FOOD20003 2022
Assignment Self-Assessment
Proficient Achieved Developing Not demonstrated
Layout
Student details,
use of headings &
subheadings,
adherence to all
formatting &
word limit
requirements
(15%)
The author has clearly set out the essay
in a scientific manner, including suitable
headings/subheadings and adhering to
formatting requirements (inclusion of
cover page (e.g. title, student and course
details), font size and margins etc.
Word limit adhered to.
Current format suitable for use in the
professional context.
(2.5 - 3.0)
The author has mostly set out the essay in a
scientific manner, including suitable
headings/subheadings and adhering to
formatting requirements (inclusion of cover
page (e.g. title, student and course details),
font size and margins etc.
Word limit adhered to.
Minor changes required to current format
for use in the professional context.
(1.6 - 2.4)
The author has somewhat made an
attempt to set out the essay in a scientific
manner.
There may be a lack of use of suitable
headings/ subheadings, and/or inclusion of
cover page (e.g. title, student and course
details), font size and margins etc.
Word limit adhered to.
Major changes required to current format
for use in the professional context.
(1.0 - 1.5)
There is no indication of an attempt to
follow layout instructions.
Lack of use of suitable headings/
subheadings and/or adherence to
formatting requirements (inclusion of
cover page (e.g. title, student and course
details), font size and margins etc.
Word limit may/ may not be adhered to.
Current format is not suitable for use in
the professional context.
(0 - 0.9)
Self-
Assessment
Content
Coverage of
material:
Introduction,
body of essay,
conclusion
(15%)
The topic is introduced, and groundwork
is laid as to the direction of the essay. At
least three main points as outlined in
topic are covered. Sound and logical
conclusion.
(2.5 - 3.0)
The topic is introduced, and groundwork is
somewhat laid as to the direction of the
essay. At least three main points outlined in
the topic are included.
Some sections of the pertinent content are
not covered in as much depth, or as explicit,
as expected.
Descriptive conclusion.
(1.6 - 2.4)
The topic is introduced. Some groundwork
is laid as to the direction of the essay.
Failure to address at least three main
points of discussion as outlined.
Some sections of the pertinent content are
included, but not covered in as much
depth, or as explicit, as expected.
Absent or unsupported conclusion.
(1.0 - 1.5)
Neither implicit nor explicit reference is
made to the topic as to the direction of
the essay.
Failure to address at least three main
points of discussion as outlined.
Illogical or absent conclusion.
(0 - 0.9)
Self-
Assessment
Content
Concise and
accurate
scientific writing.
Logical flow and
demonstration of
development and
depth of
information
(10%)
The author has articulated the points of
discussion accurately, clearly and
succinctly.
Pertinent content is developed and
covered in depth, without being
redundant in a logical flow.
(1.6 - 2.0)
The author has mostly articulated the points
of discussion accurately, clearly and
succinctly. Minimal repetition, irrelevant
and/or inaccurate information included.
Most sections of the pertinent content are
included, but not developed and covered in
as much depth, or as explicit, as expected.
Information is expressed in a logical flow.
(1.1-1.5)
Some repetition, irrelevant and/or
inaccurate information included, and/or
taken out of context.
Some sections of the pertinent content are
included and interpreted, but not covered
in as much depth, or as explicit, as
expected.
Most information is expressed in a logical
flow.
(0.6 - 1.0)
Substantial repetition, irrelevant and/or
inaccurate information included, and/or
taken out of context.
Lack of development and depth in a
logical flow. There is a basic flow from
one section to the next, but not all
sections follow in a logical order, and/or
a lack of development and depth.
Lack of logical flow demonstrated.
(0 - 0.5)
STUDENT NUMBER
This form is for you to self-assess your essay. There are three (3) pages and ten (10) sections. For each section, tick the box that you believe best describes
your level of achievement. Once you have completed this form, please submit via Canvas with your completed essay.
Proficient Achieved Developing Not demonstrated
Self-
Assessment
Content
Breadth of
scientific
coverage
(10%)
Excellent progression of materials from
basic information onto scientific papers.
A well-balanced presentation of
material; no bias or cherry picking of
material.
(1.6-2.0)
Good progression of materials from basic
information onto scientific papers.
A good balance of material presented with
minimal bias and/or cherry picking of
material.
(1.1 – 1.5)
Minimal progression from basic
information (e.g. textbook material) to a
deeper scientific approach (e.g. scientific
papers).
