| Organisation: Answers all aspects of the question in a clear and logical manner 30% | Incomplete answer. No organisational structure to frame the response. | Has made some attempt to answer all aspects of the question. Presentation of ideas adequate, but could be stronger. | Responded to all aspects of the question with some valuable insights. A clear and logical response. | Responded to all aspects of the question with many valuable insights. A strong and persuasive response. | Responded to all aspects of the question with evidence of wide research and in depth knowledge. A professional and persuasive response. |
| Research: Evidence of research and reference to the literature 30% | Little evidence of research or reference to the literature. | Minimal but adequate evidence of research and reference to the literature. | Regular reference to research and the literature. | Regular reference to wide research and literature outside the course readings. | Selective and informed reference to relevant research and literature outside the course readings. |
| Recommendation: Strength, coherence, support and evidence base of social impact investment proposal 35% | Unsubstantiated and weak recommendation. | Clear recommendation, but lacking some coherence and evidence. | Clear, strong recommendation. Adequate evidence. | Clear, strong recommendation with logical evidence base. | Creative recommendation with strong persuasive and coherent evidence. |
| Presentation of written assignments: Writing style, structure, editing, Harvard referencing and word limit (+/- 10% variation) 5% | Unsatisfactory performance in 3 or more of these criteria: Writing style: unclear / non-academic style; distracts from content / readability. Report structure: poor and unclear. Editing: frequent errors of spelling / grammar. Referencing: significant errors. Word limit: did not comply with word limit. | Generally met these criteria:
Writing style: clear and basic academic style. Report structure: basic, but clear. Editing: some errors with spelling / grammar. Referencing: a few errors. Word limit: slight deviation from prescribed word limit. | Generally met these criteria:
Writing style: generally expresses complex disciplinary ideas and information clearly. Report structure: generally coherent and logical. Editing: very few errors. Referencing: very few errors. Word limit: complied with word limit. | Generally met these criteria:
Writing style: consistently expresses complex disciplinary ideas and information clearly. Report structure: consistently coherent and logical. Editing: fewer than two errors in spelling / grammar. Referencing: fewer than two errors in referencing. Word limit: complied with word limit. | Generally met these criteria:
Writing style: excellent academic style detailing disciplinary ideas and arguments clearly and precisely. Report structure: strong, providing coherent arguments, ideas and information in a logical way. Editing: thorough, with no errors in spelling / grammar. Referencing: no errors. Word limit: complied with word limit. |