Overview: Marking criteria
Everything you need to know about the marking criteria for Open Knowledge in Higher Education (OKHE)
This page lists the marking criteria for each piece of coursework.
The first piece of coursework, OKHE1, will not contribute towards your final mark. You will receive formative feedback for your work.
The second piece of coursework, OKHE2, contributes towards your final mark. You will receive formative feedback and a mark for your work.
You can find further support and guidance on academic writing here: Library support for writing
First assessment: OKHE1
Your understanding of Open Knowledge as it relates to one aspect of your local, professional practice.
OKHE1 // Marking criterion 1
Your analysis of the OKHE theme which you are relating to your professional practice
Level descriptions and feedback:
- [HIGHER (NO GRADE)] The post is analytical in style and approach. It includes relevant use of evidence and sources in support of analysis. The post is a coherent whole.
- [LOWER (NO GRADE)] The post should offer more in its analysis of one OKHE theme. The post should use links to evidence connections to the author’s professional practice and the context in which they sit.
OKHE1 // Marking criterion 2
Your connections to professional practice
- [HIGHER (NO GRADE)] The post interprets the connection between professional practice and an OKHE theme for the reader.
- [LOWER (NO GRADE)] The post could do more to explicitly relate open knowledge to the professional practice of the author. The post should offer more analysis then description of processes, explaining more why things are done.
Second assessment: OKHE2
You have been asked to write an opinion piece for The Conversation on openness in higher education. Your post should demonstrate a critical understanding of openness as it relates to current practices, policies or cultures in higher education. Your opinion should be informed by what you have heard and what you have read. References and links should be present and these should include at least one link to a post from OKHE1.
Each criterion has two levels: Pass, and Unsatisfactory/Fail*. Non-submission or academic malpractice will result in a mark of zero.
OKHE2 // Marking criterion 1
Your critical understanding of open knowledge and the role that it plays in higher education.
- [PASS] The post demonstrates a critical understanding of the theoretical issues in higher education where open knowledge is concerned, and draws upon relevant knowledge and evidence in the area.
- [COMPENSATABLE FAIL*] The post should include more detail to clearly relate its content to the higher education environment. The post should demonstrate a deeper level of understanding through establishing the fit of open knowledge in higher education and what that might mean.
- [FAIL] The post should show evidence of the author’s engagement with and reflection on a relevant topic, including reference to relevant material. The post should more clearly demonstrate understanding of the facts and issues.
OKHE2 // Marking criterion 2
Contribution to the overall conversation on open knowledge practice in the wider higher education landscape.
- [PASS] The post clearly demonstrates the advancement of the author’s opinions on open knowledge and its role in higher education. The post contributes towards the development of open knowledge beyond the author’s institution.
- [COMPENSATABLE FAIL*] The post should provide more detail regarding the author’s opinions, adding their own original insight and perspective into the wider open knowledge dialogue.
- [FAIL] The post should show an attempt to develop a structured outcome or argument. The post should be a coherent whole.
*compensatable fail/fail if in receipt of APL
