微信客服：xiaoxionga100
微信客服：ITCS521
无代写-MMH349
时间：2022-05-01
MMH349 Employment Relations – Trimester 1 2022
Assessment Task 1 – Written Essay – Individual Assignment
DUE DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, 4 May 2022, by 8:00pm (AEST)
PERCENTAGE OF FINAL GRADE: 40%
WORD COUNT*: 3,000 words (excluding the reference list).
* Word counts are inclusive of all assessment task content except the reference lists. Word
counts provide a hard cap, which should not be exceeded.
Description
The aim of this task is for students, through research of discipline specific academic
literature and other authoritative sources (for example policy statements or submissions to
government established inquiries), to examine and seek to develop a comprehensive
understanding of select aspects of the legislation enacted for the purpose of regulating
Australian workplace relations and the debates that surround them, and to critically
evaluate the operation and impact of such legislation in the modern Australian employment
context.
Specific Requirements
Setting the scene:
The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cwlth) is the major legislation regulating Australian workplace
relations. It has been in operation for more than a decade. The business environment, state
of technology, labour market conditions, types of employment, and the economy more
generally, have all undergone significant change since it was first enacted. As such, there
has been a growing level of criticism directed towards the operation of the Act from
employer associations and the organisations they represent, and equally from the trade
union movement and the workers they represent. Many of these criticisms relate to
enterprise bargaining.
On one side of industry, the Australian Industry Group (AIG) has recently argued, in its
‘2022 Federal Election Policy Statements: Workplace Relations Policy – Enterprise
Agreements’, that “unless the current problems with the enterprise agreement system are
fixed the system is set to continue to wither on the vine” (p.1)
Page 2 of 8
On the other side of industry, Sally McManus Secretary of the ACTU (Australian Council of
Trade Unions) has also publicly criticised the bargaining system as it currently operates
under the Fair Work Act 2009, suggesting in a speech delivered on the 14th of July 2021, as
part of the Australia Institute’s 2021 webinar series, that:
The wage crisis for workers, the destruction of the fair go, the creation of a
working underclass, the betrayal of the great Australian bargain is the deliberate
outcome of conscious policy. It was caused by policies designed to weaken the
bargaining power of workers. When workers try and bargain in Australia, it is
like being tied to a chair and asked to stand up when every arm and every leg is
tied down ……the current laws do not support workers bargaining for wage
rises. Collective bargaining is harder than it has ever been for working
people……Our collective bargaining system needs to be updated and
rebalanced to give all workers the ability to access the system to deliver fair pay
increases.
Clearly, given that the enterprise bargaining processes set out in the Fair Work Act 2009
have been criticised by key stakeholders on both sides of industry, it is a system under
pressure, and is likely to be subject to reform following the 2022 Australian federal election.
The Assessment Task:
In the context of the background information presented above, you are required to research
and write an essay that presents a critical analysis of the following questions:
(1) As prescribed by the Fair Work Act 2009, what legal obligations and entitlements
need to be observed when employers and employees (and their unions) engage in
enterprise bargaining?
(2) What are the main criticisms of the enterprise bargaining provisions in the Fair Work
Act 2009 put forward by employer associations on behalf of employers, and what
remedies for reform are they arguing in favour of?
(3) What are the main criticisms of the enterprise bargaining provisions in the Fair Work
Act 2009 put forward by the Australian trade union movement on behalf of workers,
and what remedies for reform are they arguing in favour of?
Page 3 of 8
In answering the first question, you need only provide a summary of the enterprise
bargaining process as established by Fair Work Act 2009. In doing so, note that there is no
need to reproduce the provisions of the Act in full or word for word. Rather it is beneficial to
the learning process to discuss the provisions that you identify as pertinent to the questions
in your own words as much as possible. In answering the remaining two questions, you
need only offer representative examples of what you consider to be the most important
criticisms being put forward by the organisations in question, and similarly the most
significant arguments for reform. You should conclude the essay as to which set of
arguments appears the most compelling, and why you deem it to be so (i.e., consider the
strength of the evidence on which the arguments put forward have been made).
