Assessment 2 ESSAY – Marking Criteria T1 2018.
| HD | D | C | P | F | |||||
| Structure and Design (20%) | |||||||||
| 8.5-10 Excellent presentation of assignment, double-spaced with Arial 11-point font. Title page included and all information included. Consistently accurate with spelling, grammar and paragraph structure. Organisation and structure is clear and easy to follow. (10%) | 7.5-8.4 Well-presented assignment, double spaced with Arial 11-point font. Title page included with most information included. Minimal (2-3) critical errors in spelling, grammar or paragraph structure. Organisation and structure is clear and relatively easy to follow.
| 6.5-7.4 Well-presented assignment, double spaced with Arial 11-point font. Title page included with a few errors or omissions. Few (3 – 4) critical errors with spelling, grammar or paragraph structure. Organisation and structure is appropriate and can be followed. | 5-6.4 Well-presented assignment, double spaced with Arial 11-point font. Title page included with several errors or omissions. Several (4-5) critical errors with spelling, grammar or paragraph structure. Organisation and structure is apparent although not easy to follow. | <5 Poorly presented. Double spacing not used. Arial 11-point font not used. Title page not included. Many (>6) errors with spelling, grammar or paragraph structure. Organisation and structure lacks clarity and difficult to follow. | |||||
| 8.5-10 Clear and succinct writing that is well organised and introduces the topics for discussion and outlines the direction of the discussion. Clear & succinct outlining of the main points and brings the argument to a logical close. Adheres to prescribed word count. (10%)
| 7.5-8.4 Mostly clear and succinct writing that introduces the topics for discussion and outlines the direction of the discussion. Generally, clear & succinct outlining of the main points and brings the argument to a logical close. Adheres to prescribed word count. | 6.5-7.4 Sufficiently clear and succinct writing that gives an appropriate introduction to the topics for discussion and outlines the direction of the writing. The structure outlines most of the main points and endeavours to bring the argument to a close. Adheres to prescribed word count. | 5-6.4 Some clear sections of writing that introduces some of the topics for discussion and shows some directed discussion. Some effort to outline the main points and bring the argument to a logical close. Topics may not be clearly introduced and only some main points are covered. Adheres to prescribed word count. | <5 No recognisable logical structure or presentation of topics for discussion in a clear and easy to understand manner. There is no logical close to the argument or summary points. Deviates significantly from prescribed word count (>+10% or <-10%). | |||||
| Approach and Argument (60%) | |||||||||
| 25.5-30 Scenario 1. Content provides comprehensive and critical discussion of the two areas and includes: · Independent reading and research · Relevant arguments · Supporting examples · Relevant theories and concepts · Evidence of originality
Covers
| 22.5-25.4 Content provides strong and appropriate discussion of the two areas and includes: · Independent reading and research · Relevant arguments · Supporting examples · Relevant theories and concepts · Evidence of originality
| 19.5-22.4 Content provides adequate discussion of the two areas and includes: · Independent reading and research · Relevant arguments · Supporting examples · Relevant theories and concepts · Evidence of originality
| 15-19.4 Content provides some relevant discussion of the two areas and includes: · Independent reading and research · Relevant arguments · Supporting examples · Relevant theories and concepts · Evidence of originality
| <15 Content provides no or inadequate discussion of the two areas and lacks many: · Independent reading and research · Relevant arguments · Supporting examples · Relevant theories and concepts · Evidence of originality
| |||||
| 22.5-25.4 Content provides strong and appropriate discussion of the two areas and includes: · Independent reading and research · Relevant arguments · Supporting examples · Relevant theories and concepts · Evidence of originality
| 19.5-22.4 Content provides adequate discussion of the two areas and includes: · Independent reading and research · Relevant arguments · Supporting examples · Relevant theories and concepts · Evidence of originality
| 15-19.4 Content provides some relevant discussion of the two areas and includes: · Independent reading and research · Relevant arguments · Supporting examples · Relevant theories and concepts · Evidence of originality
| <15 Content provides no or inadequate discussion of the two areas and lacks many: · Independent reading and research · Relevant arguments · Supporting examples · Relevant theories and concepts · Evidence of originality
| |||||
| Referencing (20%) | |||||||||
| 5 Consistently integrates references to support and reflect all ideas, factual information and quotations. (5%) | 3.75 Generally integrates references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations with 1 or 2 exceptions. | 3.25 Frequently integrates references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations, with 3 or 4 exceptions. | 2.5 Occasionally integrates references to support and reflect ideas, factual information and quotations, with 5 or 6 exceptions. | <2.5 Fails to or infrequent attempts (6 or more errors) to integrate references to support & reflect ideas, factual information & quotations. | |||||
| 5 Consistently accurate with in-text referencing. (5%) | 3.75 1-2 consistent in-text referencing errors identified. | 3.25 3-4 consistent in-text referencing errors identified. | 2.5 5-6 inconsistent in-text referencing errors identified.
