Excellent/Very Good (70+)

Comprehensive (60-69)

Competent (50-59)

Adequate (40-49)

Poor  (0-39)

Understanding, Analysis, Synthesis, and Application

of Knowledge

Consistent perceptive and critical engagement with issues and themes based on comprehensive understanding of relevant concepts and theories; the analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge is consistently clear and effective.

Frequent perceptive and critical engagement with issues and themes; the analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge is generally clear and effective but occasional shortcomings in understanding of relevant concepts and theories are evident.

Overall, some perceptive and critical engagement with issues and themes, the analysis, synthesis and application of knowledge is mostly clear and effective but the essay in parts reveals rather superficial understanding of relevant concepts and theories.

Occasional critical engagement with key issues and themes but in general rarely goes beyond reproduction of relevant concepts and theories, impaired in parts by considerable inaccuracies.

No critical engagement with issues, and themes. Essay characterised by serious inaccuracies and misunderstandings.

Argumentation

Examines the question/issue/ problem from all important perspectives. Overall logic is clear. Premises or evidence strongly support conclusions. Counter-evidence or rival positions addressed. Arguments fit together and build a compelling case.

Examines the question/issue/ problem from most of the important perspectives. Expresses own position, and argumentative structure is clear and logical, but some arguments underdeveloped or some considerations overlooked.

Examines the question/issue/ problem from some of the important perspectives. Not all relevant arguments and counter arguments are fully examined. Offers own position but reasoning is sometimes impaired by weak, emotive, or inconsistent argumentation.

Examines the question/issue/ problem from a single perspective. Only minimal examination of relevant arguments and counterarguments.

Offers own position, but the arguments are not put forward explicitly and not sufficiently supported.

Arguments are confused and illogical. Student fails to present and defend a coherent position. Offers own position, but arguments are flawed, disorganised, or difficult to identify or understand.

Structure / Organisation

Introduction clearly states writer’s thesis or position, and conclusion clearly summarizes main arguments. Development of ideas is structured into appropriate paragraphs with fluent transitions. Each paragraph containing a central idea which is developed throughout the paragraph with supporting details.

Introduction states writer’s thesis or position, and conclusion summarises main arguments. Development of ideas is structured into appropriate paragraphs, but some paragraphs lack supporting detail or contain unrelated details.

Introduction and conclusion are included and generally capture the essence of the topic and discussion. It is evident that the development of ideas is structured into different paragraphs, but some paragraphs lack a central idea or supporting detail

Introduction and conclusion are included but do not adequately capture the essence of the topic and discussion. Limited evidence that the development of ideas is structured in meaningful paragraphs. Construction a paragraph with a central idea and supporting details is limited.

Introduction and conclusion are unclear, lack detail or are missing altogether. Very little evidence of organnising the essay into paragraphs with one central idea and supporting details. Hence the development of ideas is unclear.

Written expression

The language contains very few, if any, errors in grammar and vocabulary. If slips are present, the meaning is still clear. Conventions of academic writing (e.g. citation, references, footnotes, etc.) are followed meticulously.

The language is generally accurate but contains some systematic errors in complex grammar and vocabulary. Conventions of academic writing (e.g. citation, references, footnotes, etc.) are followed apart from the occasional oversight.

The language is mostly accurate; and errors, when they occur, are more often in complex grammar and vocabulary. Errors are distracting but the overall meaning is still intelligible. Conventions of academic writing (e.g. citation, references, footnotes, etc.) are followed but at times inconsistencies and/or errors occur.

The language is sufficient for arguments to be understood with effort. However, the language contains frequent errors in simple and complex grammar and vocabulary that are distracting. Conventions of academic writing (e.g. citation, references, footnotes, etc.) are followed but show many inconsistencies and/or errors.

Errors in language and vocabulary are so frequent and distracting that the essay is largely incomprehensible. Does not adhere to the conventions of academic writing (e.g. citation, references, footnotes, etc.).