Presentation:
A professional-looking document builds credibility.
Your essay should be presented in a reader-friendly way, so please ensure it:
o has a title page (which includes the title of the task, your student number, name, and
the word count for your submission (excluding the reference list)
o is written in essay format
o is in arial 12pt font
o is 1.5 or double spaced with 2 cm margins on each side
o has numbered pages
o uses correct in-text referencing (Harvard system), and
o includes a reference list which is correctly formatted (Harvard system) and begins
on a new page.
Learning Outcomes
This task allows you to demonstrate achievement towards the unit learning outcomes. The
ULOs are aligned with specific graduate learning outcomes – that is, the skills and
knowledge graduates are expected to have upon completion of their studies – and this
assessment task is an important tool in determining achievement of those outcomes.
If you do not demonstrate achievement of the unit learning outcomes, you will not be
successful in this unit.
It is good practice to familiarise yourself with the ULOs and GLOs as they provide guidance
on the knowledge, understanding and skills you’re expected to demonstrate upon
completion of the unit. In this way they can be used to guide your study.
Unit Learning Outcome (ULO) Graduate Learning Outcome
(GLO)
ULO 1: Investigate the theories and concepts of
employment relations
GLO1: Discipline specific knowledge
GLO2: Communication
GLO4: Critical thinking
Page 4 of 8
ULO 4: Analyse how the Fair Work Act 2009 regulates
employment relations
GLO1: Discipline specific knowledge
GLO2: Communication
GLO4: Critical thinking
Submission
You are to submit your assignment in the Assignment Drop Box provided in the
CloudDeakin unit site on or before the due date.
When uploading your assignment, name your document using the following syntax:Deakin student ID number_your surname_ MMH349_A1.doc (or ‘.docx’). For example,
123456789_Jones_MMH349_A1.doc’.
Submitting a hard copy of these tasks is not required.
You must keep a backup copy of every assignment you submit, including group ones, until
the marked assignment has been returned. In the unlikely event that one of your assignments
is misplaced, you will need to submit your backup copy.
Any work you submit may be checked by electronic or other means for the purposes of
detecting collusion and/or plagiarism.
When you submit an assignment through your CloudDeakin unit site, you will receive an
email to your Deakin email address confirming that it has been submitted. You should check
that you can see your assignment in the Submissions view of the Assignment Dropbox folder
after upload, and check for, and keep, the email receipt for the submission.
Marking and feedback
The marking rubric for this task is provided at the end of this document.
It is always a useful exercise to familiarise yourself with the criteria before completing
any assessment task. Criteria act as a boundary around the task and help identify what
assessors are looking for specifically in your submission. The criteria are drawn from the
unit’s learning outcomes ensuring they align with appropriate graduate attribute/s.
Identifying the standard you aim to achieve is also a useful strategy for success and to
that end, familiarising yourself with the descriptor for that standard is highly
recommended.
Students who submit their work by the due date will receive their marks and feedback on
CloudDeakin 15 working days after the submission date.
Page 5 of 8
Extensions
Extensions will only be granted for exceptional and/or unavoidable circumstances
outside the student’s control.
Students seeking an extension for an assignment prior to the due date should apply directly
to the Unit Chair by completing the Assignment and Online Test Application Form, and then
emailing it to Dr Kerrie Saville kerrie.saville@deakin.edu.au Requests for extensions will
not be considered after 12 noon on the relevant due date. Applications for special
consideration after the due date must be submitted via StudentConnect.
Late submission
The following marking penalties will apply if you submit an assessment task after the due
date without an approved extension: 5% (2 marks) will be deducted from available marks
on the task (40) for each day late up to five days, and work that is submitted more than five
days after the due date will not be marked and will receive 0% for the task.
'Day' means calendar day for electronic submissions. The Unit Chair may refuse to accept
a late submission where it is unreasonable or impracticable to assess the task after the due
date.
