Criteria Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
Quality of Evidence
Literature/research selected
not
relevant to the
topic.
There are inappropriate
research sources, insufficient
research articles cited or
research is out of date.
Literature/research selected
is vague and incomplete –
components are missing,
inaccurate or unclear.
Adequate research articles
but some may be outdated,
inappropriate or irrelevant.
Literature/research is
relevant to the
argument/thesis & is mostly
accurate & complete – there
are some unclear
components or some minor
errors.
Adequate use of research
literature.
Literature/research is
relevant to the argument and
is mostly accurate and
complete.
Literature was
reasonably well scoped but
would have benefited from
greater depth of exploration.
Literature/research selected
is highly relevant to the
argument, is presented
accurately, completely &
succinctly.
Literature was
comprehensively researched
in breadth & depth.
Quality of Discussion
The description of the
topic/issue is inaccurate or
lacking depth & breadth of
possible perspectives
relevant to the topic.
The discussion of the
topic/issue does not inform
the reader.
Key ideas are missing or not
relevant to the topic.
Demonstrates a lack of
critical
analysis.
The description of the
topic/issue is fairly accurate
but not precise. Possible
perspectives relevant to the
topic are either not
considered or ill-described.
The topic/issue is unclear.
Key ideas, while relevant to
the topic, are unclear and
inconsistent.
Demonstrates poor critical
analysis.
The description of the
topic/issue is fairly accurate
and precise, and possible
perspectives relevant to the
section are considered but
needed greater depth of
critical analysis.
Key ideas are introduced at a
basic level and are relevant
to the topic.
Demonstrates superficial
critical analysis.
The description of the
topic/issue is accurate and
possible perspectives
relevant to the section have
been well considered, but
have not been fully
articulated.
The topic/issue is presented
clearly.
Key ideas are introduced
clearly & are relevant to the
topic.
Demonstrates critical
analysis.
A highly accurate & precise
description of the topic/issue,
along with a careful
consideration of possible
perspectives relevant to the
topic is provided.
The topic/issue is clearly
established.
Key ideas are precisely
introduced and highly
relevant to the topic.
Demonstrates high level of
critical analysis.
Quality of Writing Writing is poorly organised
and difficult to read – does
not flow logically from one
part to another. There are
numerous spelling and/or
grammatical errors; technical
Writing is somewhat
organised but difficult to read
in large sections. There are
several spelling and/or
grammatical errors.
Technical terms are poorly
Writing is generally well
organised and most of the
argument is easy to follow.
There are some minor
spelling or grammatical
errors, or terms are not
Writing is well organised and
the argument is easy to
follow. There are few minor
spelling or grammatical
errors. Technical terms are
Writing is coherently
organised and the logic is
easy to follow. There are no
spelling or grammatical
errors and terminology is
clearly defined. Writing is
terms are not defined. Writing
lacks clarity and
conciseness.
defined Writing is clear in
parts but is overly wordy and
lacks conciseness.
clearly defined. Writing is
mostly clear but may lack
conciseness in parts.
clearly defined. Writing is
clear and concise.
clear, concise and
persuasive.
Presentation/Referencing Little or no adherence to the
presentation requirements
and to the APA writing style.
Limited adherence to the
presentation requirements
and to the APA writing style
& referencing
requirements.
Basic adherence to the
presentation requirements
& to the APA writing style
and referencing
requirements.
Satisfactory adherence to
the presentation
requirements and to the
APA writing style and
referencing requirements.
Comprehensive adherence to
the presentation
requirements and to the APA
writing style and referencing
requirements.
