorough proof-reading and of some shortcomings in referencing, bibliography, citation and matters of style.
Some thought given to ethical issues, and conforms to the University guidelines
Coherently designed project, though not always acting on background reading or methodological limitations to analyse data effectively
Some analysis offered in support of arguments, with largely accurate use of linguistic terminology.
Fail:49-40
Significant oversights in the coverage of relevant issues
Little evidence of research
Little critical analysis of texts and concepts
Little evidence of independent thinking
Weakly conceived, with a lack of clarity and purpose in the organization and illustration of the argument
A limited range of reference to primary and secondary sources
Writing in an inappropriate register, with lack of clarity and precision
Inaccurate presentation, evidence of weak or inconsistent use of academic conventions, poor proof-reading and serious problems with referencing, bibliography, citation, formatting or style.
Does not fully conform to the University guidelines for ethical research
Insubstantial project design producing little or poor analysis of data. Major methodological limitations
Little or inaccurate analysis, with poor use of linguistic terminology or conventions.
Below 40Poor coverage of the topic
Very little evidence of research
Poor and/or derivative use of secondary sources
Organization of material is incoherent, with serious errors in written expression and use of academic conventions
Serious errors in use of linguistic terminology and conventions
NB. Work which is plagiarised or unethical will incur penalties and may be awarded a mark of zero.