Calculation of the late penalty operates as per the example provided below: this example is
based on the assignment being due on a Monday at 8:00pm.
• 1 day late: submitted after Wednesday 4/5 11:59pm and before Thursday 5/5 11:59pm–
5% penalty = 2 marks
• 2 days late: submitted after Thursday 5/5 11:59pm and before Friday 6/5 11:59pm – 10%
penalty = 4 marks.
• 3 days late: submitted after Friday 6/5 11:59pm and before Saturday 7/5 11:59pm – 15%
penalty = 6 marks.
• 4 days late: submitted after Saturday 7/5 11:59pm and before Sunday 8/5 11:59pm –
20% penalty = 8 marks.
• 5 days late: submitted after Sunday 8/5 11:59pm and before Monday 9/5 11:59pm – 25%
penalty = 10 marks.
Dropbox closes Monday 9/5/22 after 11:59pm AEST time. Late submissions, where no
approved extension or special consideration arrangement is in place, will not be accepted
once the drop box is closed. In this scenario students will be awarded a 0 on the task.
Support
The Division of Student Life provides a range of Study Support resources and services,
available throughout the academic year, including Writing Mentor and Maths Mentor
Page 6 of 8
online drop ins and the SmartThinking 24 hour writing feedback service at this link. If you
would prefer some more in depth and tailored support, make an appointment online with
a Language and Learning Adviser.
Referencing
Any material used in this assignment that is not your original work must be acknowledged
as such and appropriately referenced. You can find information about plagiarism and other
study support resources at the following website: http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/study-
support
Academic misconduct
For information about academic misconduct, special consideration, extensions, and
assessment feedback, please refer to the document Your rights and responsibilities as a
student in this Unit in the first folder next to the Unit Guide in the Resources area of the
CloudDeakin unit site.
MMH349 Trimester 1 2022 Assignment 1 Rubric
Very inadequate Inadequate Acceptable Good Very good Exceptional
Overall /40 marks 0 or more 12 of more 20 or more 24 or more 28 or more 32 or more
Discipline-specific
knowledge demonstrated
of the legal requirements
that need to be observed
under the Fair Work Act
2009 by parties
participating in enterprise
bargaining.
Total: 15 marks (GLO1)
Demonstrates little or no
discipline specific
knowledge.
0 – 4.4 points
Understanding of discipline
specific knowledge is
inadequate. The description
offered is incomplete, extremely
vague and/or contains
numerous errors.
4.5-7.4 points
Understanding of discipline
specific knowledge is
acceptable. The description
offered is basic, with some
key omissions, and/or the
description offered is vague
or contains errors.
7.5 – 8.9 points
Understanding of discipline
specific knowledge is satisfactory.
The description offered contains
only minor omissions, and/or is in
parts limited, vague and/or
contains errors.
9 – 10.4 points
Understanding of discipline
specific knowledge is very good.
The coverage contains no
omissions, and the description
offered is generally sound, with
only minor limitations,
vagueness and/or errors.
10.5-11.9 points
Understanding of discipline
specific knowledge is exceptional.
The coverage provided contains
no omissions, and the description
offered is comprehensive, and
free of limitations, vagueness and
errors.
12 – 15 points
Critical thinking
demonstrated in the
analysis of the debate
pertaining to enterprise
bargaining under the Fair
Work Act 2009.
Total: 20 marks (GLO4)
Little or no understanding
of the issue demonstrated.
0 – 5.9 points
Demonstrated critical thinking is
inadequate. The analysis is
partial and/ extremely limited in
the sources referred to, and/or
the description offered is
extremely vague and/or
contains numerous errors.
6 – 9.9 points
Demonstrated critical
thinking is acceptable. The
analysis is very basic and/or
limited in the sources
referred to and/or the
description offered is vague,
and/or contains errors.
10 – 11.9 points
Demonstrated critical thinking is
satisfactory. The analysis is
reasonable and the sources
referred to are adequate, with the
description offered being in parts
limited, vague and/or containing
some errors.
