Criteria
|
High
Distinction
84-100%
|
Distinction
75 – 84%
|
Credit
65 – 74%
|
Pass
50 – 64%
|
Fail
49%
|
INFORMATION,
RELEVANCE & DEPTH
MARK: / 8
|
Highly proficient and evidence of rigorous use of a wide range of relevant peer-reviewed research.
All key issues expertly canvassed
|
Scholarly use of a wide range of relevant peer-reviewed research. Most key issues identified
|
Used an adequate range of relevant peer-reviewed research. An acceptable number of key issues identified
|
Limited use of relevant peer-reviewed research. Some key issues identified
|
Insufficient or unacceptable range of relevant peer-reviewed research consulted.
Few or no key issues identified
|
CRITIQUE
ARGUMENT – EVIDENCE, EVALUATION
MARK: / 8
|
Logical argument developed in a scholarly fashion supported by critical evaluation of evidence. Considers alternative interpretations, limitations, and significance of context. Conclusion draws argument together in and coherent and scholarly manner.
|
Logically developed argument clearly supported by evaluation of evidence.
Comprehensive conclusion
|
Logically developed argument supported by evidence.
Effective conclusion
|
Argument is not well developed and supported.
Conclusion evident
|
Argument, if evidenced, not developed or supported
Substandard, or no merit to conclusion
|
IMPLICATIONS
MARK: / 6
|
Considered evaluation of the implications of relevant theories and research evidence for the lives and choices of workers and for their employing organisations, including importance of contexts. Shows deep critical reflection of and engagement with subject material
|
Evaluates the implications of relevant theories and research evidence for the lives and choices of workers and for their employing organisations. Shows detailed critical reflection of and engagement with subject material.
|
Considers the implications of relevant theories and research evidence for the lives and choices of workers and for their employing organisations. Critical analysis is evident, drawing on relevant subject material
|
Some consideration of the implications of some theories and research evidence for the lives and choices of workers and for their employing organisations.
Critical analysis attempted with some degree of competence
|
Little consideration of implications of theories and research evidence to the lives and choices of workers and for their employing organisations. Critical analysis below standard or not evident
|
EXPRESSION
MARK: / 4
|
Excellence demonstrated in the use of language, spelling, grammar, syntax and semantics; well-structured organization, with good flow. Well-proofed copy.
|
Competent use of language, spelling, grammar, syntax and semantics; good organisation and flow.
|
Skilful use of language, spelling, grammar, syntax and semantics; adequate organisation and flow.
|
Acceptable use of language, spelling, grammar, syntax and semantics; some degree of organisation and flow. Quotations used frequently
|
Substandard use of language, spelling, grammar, syntax and semantics; poor organisation and flow; revisions needed. Remediation required
|
PRESENTATION
MARK: / 4
|
Superior skill demonstrated in use of correct referencing style
Proficient in paraphrasing key comments and sparing use of direct quotations.
Essay expertly presented in accordance with a high standard of scholarship
|
Skill demonstrated in use of correct referencing style. Paraphrased key comments and used direct quotations very sparingly
Presentation set out with a notable standard of scholarship
|
Reasonable skill in use of correct referencing style. Direct quotations used sparingly.
Presentation set out with an acceptable standard of scholarship
|
Some inaccuracies in use of correct referencing style. . Quotations used frequently.
Presentation set out with some evidence of scholarship
|
Referencing is either insufficient or has significant inaccuracies
Quotations over-used and/or used when irrelevant
Presentation inadequate with little regard for standards of scholarship
|