MARK | 29 or less | 30 - 39 | 40 - 49 | 50 - 59 | 60 - 69 | 70 + |
CONTENT: Has the question been answered? | Vague, random, unrelated material | Some mention of the issue, but a collection of disparate points | Barely answers the question – just reproduces what knows about the topic | Some looseness/ digressions | Well focused | Highly focused |
TOPIC KNOWLEDGE Is there evidence of having read widely and use of appropriate and up to date material to make a case? | No evidence of reading. No use of theory – not even hinted at implicitly. | No evidence of reading. An implicit hint at some knowledge of theory, etc. | No evidence of reading. Very basic theories mentioned but not developed or well used. | Some reading evident, but confined to core texts. | Good reading. Good range of theories included. | Excellent reading. Well chosen theories. |
UNDERSTANDING & SYNTHESIS Are ideas summarized rather than being reproduced, and are they inter-related with other ideas? | No theory included. | Vague assertions/poor explanations. | Long winded descriptions of theory. | Some long winded sections. Some quotations, but stand alone. Some inter- connections. | Good summary of theory. Good use of quotations that flow with narrative. Good inter-connections. | Succinct, effective summaries of theory. Excellent choice and threading of quotations into argument. Good counterpoising of a range of perspectives. |
APPLICATION Does it show appropriate use of theory in a practical situation? | No examples | No/limited/ inappropriate examples | Few examples | Uneven examples | Good examples | Excellent range of examples. |
ANALYSIS Does it identify the key issues, etc in a given scenario, proposal or argument? | Vague assertions about issues. | Largely descriptive with no identification and analysis of central issues. | Limited insight into issues. | Some good observations. | Good, detailed analysis. | Comprehensive range of issues identified and discussed fully. |
EVALUATION & CONCLUSION Does it critically assess material? Are there a workable and imaginative solutions? | No evaluation. | Uncritical acceptance of material. | Some evaluation but weak. Little insight. | Good interpretation. Some but limited sophistication in argument. | Good critical assessment. Independent thought displayed. | Full critical assessment and substantial individual insight. |
REFERENCING Thorough and accurate citation and referencing | No referencing | No referencing | Limited/poor referencing | Some inconsistencies in referencing | Appropriate referencing | Appropriate referencing |
PRESENTATION Logical and coherent structure to argument and effective presentation | No structure apparent. Poor presentation. | Poor structure. Poor presentation. | Acceptable, but uneven structure. Reasonable presentation. | Reasonable structure. Good presentation. | Good argument. Well presented material. | Excellent argument. Very effective presentation format. |