12 – 13.9 points
Demonstrated critical thinking is
very good. The analysis is
provides good coverage,
sources used are relevant, and
the description offered is
generally sound, with only minor
limitations, vagueness and/or
errors.
14 – 15.9 points
Demonstrated critical thinking is
exceptional. The analysis provides
outstanding coverage, sources
used are highly relevant and
comprehensive, and the
description offered is extremely
coherent, and free of limitations,
vagueness and error.
16 – 20 points
Communication with
effective structure and
presentation of essay
according to assignment
instructions and
consistent with the
expectations of
university-level essay
writing.
Total: 5 marks (GLO2)
Significant inadequacy of
communicating the
themes demonstrated,
evidenced in a
disorganised structure,
large number of spelling
and grammatical errors,
significant portions of the
essay being
incomprehensible, and/or
paraphrasing too closely
and too extensively.
0 – 1.4 points
Communication of the themes of
the essay is inadequate,
demonstrated in a significant
awkwardness of expression
across much of the essay
and/or failure to follow essay
and citation conventions at an
acceptable standard.
1.5 – 2.4 points
Communication of the
themes of the essay is
acceptable, demonstrated in
some disorganisation, some
awkwardness in expression,
and/or minor
misdemeanours in following
essay and citation
conventions that
nonetheless meet minimum
acceptable standards.
2.5 – 2.9 points
Communication of the themes of
the essay is satisfactory,
demonstrated in the discussion
flowing reasonably well in
reaching its conclusions, the
expression is reasonably
coherent, and analysis given
follows essay and citation
conventions with only minor
errors.
3 – 3.4 points
Communication of the themes of
the essay is very good,
demonstrated in the discussion
leading coherently to its
conclusions, the expression is
clear, and the analysis given
follows correct essay writing and
citation conventions.
3.5 – 3.9 points
Communication of the themes of
the essay is exceptional,
demonstrated in the discussion
being highly logical and very
coherent in reaching its
conclusions, the expression is
clear and concise (well above
average), and the analysis given
follows correct essay writing and
citation conventions.
4 – 5 points
Assessment Task 1 – Written Essay – Individual Assignment
DUE DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, 4 May 2022, by 8:00pm (AEST)
PERCENTAGE OF FINAL GRADE: 40%
WORD COUNT*: 3,000 words (excluding the reference list).
* Word counts are inclusive of all assessment task content except the reference lists. Word
counts provide a hard cap, which should not be exceeded.
Description
The aim of this task is for students, through research of discipline specific academic
literature and other authoritative sources (for example policy statements or submissions to
government established inquiries), to examine and seek to develop a comprehensive
understanding of select aspects of the legislation enacted for the purpose of regulating
Australian workplace relations and the debates that surround them, and to critically
evaluate the operation and impact of such legislation in the modern Australian employment
context.
Specific Requirements
Setting the scene:
The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cwlth) is the major legislation regulating Australian workplace
relations. It has been in operation for more than a decade. The business environment, state
of technology, labour market conditions, types of employment, and the economy more
generally, have all undergone significant change since it was first enacted. As such, there
has been a growing level of criticism directed towards the operation of the Act from
employer associations and the organisations they represent, and equally from the trade
union movement and the workers they represent. Many of these criticisms relate to
enterprise bargaining.
On one side of industry, the Australian Industry Group (AIG) has recently argued, in its
‘2022 Federal Election Policy Statements: Workplace Relations Policy – Enterprise
Agreements’, that “unless the current problems with the enterprise agreement system are
fixed the system is set to continue to wither on the vine” (p.1)
Page 2 of 8
On the other side of industry, Sally McManus Secretary of the ACTU (Australian Council of
Trade Unions) has also publicly criticised the bargaining system as it currently operates
under the Fair Work Act 2009, suggesting in a speech delivered on the 14th of July 2021, as
part of the Australia Institute’s 2021 webinar series, that:
The wage crisis for workers, the destruction of the fair go, the creation of a
working underclass, the betrayal of the great Australian bargain is the deliberate
outcome of conscious policy. It was caused by policies designed to weaken the
bargaining power of workers. When workers try and bargain in Australia, it is
like being tied to a chair and asked to stand up when every arm and every leg is
tied down ……the current laws do not support workers bargaining for wage
rises. Collective bargaining is harder than it has ever been for working
people……Our collective bargaining system needs to be updated and
rebalanced to give all workers the ability to access the system to deliver fair pay
increases.
