Class
|
Written work
|
Point on scale
|
Numerical equivalent
|
First
|
Shows sound control of the range of structures appropriate to the level, and exploits them essentially without error. Detail (e.g. gender, case) highly accurate.
Good and varied vocabulary; idiomatic use of standard language.
|
Excellent 1
High 1
Mid 1
Low 1
|
96
89
81
74
|
Upper Second
|
Exploits structures appropriate to the level, though with inconsistent control, possibly leading to slight difficulty in understanding.
Vocabulary, style and control of detail (e.g. adjective endings) quite good, but with significant lapses.
|
High 2.1
Mid 2.1
Low 2.1
|
68
65
62
|
Lower Second
|
Texts, whilst generally understandable, require significant effort on the part of the reader. The range of structures attempted is likely to be very limited and/or not to correspond to what has been studied at this level.
Control of grammar, vocabulary and style rather defective: large amount of detail missed.
Engagement with the subject matter is likely to be weak.
|
High 2.2
Mid 2.2
Low 2.2
|
58
55
52
|
Third
|
Texts very difficult to understand, possibly incomprehensible in places.
Little control of grammar and/or vocabulary. Very large amount of detail missed.
Engagement with the topic is likely to be poor.
|
High 3rd
Mid 3rd
Low 3rd
|
48
45
42
|
Fail
|
Texts extremely difficult/ impossible to understand.
Control of grammar, vocabulary, detail essentially absent.
|
High Fail
Mid Fail
Low Fail
|
38
25
12
|
Zero
|
essentially nothing of value
|
Zero
|
0
|
Each category may also be affected by considerations such as:
- the willingness to take risks;
- the attempt to introduce sophisticated/complex arguments;
- the relevance of points made;
- the readability of the text produced;
- the completeness of the text produced.