Criterion 1: Content
Criterion 2: Structure/organisation/task completion Criterion 3: Evidence of research and citation
H1
80-100%
Outstanding
- Excellent content and extended thinking
- Evidence of conceptual clarity
- Development of highly engaging central argument
- Independent thinking; displays a ‘voice’
- Coherent and logical
- Task completed
- Clear paragraphs with logical connections
- Extremely well-written (grammar etc.)
- Within word limit
- Uses appropriate number of scholarly references
- Evidence of wider reading and research
- Systematic application of academic referencing style
- Well integrated source material
H2A
75-79%
Very high
standard
- Strong content and some extended thinking
- Evidence of conceptual clarity
- Development of a central argument
- Independent thinking; displays a ‘voice’
- Coherent and logical, with minor inconsistencies
- Task completed
- Clear paragraphs with logical connection
- Fairly well-written (minimal errors in grammar etc.)
- Within word limit
- Uses appropriate number of scholarly references
- Evidence of some wider reading and research
- Systematic application of academic referencing style
- Integrates source material fairly well
H2B
70-74%
High standard
- Fairly strong content and some attempt at extended
thinking (though not always convincingly)
- Evidence of conceptual clarity; minor gaps may be evident
- Development of a clear argument, though the central
point is not always sustained/evident.
- Some independent thinking; displays a ‘voice’
- Coherent and logical, with some inconsistencies
- Task completed, though some aspects of assignment not
well balanced
- Clear paragraphs, with connections between them.
- Some writing is weak or lacks clarity/focus.
- Fairly clear writing, but with persistent errors
- Within word limit
- Uses appropriate number of scholarly references
- Some evidence of wider reading and research
- Systematic application of academic referencing style,
although with some mistakes.
- Integrates source material, though not always well.
H3
65-69%
Sound work
- Only moderately strong content; some attempt at
extended thinking (though not always convincingly)
- Some conceptual clarity; gaps are evident
- Some attempt to develop central argument.
- Limited independent thinking.
- Coherent, but with inconsistencies
- Task completed; aspects of assignment not well balanced
- Mostly clear paragraphs, with connections between them.
- Writing is sometimes weak or lacks clarity/focus.
- Writing has errors of grammar/spelling etc.
- Within word limit
- Uses appropriate number of scholarly references
- Limited evidence of wider reading and research
- Systematic application of academic referencing style,
although with evident mistakes.
- Integrates source material, though not always well.
Pass
50-64%
Satisfactory
- Weak content; minimal attempt at extended thinking
- Some conceptual clarity; clear gaps are evident
- Limited attempt to develop/sustain central point.
- Limited independent thinking.
- Problems with coherence and logic.
- Task completed, though assignment not well balanced
- Paragraphs difficult to follow in parts; weak connections.
- Writing has consistent errors of grammar/spelling etc.
- Within word limit
- Uses appropriate number of scholarly references
- Limited evidence of wider reading and research
- Appropriate academic referencing, though with mistakes.
- Weak integration of source material.
Fail
<50%
Unsatisfactory
- Weak content; no attempt at extended thinking
- Lack of conceptual clarity
- No clear central argument.
- No independent thinking.
- Not coherent or logical.
- Task not completed
- Unclear and weak connections between paragraphs.
- Writing has consistent errors of grammar/spelling etc.
- Not within word limit
- Does not use appropriate number of scholarly references
- Very limited evidence of wider reading and research
- Poor application of academic referencing style, with
consistent mistakes, or no referencing
- Limited or no attempts to integrate source material.