Clearly, given that the enterprise bargaining processes set out in the Fair Work Act 2009
have been criticised by key stakeholders on both sides of industry, it is a system under
pressure, and is likely to be subject to reform following the 2022 Australian federal election.
The Assessment Task:
In the context of the background information presented above, you are required to research
and write an essay that presents a critical analysis of the following questions:
(1) As prescribed by the Fair Work Act 2009, what legal obligations and entitlements
need to be observed when employers and employees (and their unions) engage in
enterprise bargaining?
(2) What are the main criticisms of the enterprise bargaining provisions in the Fair Work
Act 2009 put forward by employer associations on behalf of employers, and what
remedies for reform are they arguing in favour of?
(3) What are the main criticisms of the enterprise bargaining provisions in the Fair Work
Act 2009 put forward by the Australian trade union movement on behalf of workers,
and what remedies for reform are they arguing in favour of?
Page 3 of 8
In answering the first question, you need only provide a summary of the enterprise
bargaining process as established by Fair Work Act 2009. In doing so, note that there is no
need to reproduce the provisions of the Act in full or word for word. Rather it is beneficial to
the learning process to discuss the provisions that you identify as pertinent to the questions
in your own words as much as possible. In answering the remaining two questions, you
need only offer representative examples of what you consider to be the most important
criticisms being put forward by the organisations in question, and similarly the most
significant arguments for reform. You should conclude the essay as to which set of
arguments appears the most compelling, and why you deem it to be so (i.e., consider the
strength of the evidence on which the arguments put forward have been made).
Presentation:
A professional-looking document builds credibility.
Your essay should be presented in a reader-friendly way, so please ensure it:
o has a title page (which includes the title of the task, your student number, name, and
the word count for your submission (excluding the reference list)
o is written in essay format
o is in arial 12pt font
o is 1.5 or double spaced with 2 cm margins on each side
o has numbered pages
o uses correct in-text referencing (Harvard system), and
o includes a reference list which is correctly formatted (Harvard system) and begins
on a new page.
Learning Outcomes
This task allows you to demonstrate achievement towards the unit learning outcomes. The
ULOs are aligned with specific graduate learning outcomes – that is, the skills and
knowledge graduates are expected to have upon completion of their studies – and this
assessment task is an important tool in determining achievement of those outcomes.
If you do not demonstrate achievement of the unit learning outcomes, you will not be
successful in this unit.
It is good practice to familiarise yourself with the ULOs and GLOs as they provide guidance
on the knowledge, understanding and skills you’re expected to demonstrate upon
completion of the unit. In this way they can be used to guide your study.
Unit Learning Outcome (ULO) Graduate Learning Outcome
(GLO)
ULO 1: Investigate the theories and concepts of
employment relations
GLO1: Discipline specific knowledge
GLO2: Communication
GLO4: Critical thinking
Page 4 of 8
ULO 4: Analyse how the Fair Work Act 2009 regulates
employment relations
GLO1: Discipline specific knowledge
GLO2: Communication
GLO4: Critical thinking
Submission
You are to submit your assignment in the Assignment Drop Box provided in the
CloudDeakin unit site on or before the due date.
When uploading your assignment, name your document using the following syntax:
123456789_Jones_MMH349_A1.doc’.
Submitting a hard copy of these tasks is not required.
You must keep a backup copy of every assignment you submit, including group ones, until
the marked assignment has been returned. In the unlikely event that one of your assignments
is misplaced, you will need to submit your backup copy.