Some sections indicate bias and cherry
picking of material.
(0.6 - 1.0)
Minimal range of materials used; e.g.
Basic information from textbooks and/or
populist-public books only.
Biased content and cherry picking of
material evident.
(0 - 0.5)
Self-
Assessment
Content
Accuracy and
demonstration of
understanding of
material
(15%)
Excellent synthesis of material and
summary of ideas.
Well written, demonstrating a deep and
superior understanding
(conceptualisation).
(2.5 - 3.0)
Sound but occasionally inconsistent
synthesis of material and summary of ideas.
Well written, demonstrating a competent
understanding (conceptualisation).
(1.6- 2.4)
Inconsistent synthesis of material and
summary of ideas.
Partial but incomplete understanding with
many inaccuracies demonstrating a weak
understanding (conceptualisation).
(1.0 - 1.5)
Poor or inaccurate summary of ideas.
Absence in synthesis of material,
demonstrating little understanding of
materials.
(0 - 0.9)
Self-
Assessment
Content
Balance of
scientific
approach
(5%)
Scientific approach taken. All material
and factual statements supported by
scientific evidence (peer reviewed).
No personal views or opinions included.
(1.0)
Mostly scientific approach taken. Most
material and factual statements supported
by scientific evidence (peer reviewed).
Minimal personal views or opinions
included.
(0.75)
Minimal scientific approach taken.
Personal views and opinions expressed
outweigh factual information supported by
scientific evidence.
(0.5)
None or little attempt to source factual
information supported by scientific
evidence.
Personal views and opinions form the
basis of content.
(0.25)
Self-
Assessment
Visual Aids
Diagrams
Graphs
Tables
(10%)
All figures, tables and diagrams
professionally presented, appropriately
labelled and cited.
All visual aids have ‘stand-alone’ status
and are relevant, explain/enhance the
concepts discussed and are referred to in
the text.
(2.0)
Most figures, tables and diagrams
professionally presented, appropriately
labelled and cited.
Most visual aids have ‘stand-alone’ status
and are relevant, explain/enhance the
concepts discussed and are referred to in
the text.
(1.5)
An attempt made to use relevant visual
aids but may not be referred to in the text,
labelled or cited correctly and/or are
lacking ‘stand-alone’ status.
(1.0)
There is no attempt to use visual aids or
irrelevant/superfluous diagrams, graphs
or tables used.
(0)
Self-
Assessment
Proficient Achieved Developing Not demonstrated
Referencing
Adequacy,
citations and
referencing style
(15%)
Suitable number of references from
quality scientific/academic sources used.
In-text citations match reference list and
correct style of referencing undertaken.
(2.5 - 3.0)
Adequate number of references from quality
scientific/academic sources used, with some
use of commercial websites/popular
sources/books sourced.
Most In-text citations match reference list.
Minor errors style of referencing
undertaken.
(1.6 - 2.4)
Inadequate number of references from
quality scientific/academic sources used,
with many commercial websites/popular
sources/books sourced.
Many in-text citations do not match
reference list and incorrect or inconsistent
style of referencing undertaken.
(1.0 - 1.5)
Little attempt to reference quality
scientific/academic sources. Heavy
reliance on commercial
websites/popular sources/books.
Majority of in-text citations do not match
reference list and incorrect and/or
inconsistent style of referencing
undertaken.
(0 - 0.9 )
Self-
Assessment
Clarity Language,
spelling and
grammar
(5%)
Language is of a high standard, clearly
and accurately articulating the scientific
content. No spelling or grammatical
errors.
(1.0)
Language is mostly suitable and provides a
clear idea of the scientific content.
Minor/minimal spelling and grammatical
errors that have some impact on
presentation and understanding.
Needs minor changes to language and
grammar.
(0.75)
Language is too complex or simplistic in
parts and impacts partially on the scientific
content. Some sections of content have
been taken directly from original research
paper without individual synthesis and
expression. Some spelling and/or
grammatical errors throughout that impact
presentation and understanding. Needs
significant changes to language and
grammar.
(0.5)
Incomprehensible; language is too
complex or simplistic and impacts on the
scientific content.
Numerous spelling and/or grammatical
errors throughout. Many sections of
content have been taken directly from
original sources without individual
synthesis and expression.
(0)
Self-
Assessment
/20