| <2.5 Referencing is inconsistent with APA style. >6 inaccuracies with in-text referencing. | |||||
| 5 A minimum of 12 up-to-date references used including 6 journal articles as well as relevant books and websites. (5%) | 3.75 A minimum of 10 up-to-date references used including 5 journal articles as well as relevant books and websites. | 3.25 A minimum of 8 up-to-date references used including 4 journal articles as well as relevant books and websites. | 2.5 A minimum of 7 up-to-date references used including 3 journal articles as well as relevant books and websites. | <2.5 The required number of 7 references not used, or none are up-to-date. Journal articles not sourced or not peer-reviewed. Chosen websites not recognised. | |||||
| 5 Reference list appears in alphabetical order and fully adheres to reference list presentation guidelines. (5%) | 3.75 Reference list appears in alphabetical order and consistently adheres to reference list presentation guidelines. | 3.25 Reference list appears in alphabetical order and frequently adheres to reference list presentation guidelines. | 2.5 Reference list appears in alphabetical order and occasionally adheres to reference list presentation guidelines. | <2.5 Reference list does not appear in alphabetical order and does not adhere to reference list presentation guidelines. | |||||
Grade: Marker:
Comments:
Further information for students on Approach and Argument criterion (worth 60%):
Independent reading and research: You will be assessed on the extent, depth and relevance of your reading. You should make full use of the textbook and other readings, but it is essential that you do your own independent reading as well. This means making use of the library databases and catalogue and doing you own searches. Within the limitations of library resources, you should access the most relevant and most important works relating to your topic. It is difficult to provide exact requirements, but as a rough guide a major assignment would contain at least ten references. These references should be mainly sociological books, book chapters, or journal articles; other sources may be used as appropriate to supplement these. In general the following types of sources should be avoided when writing academic assignments—encyclopaedias, popular magazines, newspapers (except for providing up-to-date information or real life examples), introductory sociology textbooks, ordinary dictionaries (use the definitions in a specialist source; in some cases a sociology dictionary may be appropriate) and general internet sites (those containing information not peer-reviewed). You should rely mainly on specialist sources—avoid general or popular sources, except perhaps to provide evidence which is not available in the more specialist sources. Where possible use the original source, or an equivalent one.
Relevance of your argument: Your assignments should be relevant to the question or task set, and should be structured in a logical and coherent fashion.
Use of supporting evidence: Except for purely theoretical essays, it is important that you back up your arguments with appropriate and solid evidence. There is no point in simply asserting that something is true, you need to substantiate your major claims with relevant concrete information, statistical or other. In general, this would be evidence derived from sociological works that you have come across in your reading, although this may need to be supplemented with other kinds of evidence (from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, for example).
Sociological insight and understanding: You will be assessed on your ability to understand and to apply relevant concepts, theories and methodologies. Depending on the assessment task, you may only refer to one or two perspectives in a particular piece of work, but it is important to know how the perspective you refer to relates to other possible perspectives within the field. Theories do not develop in isolation. New perspectives develop through modification of previous ones, or as critical reactions against them. To appreciate any one perspective, you need to understand how it relates to the alternatives (e.g. Labelling Theory in relation to Parsons’ Sick Role). Thinking critically is an important skill which follows on from such appreciation. This means being able to assess the adequacy of the theoretical models being used by the writers you refer to, as well as the adequacy of the evidence they present to support these models. Purely descriptive accounts will not be acceptable.
Originality: To get a distinction or high distinction, there needs to be evidence of critical thinking and original thought. You are encouraged to create original arguments by analysing and evaluating the works of other people in the literature. Regardless of the grade you are aiming at, you should put things into your own words as much as possible.