Any work you submit may be checked by electronic or other means for the purposes of
detecting collusion and/or plagiarism.
When you submit an assignment through your CloudDeakin unit site, you will receive an
email to your Deakin email address confirming that it has been submitted. You should check
that you can see your assignment in the Submissions view of the Assignment Dropbox folder
after upload, and check for, and keep, the email receipt for the submission.
Marking and feedback
The marking rubric for this task is provided at the end of this document.
It is always a useful exercise to familiarise yourself with the criteria before completing
any assessment task. Criteria act as a boundary around the task and help identify what
assessors are looking for specifically in your submission. The criteria are drawn from the
unit’s learning outcomes ensuring they align with appropriate graduate attribute/s.
Identifying the standard you aim to achieve is also a useful strategy for success and to
that end, familiarising yourself with the descriptor for that standard is highly
recommended.
Students who submit their work by the due date will receive their marks and feedback on
CloudDeakin 15 working days after the submission date.
Page 5 of 8
Extensions
Extensions will only be granted for exceptional and/or unavoidable circumstances
outside the student’s control.
Students seeking an extension for an assignment prior to the due date should apply directly
to the Unit Chair by completing the Assignment and Online Test Application Form, and then
emailing it to Dr Kerrie Saville kerrie.saville@deakin.edu.au Requests for extensions will
not be considered after 12 noon on the relevant due date. Applications for special
consideration after the due date must be submitted via StudentConnect.
Late submission
The following marking penalties will apply if you submit an assessment task after the due
date without an approved extension: 5% (2 marks) will be deducted from available marks
on the task (40) for each day late up to five days, and work that is submitted more than five
days after the due date will not be marked and will receive 0% for the task.
'Day' means calendar day for electronic submissions. The Unit Chair may refuse to accept
a late submission where it is unreasonable or impracticable to assess the task after the due
date.
Calculation of the late penalty operates as per the example provided below: this example is
based on the assignment being due on a Monday at 8:00pm.
• 1 day late: submitted after Wednesday 4/5 11:59pm and before Thursday 5/5 11:59pm–
5% penalty = 2 marks
• 2 days late: submitted after Thursday 5/5 11:59pm and before Friday 6/5 11:59pm – 10%
penalty = 4 marks.
• 3 days late: submitted after Friday 6/5 11:59pm and before Saturday 7/5 11:59pm – 15%
penalty = 6 marks.
• 4 days late: submitted after Saturday 7/5 11:59pm and before Sunday 8/5 11:59pm –
20% penalty = 8 marks.
• 5 days late: submitted after Sunday 8/5 11:59pm and before Monday 9/5 11:59pm – 25%
penalty = 10 marks.
Dropbox closes Monday 9/5/22 after 11:59pm AEST time. Late submissions, where no
approved extension or special consideration arrangement is in place, will not be accepted
once the drop box is closed. In this scenario students will be awarded a 0 on the task.
Support
The Division of Student Life provides a range of Study Support resources and services,
available throughout the academic year, including Writing Mentor and Maths Mentor
Page 6 of 8
online drop ins and the SmartThinking 24 hour writing feedback service at this link. If you
would prefer some more in depth and tailored support, make an appointment online with
a Language and Learning Adviser.
Referencing
Any material used in this assignment that is not your original work must be acknowledged
as such and appropriately referenced. You can find information about plagiarism and other
study support resources at the following website: http://www.deakin.edu.au/students/study-
support
Academic misconduct
For information about academic misconduct, special consideration, extensions, and
assessment feedback, please refer to the document Your rights and responsibilities as a
student in this Unit in the first folder next to the Unit Guide in the Resources area of the
CloudDeakin unit site.
MMH349 Trimester 1 2022 Assignment 1 Rubric
Very inadequate Inadequate Acceptable Good Very good Exceptional
Overall /40 marks 0 or more 12 of more 20 or more 24 or more 28 or more 32 or more
Discipline-specific
knowledge demonstrated
of the legal requirements
that need to be observed
under the Fair Work Act
2009 by parties
participating in enterprise
bargaining.
