Chapter 7 Project Marking Criteria
7.1 Marking process
Students are entitled to receive formative feedback on the submission of their draft project [key dates]. A grade will not be awarded for this submission and only generic feedback will be provided (areas of strength, areas that require improvement, missing information, other general academic themes). The formative feedback template can be viewed under Appendix V.
Final projects will be marked independently by the student’s supervisor and verified by one other member of staff from the Staffordshire University School of Health, Education, Policing and Science. Where there are significant discrepancies between the first marker and second verification marker (either within classification boundaries or at a classification borderline), and this discrepancy cannot be resolved between the two markers, this should be reported to the Head of Department.
7.2 Allocation of Marks
Reviewers will mark the work based on five broad categories:
| Generic Marking Criteria | Weighting (%) |
|---|---|
| Written Communication, Presentation and Referencing | 10 |
| Background | 25 |
| Methodology | 25 |
| Results | 15 |
| Discussion | 25 |
| TOTAL | 100 |
The specific marking rubric for the written research project can be viewed in Appendix VI.
7.3 Penalties
Instances of academic dishonesty will be viewed in an extremely serious light, and appropriate action will be taken. Academic dishonesty is clearly defined in Section 4.2 of the University’s “Undergraduate Modular Framework Regulations”.
7.3.1 Over length
Students will be penalised for exceeding the word limit for the dissertation. In line with the Staffordshire University School of Health, Education, Policing and Science policy regarding word limits, where a dissertation is over-length a penalty may be applied.
7.3.2 Artifical Intelligence
We acknowledge that Generative AI tools can make some academic tasks more efficient, but we all have a responsibility to ensure they are used in a way that upholds academic integrity.
Maintaining academic integrity requires human direction over how generative AI is leveraged. It is unlikely that copying and pasting from a generative AI tool will ever be appropriate practice in a summative assessment.
You are expected to complete assessments with honesty and integrity. This means the work you submit must be your own. If you use AI to help with aspects of the summative assessment task (i.e. planning, thought generation, editing etc.) you must acknowledge it. Copying and pasting AI-generated content without proper credit is considered academic misconduct.
7.3.2.1 Can I use AI for assignments?
- Yes, but… make sure to use it ethically and to credit it properly. For example, if AI helps you draft ideas or structure your work, you should mention this in your assignment (how to acknowledge AI use is detailed below).
7.3.2.2 Acknowledge AI use:
If you use AI in your work, state how it helped. For instance, “I used ChatGPT to generate a series of high-level ideas to help create a structure for this report.” Always be clear about how AI contributed to your work. AI is a powerful tool, but it must be used responsibly.
Other acceptable ways to use Generative AI to support your academic learning,
- Mind Mapping – generate high-level ideas/themes
- Outline for the assessment – generate a assessment plan/structure based on a series of ideas/themes
- Ask for explanations – explain or summarise a concept you’ve come across in the literature
- Writing suggestions – grammar, spelling, tone of voice suggestions
If you’re unsure about how to use AI in your assignments, talk to your tutors for guidance.
7.3.2.3 Need more information?
Check out the library resources on the ethical use of AI tools in academia Home - AI - Library at Staffordshire University (staffs.ac.uk)
7.3.3 Plagiarism
It is an academic offence for students to represent work as their own that has been copied, in its entirety or in part, from unacknowledged sources. Specifically, plagiarism is defined as:
- submitting an essay/written work that had been extensively copied from a textbook/article or from the work of another student
- submitting an essay/written work making significant use of unattributed quotations from textbooks/articles, etc, or from the work of another student
- submitting an essay/written work making significant use of unattributed digital images (such as graphs, tables, photographs) taken from textbooks/articles or from the work of another student
- allowing or being involved in allowing another student to copy an essay, piece of written work or physical or digital images.
- Submitting for assessment work previously submitted for assessment on a different module, award or at a different institution as if it were new work
Any suspicion of plagiarism will be investigated in accordance with the Staffordshire University Academic Conduct Procedure.
7.3.4 Research Misconduct
“Any action which could give you, or someone else, an unfair advantage in an assessment, including examinations. It is also any action which could undermine the fairness of assessment and research at the University” will be investigated in accordance with the Staffordshire University Academic Conduct Procedure.
Staffordshire University expects all research undertaken at the University or conducted in its name to be carried out to the highest standards of integrity. Failure to adhere to the Staffordshire University Code of Practice for Research will be investigated in accordance with the Staffordshire University Academic Conduct Procedure.
This includes, but is not limited to, conducting research without prior approval from the Staffordshire University School of Health, Education, Policing and Science, Sport and Science Department ethics panel, conducting research that differs to that submitted to the ethics panel without the changes being approved, and any suspicion of data falsification and/or fabrication.