<50 (F)

50-64 (P)

65-74 (C)

75-84 (D)

>85 (HD)

Evidence of research

Shows little or no evidence of research. Use of literature and additional materials is limited and/or largely irrelevant. Does not include at least two recently published sources external to the course, and/or at least two of the required readings from the course.

Shows some awareness of related research and draws on some relevant literature. Uses only immediately available information and does not draw effectively on academic literature and other sources to support claims.

Engages with the relevant and appropriate literature. Demonstrates awareness of the relevant field of study and key debates within in. Use of non-academic sources is appropriate.  Uses a variety of sources to support claims.

Shows greater critical engagement with the literature. There is a clear ability to identify high-quality sources. There is clear evidence that the author has read widely, has consulted a variety of different sources and understands their contribution to essay question/topic.

Shows advanced engagement with the literature. The work demonstrates an advanced ability to identify high-quality sources and critically assess them. The author engages in a dialogue with literature that clearly situates their own argument with broader scholarly debates.

Critical analysis

Argument is descriptive, unclear, contradictory and/or wholly unpersuasive. Limited to no engagement with the essay question/topic.

Addresses the essay question/topic, however, demonstrates limited ability to identify its scholarly importance. The work avoids engaging with complexity and largely relies on descriptive analysis.

Can break large ideas, concepts or problems down into components parts and explain them. Provides critical analysis of multiple aspects of essay question/topic, developed through some reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of related arguments.

Shows deeper engagement with key concepts and debates, demonstrating an advanced knowledge and understanding of ideas, concepts or problems. Clear in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of related arguments.

Offers a sophisticated and unique perspective that provides a clear, nuanced and persuasive critical analysis of the essay question/topic. Evaluates the topic from a coherent and consistent position and has powerful rationale for its defence.

Argumentation

Poor development of argument, which is either illogical or insufficient structured.  The argument lacks coherence with little/no use of evidence to support its claims. Large sections of irrelevant discussion may be included.

Basic development of argument, though with some poorly supported or substantiated claims and/or vague and generalised assertions. Argument may be hard to discern. Some of the discussion may not relevant.

Development of a clearly identifiable argument that engages with essay question/topic and is supported by evidence and research. Argument is weakened by the presence of some vague and generalised assertions, or by discussion that confuses of detracts from the argument.

Logically developed, coherent, and persuasive argument with good use of evidence and research to substantiate claims. Some minor issues related to argumentation may be present. All discussion is relevant to the argument and advances it in some way.

Demonstrates and highly persuasive, thoughtful and unique argument with no issues with argumentation. All discussion is clearly relevant and effectively prosecutes the argument.

Presentation

Does not follow a coherent of logical structure. Poorly written to the extent of being difficult to comprehend.

Adheres to most expectations regarding the formatting and presentation of work.  Follows an appropriate essay structure. Writing may be confusing or awkward, though can be understood.

Adheres to all expectations regarding the formatting and presentation of work.  Structure supports the argument. Writing is clear.

The structure of the essay is logical and coherent, providing an effective basis for making an argument. Adheres to all expectations and conventions with all expected attributes present. Writing is clear and effective.

Structure is coherent and logical and clearly provides a strong basis for making an argument. All expected attributes present but have been creatively interpreted. A unique but appropriate presentation of work. Writing is clear and exceptionally persuasive.

Referencing

Absence or inaccurate use of Harvard referencing conventions. May constitute an academic integrity issue.

Basic Harvard referencing accurate but lacks consistency. Citations may be missing.

Consistent use of Harvard of referencing with some errors.

Use of Harvard referencing is accurate and consistent. Contains only very minor errors.

Use of Harvard referencing is accurate, consistent and appropriate. Without error.