Total: 15 marks (GLO1)
Demonstrates little or no
discipline specific
knowledge.
0 – 4.4 points
Understanding of discipline
specific knowledge is
inadequate. The description
offered is incomplete, extremely
vague and/or contains
numerous errors.
4.5-7.4 points
Understanding of discipline
specific knowledge is
acceptable. The description
offered is basic, with some
key omissions, and/or the
description offered is vague
or contains errors.
7.5 – 8.9 points
Understanding of discipline
specific knowledge is satisfactory.
The description offered contains
only minor omissions, and/or is in
parts limited, vague and/or
contains errors.
9 – 10.4 points
Understanding of discipline
specific knowledge is very good.
The coverage contains no
omissions, and the description
offered is generally sound, with
only minor limitations,
vagueness and/or errors.
10.5-11.9 points
Understanding of discipline
specific knowledge is exceptional.
The coverage provided contains
no omissions, and the description
offered is comprehensive, and
free of limitations, vagueness and
errors.
12 – 15 points
Critical thinking
demonstrated in the
analysis of the debate
pertaining to enterprise
bargaining under the Fair
Work Act 2009.
Total: 20 marks (GLO4)
Little or no understanding
of the issue demonstrated.
0 – 5.9 points
Demonstrated critical thinking is
inadequate. The analysis is
partial and/ extremely limited in
the sources referred to, and/or
the description offered is
extremely vague and/or
contains numerous errors.
6 – 9.9 points
Demonstrated critical
thinking is acceptable. The
analysis is very basic and/or
limited in the sources
referred to and/or the
description offered is vague,
and/or contains errors.
10 – 11.9 points
Demonstrated critical thinking is
satisfactory. The analysis is
reasonable and the sources
referred to are adequate, with the
description offered being in parts
limited, vague and/or containing
some errors.
12 – 13.9 points
Demonstrated critical thinking is
very good. The analysis is
provides good coverage,
sources used are relevant, and
the description offered is
generally sound, with only minor
limitations, vagueness and/or
errors.
14 – 15.9 points
Demonstrated critical thinking is
exceptional. The analysis provides
outstanding coverage, sources
used are highly relevant and
comprehensive, and the
description offered is extremely
coherent, and free of limitations,
vagueness and error.
16 – 20 points
Communication with
effective structure and
presentation of essay
according to assignment
instructions and
consistent with the
expectations of
university-level essay
writing.
Total: 5 marks (GLO2)
Significant inadequacy of
communicating the
themes demonstrated,
evidenced in a
disorganised structure,
large number of spelling
and grammatical errors,
significant portions of the
essay being
incomprehensible, and/or
paraphrasing too closely
and too extensively.
0 – 1.4 points
Communication of the themes of
the essay is inadequate,
demonstrated in a significant
awkwardness of expression
across much of the essay
and/or failure to follow essay
and citation conventions at an
acceptable standard.
1.5 – 2.4 points
Communication of the
themes of the essay is
acceptable, demonstrated in
some disorganisation, some
awkwardness in expression,
and/or minor
misdemeanours in following
essay and citation
conventions that
nonetheless meet minimum
acceptable standards.
2.5 – 2.9 points
Communication of the themes of
the essay is satisfactory,
demonstrated in the discussion
flowing reasonably well in
reaching its conclusions, the
expression is reasonably
coherent, and analysis given
follows essay and citation
conventions with only minor
errors.
3 – 3.4 points
Communication of the themes of
the essay is very good,
demonstrated in the discussion
leading coherently to its
conclusions, the expression is
clear, and the analysis given
follows correct essay writing and
citation conventions.
3.5 – 3.9 points
Communication of the themes of
the essay is exceptional,
demonstrated in the discussion
being highly logical and very
coherent in reaching its
conclusions, the expression is
clear and concise (well above
average), and the analysis given
follows correct essay writing and
citation conventions.
4 – 5 points
