examination feedback
ULMS 251: Corporate Social Responsibility
Examination Feedback, January 2013
This year’s much larger cohort achieved a set of results very comparable to the previous two years. Mean mark and standard deviation were almost identical and the percentage of failures was very marginally higher. There was however a noticeable drop in the number of students achieving marks of 70 and over; this was a disappointment. A clear majority of students achieved overall marks in the 50-59% range – that is they demonstrated a sound knowledge and understanding of core course materials, both conceptual and empirical. They also demonstrated some ability to focus on the question asked and to construct an argument. Students achieving marks in the range 60-69% showed all of these abilities plus a more advanced analytical ability, integrating conceptual and empirical material in a sustained, coherent argument. The very few students attaining marks of 70 and over showed the ability to generate original insights or perspectives.
Papers obtaining marks in the 40-49% range tended to show a range of weaknesses: evidence of shallow or patchy knowledge and understanding of core course materials, limited analysis (tending to be much more descriptive), a lack of structure, and a lack of focus on the specific question asked. They tend to simply relate information of general relevance to the topic of the question.
Failing students show a lack of basic knowledge and understanding of core course materials and a serious inability to construct an argument focused on the actual question asked. They tended to be extremely descriptive and lacking meaningful structure. The worst answers were very thin in terms of both content and knowledge, were sometimes simply comprised of lists, and could be incoherent, mistaken, irrelevant, of merely extremely brief.
Examination Feedback, January 2013
This year’s much larger cohort achieved a set of results very comparable to the previous two years. Mean mark and standard deviation were almost identical and the percentage of failures was very marginally higher. There was however a noticeable drop in the number of students achieving marks of 70 and over; this was a disappointment. A clear majority of students achieved overall marks in the 50-59% range – that is they demonstrated a sound knowledge and understanding of core course materials, both conceptual and empirical. They also demonstrated some ability to focus on the question asked and to construct an argument. Students achieving marks in the range 60-69% showed all of these abilities plus a more advanced analytical ability, integrating conceptual and empirical material in a sustained, coherent argument. The very few students attaining marks of 70 and over showed the ability to generate original insights or perspectives.
Papers obtaining marks in the 40-49% range tended to show a range of weaknesses: evidence of shallow or patchy knowledge and understanding of core course materials, limited analysis (tending to be much more descriptive), a lack of structure, and a lack of focus on the specific question asked. They tend to simply relate information of general relevance to the topic of the question.
Failing students show a lack of basic knowledge and understanding of core course materials and a serious inability to construct an argument focused on the actual question asked. They tended to be extremely descriptive and lacking meaningful structure. The worst answers were very thin in terms of both content and knowledge, were sometimes simply comprised of lists, and could be incoherent, mistaken, irrelevant, of merely extremely brief.