Criterion 1: Content Criterion 2: Structure/organisation/task completion Criterion 3: Evidence of research and citation
H1
80-100%
Outstanding
– Excellent content and extended thinking
– Evidence of conceptual clarity
– Development of highly engaging central argument
– Independent thinking; displays a ‘voice’
– Coherent and logical
– Task completed
– Clear paragraphs with logical connections
– Extremely well-written (grammar etc.)
– Within word limit
– Uses appropriate number of scholarly references
– Evidence of wider reading and research
– Systematic application of academic referencing style
– Well integrated source material
H2A
75-79%
Very high
standard
– Strong content and some extended thinking
– Evidence of conceptual clarity
– Development of a central argument
– Independent thinking; displays a ‘voice’
– Coherent and logical, with minor inconsistencies
– Task completed
– Clear paragraphs with logical connection
– Fairly well-written (minimal errors in grammar etc.)
– Within word limit
– Uses appropriate number of scholarly references
– Evidence of some wider reading and research
– Systematic application of academic referencing style
– Integrates source material fairly well
H2B
70-74%
High standard
– Fairly strong content and some attempt at extended
thinking (though not always convincingly)
– Evidence of conceptual clarity; minor gaps may be evident
– Development of a clear argument, though the central
point is not always sustained/evident.
– Some independent thinking; displays a ‘voice’
– Coherent and logical, with some inconsistencies
– Task completed, though some aspects of assignment not
well balanced
– Clear paragraphs, with connections between them.
– Some writing is weak or lacks clarity/focus.
– Fairly clear writing, but with persistent errors
– Within word limit
– Uses appropriate number of scholarly references
– Some evidence of wider reading and research
– Systematic application of academic referencing style,
although with some mistakes.
– Integrates source material, though not always well.
H3
65-69%
Sound work
– Only moderately strong content; some attempt at
extended thinking (though not always convincingly)
– Some conceptual clarity; gaps are evident
– Some attempt to develop central argument.
– Limited independent thinking.
– Coherent, but with inconsistencies
– Task completed; aspects of assignment not well balanced
– Mostly clear paragraphs, with connections between them.
– Writing is sometimes weak or lacks clarity/focus.
– Writing has errors of grammar/spelling etc.
– Within word limit
– Uses appropriate number of scholarly references
– Limited evidence of wider reading and research
– Systematic application of academic referencing style,
although with evident mistakes.
– Integrates source material, though not always well.
Pass
50-64%
Satisfactory
– Weak content; minimal attempt at extended thinking
– Some conceptual clarity; clear gaps are evident
– Limited attempt to develop/sustain central point.
– Limited independent thinking.
– Problems with coherence and logic.
– Task completed, though assignment not well balanced
– Paragraphs difficult to follow in parts; weak connections.
– Writing has consistent errors of grammar/spelling etc.
– Within word limit
– Uses appropriate number of scholarly references
– Limited evidence of wider reading and research
– Appropriate academic referencing, though with mistakes.
– Weak integration of source material.
Fail
<50%
Unsatisfactory
– Weak content; no attempt at extended thinking
– Lack of conceptual clarity
– No clear central argument.
– No independent thinking.
– Not coherent or logical.
– Task not completed
– Unclear and weak connections between paragraphs.
– Writing has consistent errors of grammar/spelling etc.
– Not within word limit
– Does not use appropriate number of scholarly references
– Very limited evidence of wider reading and research
– Poor application of academic referencing style, with
consistent mistakes, or no referencing
– Limited or no attempts to integrate source material.