CR
IC
OS
P
ro
vi
de
r C
od
e
00
09
8G
Assessment 2: Briefing Paper Marking Rubric
Marking Criteria Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Excellent Outstanding
BRIEFING PAPER
Clearly defines the topic with
reference to jurisdiction,
criminal code and/or other
relevant frameworks.
Fails to clearly define the topic
with reference to jurisdiction,
criminal code and/or other
relevant framework/s.
Topic is defined but may need to
be refined or clarified with more
robust jurisdictional, legislative or
other relevant framework/s.
Topic is clearly articulated within
relevant framework/s but may be
too broad, generalist, or lacking
more specific detail.
Topic is clearly and specifically
articulated within robust
jurisdictional, legislative and/or
other relevant framework/s.
Topic is very clearly and
specifically articulated within
relevant jurisdictional, legislative
and/or other framework/s.
Convincingly justifies the
importance of the topic with
effective use of research,
evidence, and argument.
Little to no evidence provided to
justify the importance of the
topic. Weak or no argument.
General justification of the
importance of the topic but could
make better use of the research
and provide a stronger argument.
Good justification of the
importance of the topic with
sufficient use of evidence to build
a convincing case.
Excellent justification of the
importance of the topic, effective
use of evidence and a convincing
case.
Outstanding justification of the
importance of the topic, very
effective use of evidence for a
convincing case.
Contextualises the topic using
empirical research on
incidence, prevalence, patterns
across time, and impact.
Fails to address or poorly
addresses the various
dimensions of knowledge to
contextualise the crime issue.
Addresses one of more of the
empirical findings but may
require further information to
clarify or expand on context.
Addresses various dimensions of
knowledge that are key to
contextualising the topic.
Addresses various dimensions of
knowledge with sufficient detail
to contextualise the topic in a
nuanced way.
Addresses various dimensions of
knowledge with sufficient detail
to contextualise the topic in a
nuanced and creative way.
Applies the criminological
literature to identify common
themes and different
perspectives.
Insufficient or inappropriate
sources and/or over-reliance on
non-academic sources. Little or
no engagement with disciplinary
literature. Fails to/poorly applies
literature to common themes and
different perspectives.
Sources are appropriate but may
be limited in range or scope. May
rely on general academic texts
over more specialised disciplinary
literature. General or limited
discussion of common themes
and/or different perspectives.
Good range of relevant scholarly
sources used. Identifies common
themes and different
perspectives in a descriptive
manner.
Selection of sources that
demonstrates a critically
reflective approach to source
selection. Identifies common
themes and different
perspectives in a descriptive and
analytical manner.
Judicious selection of sources
that demonstrates a thorough
and critically reflective approach.
Distinguishes types of sources.
Identifies common themes and
different perspectives using both
description and analysis.
Clearly summarises the issue;
develops recommendations for
addressing the problems based
on analytical and critical
reflection.
Fails to/poorly summarises the
issue. Fails to present options to
address it. Requires more
consideration around the range of
options for change.
Briefly summarises the issue and
presents an option to address the
issue. May demonstrate limited
or unreflective consideration of
the range of options for change.
Clearly summarises the issue and
proposes a range of options for
change. Good analysis with some
critical reflection.
Clearly summarises the issue and
proposes a range of meaningful
options for change. Excellent
analysis and critical reflection.
Clearly and methodically
summarises the issue and
proposes a range of valuable
options for change. Outstanding
critical analysis and reflection.
Page 2
GENERAL
Demonstrates academic
writing skills and clear written
expression, including overall
presentation, grammar,
spelling, and adherence to
word limit.
Fails to meet basic academic
standards of presentation. Fails
to use spell check, verbs are
absent from some sentences,
poorly punctuated, written in note
form, sloppy paragraph structure
and/or similar.
Meets basic academic
expectations in formatting and
presentation. Spell checked,
mostly grammatically correct but
with some errors that impact
clarity and presentation.
Meets academic expectations
and conventions for presentation
of written work.
Meets academic expectations
and conventions for presentation
of written work. Some translation
and interpretation of the
conventions to develop personal
voice for specific execution of
this task.
Surpasses academic
expectations for presentation of
written work. Attributes have
been creatively interpreted to
develop personal style and voice
for the specific execution of the
task. A precise approach with
unique or imaginative elements.
Appropriate and consistent
referencing in line with the
Referencing Guide provided on
Moodle.
Absence of or inaccurate
application of the course
referencing and citation
conventions, whether in-text or in
the reference list, or both.
Some errors or inconsistencies in
the application of the course
referencing style, whether in-text
or in the reference list, or both.
Consistent application of course
referencing style with a few minor
errors in style or presentation,
whether in-text or in the reference
list, or both.
Consistent and appropriate
application of course referencing
style in-text and in the reference
list with close attention to detail.
Consistent and appropriate
application of course referencing
style in-text and in the reference
list with meticulous attention to
detail.
Note: Marking criteria are not weighted equally with regards to the final mark awarded. This is a guideline as to the strengths and weaknesses of the piece of work.