Here you will find the criteria by which your participation in tutorials or seminars is assessed and on which your Tutorial Assessment or Class Participation mark will be based. Class Participation Assessments (CPA) are graded in accordance with the criteria detailed below which refer to your preparation for the seminar/tutorial, contribution to discussion and engagement with other members of the seminar/tutorial (including tutors). The same criteria are applied to your participation in autonomous learning groups (ALGs) at honours level. Tutors will maintain a record of your attainment; if your level of participation falls below satisfactory by mid-semester, your Personal Tutor will contact you to arrange a meeting to discuss why this is the case. Full attendance is expected in all normal circumstances. Persistent absence without reasonable explanation may result in a fail mark for this component of the course, which counts for 10% of the overall grade for the course. In line with the University’s Policy of an inclusive curriculum, staff and students are reminded that ‘contributions to discussion’ need not only be verbal. Where appropriate, your mark will take into account relevant information included in your Reasonable Adjustments Schedule. English Literature Descriptors for Assessment of Class Participation Grade Criteria Exemplary 95% Provides evidence of exemplary preparation by offering imaginative, authoritative and original insights into the text being discussed. Proactively offers critically acute, perceptive and sophisticated contributions to discussion based on a compelling use of extensive textual evidence and authoritative and original engagement with relevant critical contexts/debates. Continually engages respectfully with others by responding thoughtfully to their comments, contributing to co-operative argument-building, and offering paradigm changing ways of approaching material. Highly Excellent 85% Provides evidence of highly excellent preparation by offering imaginative, authoritative and original insights into the text being discussed. Proactively offers sharply focused contributions to discussion based on a compelling use of textual evidence and sophisticated engagement with relevant critical contexts/debates. Continually engages respectfully with others by responding thoughtfully to their comments, contributing to co-operative argument-building, and offering potentially paradigm changing ways of approaching material. Excellent 75% Provides evidence of excellent preparation by situating accurate and detailed commentary and analysis of the text being discussed within a broader context (e.g. other courses, other literary texts, or theoretical frameworks) Continually contributes to discussion and proactively offers analysis, synthesis, and evaluation which helps to develop new approaches to the text. Continually engages respectfully with others by responding thoughtfully to their comments, contributing to co-operative argument-building, and suggesting alternative ways of approaching material. Very Good 65% Provides evidence of very good preparation by offering accurate and detailed commentary and analysis of the text being discussed. Consistently contributes to discussion and proactively offers their own evidence-based ideas that may be counter to the majority opinion. Consistently engages respectfully with others and encourages the development of others’ arguments. Good 55% Provides evidence of good preparation by being able accurately to describe the form and content of the text being discussed. Contributes to discussion when encouraged to do so but does not proactively offer ideas/opinions. Consistently engages respectfully with others by responding to their points in a constructive manner. Satisfactory 45% Provides evidence of adequate preparation by having read the text being discussed. Contributes to discussion infrequently with occasional inaccuracies. Engages respectfully with others but only infrequently. Fail 35% Provides little evidence of preparation. Makes few contributions to discussion which are often inaccurate. Engages only sporadically with others or lacks respect for others. Clear Fail 25% Provides no evidence of preparation. Any contributions to discussion are frequently inaccurate. Does not engage with others or lacks respect for others. Bad Fail 15% Provides no evidence of preparation. Does not contribute to discussion. Does not engage with others or is disrespectful of others. Very Bad Fail 5-0% Provides no evidence of preparation. Makes no contribution to discussion. Does not engage with others or is disrespectful of others. This article was published on 2024-08-13
