Warning: these pages are currently being updated for 2015–16
A copy of the Guidelines issued to Assessors is included at the end of this document. The Guidelines show the marking scheme which the Assessors are asked to follow and the score sheet that is completed for each candidate.
Each dissertation is marked as follows:
|Introduction and Preparation||26%|
|Evaluation and Conclusions||20%|
Every dissertation will be read by at least two of the internal examiners. A viva voce examination or additional assessment by an expert may also be considered. A proportion will also be read by an external examiner.
Assessors primarily require the dissertation to be literate and tidy. It is not necessary to spend hours using an advanced graphics design package but it is necessary to write with correct grammar, in a clear and focused expository style using properly constructed sentences.
Strict adherence to the top-level arrangement described in Section 12 is regarded as part of the Presentation. Candidates who fail to put their names on the top right-hand corners of cover sheets, misunderstand the phrase “at most 100 words”, or omit the Proforma altogether, will lose marks for Presentation.
Most of the marks are scored in the five chapters in the body of the dissertation.
Assessors recognise that the precise partitioning prescribed by the five chapter headings will sometimes prove too serious a constraint. A writer might, for example, feel that it is essential to discuss some aspects of the Implementation in earlier chapters. Assessors will credit Implementation marks ahead of time in such circumstances. It is unnecessary to repeat the discussion in order to earn the marks.
The appendices are not marked but a consequence of following up a reference to an appendix may be an adjustment to the mark for a chapter in the main body of the dissertation.
No marks are explicitly awarded for difficulty. Assessors are well aware that some projects are more challenging than others and take this into account as they read the dissertation.
A trivial example might be the comparison of two projects which are very much the same except that one is written in Java and the other in BCPL. The project written in BCPL will be regarded as a little more challenging if only because there is a course on Java but none on BCPL. In consequence an Assessor might expect marginally more from the candidate who wrote in Java.