BUSS5020 – Essay Rubric 2019 Semester 1 HD 100% HD 90% D 80% CR 70% PASS 60% PASS 50% FAIL 40% FAIL.

BUSS5020 – Essay Rubric 2019 Semester 1

HD 100%

HD 90%

D 80%

CR 70%

PASS 60%

PASS 50%

FAIL 40%

FAIL 30%

FAIL 0%

Research
Depth, synthesis
and application of
relevant and
quality research.
20%

Extensive use and
synthesis of
relevant, quality
peer-reviewed
journal articles.
Additional high
quality and
relevant research
is evident. Source
quality and
credibility has
been critically
considered.

Good use and
synthesis of
relevant, quality
peer-reviewed
journal articles.
Additional
research is
generally of a
high quality and
relevance.

Generally,
demonstrates
use and
synthesis of
quality peer
reviewed
articles.

Shows a good
understanding
of the role of
research and
uses some
quality peer
reviewed
articles.

Demonstrates
some depth and
application of
relevant, quality
research. Some
use of quality
peer-reviewed
articles. There is
some room for
more relevant
selection and
application of
research.

Demonstrates
some depth and
application of
relevant, quality
research.
However, in
depth use of
peer-reviewed
journal articles
is lacking.

Over reliant in
places on the
topic article
and/or the
research material.
Additional
supporting
evidence missed
where needed.

Relies mostly on
the
topic/research
material, with
minimal
additional
research. When
used, any
additional
research is of
limited relevance.

Relies almost
entirely on the
topic/research
material, with
minimal
additional
research. When
used, additional
research is
consistently of
very limited
relevance and
quality.

Summary
Quality, depth
and accuracy of
the summary of
the article’s
argument(s).
25%

Excellent, highly
detailed, accurate
and succinct
summary of the
topic.

Very good
summary, with
only minor
areas lacking in
detail.

Good summary,
with some areas
that could do
with more
detail.

Reasonable
level of detail in
the summary,
but some
significant areas
for
improvement.

Reasonable
level of detail in
the summary,
but there were
too many areas
where detail
was consistently
lacking.

Reasonable
quality
summary, but
lacking specific
details and
depth in
multiple places.
This could be
improved
significantly.

Summary
inaccurate or
inadequate in
places relating to
at least one major
element of the
article.

The summary was
lacking depth and
accuracy in
multiple places
for the major
element(s) of the
article.

The summary
was lacking in
depth and/or
accuracy
throughout the
paper.

Evaluation
Quality and depth
of critical
evaluation of the
article’s
argument(s).
30%

High quality, in
depth critical
evaluation
showing
outstanding
depth of insight
into multiple
perspectives on
the debate, and
arrives at a
thoroughly
reasoned overall
judgement.

Good quality,
in-depth critical
evaluation
showing
considerable
depth of insight
into multiple
perspectives on
the debate, and
arrives at a
thoroughly
reasoned
overall
judgement.

Good quality
evaluation,
showed good
insights into
different
perspectives
and shows a
reasoned
overall
judgement.

The response
demonstrates a
good ability to
correctly
identify the
issue(s) and
shows insights
into different
perspectives
and arrives at a
reasoned
judgement.

Generally
quality, in
depth critical
evaluation,
showing some
considerable
insights into
different
perspectives,
and arrives at a
judgement.
Some areas for
improvement.

Reasonable
quality and
depth of critical
analysis.
Considers
different views
and makes a
reasoned
overall
judgement. May
have flawed
reasoning in
places.

Critical analysis
often
demonstrates
limited quality of
evaluation,
demonstrating
limited critical
analysis and
reasoning.

Generally, limited
critical analysis.
Generally, one
sided or fails to
arrive at a
synthesis and
advance an
overall argument
or judgement.

Very limited in
critical analysis,
showing little
evidence of
understanding
or engagement
with the
argument(s).

Communication
Quality and
clarity of business
or academic
writing,
presentation and
structure
20%

The work showed
a near
publishable use of
business or
academic writing
style. Information
was presented in
flawlessly clear
and organised
manner.

Very good
presentation.
Information was
presented in a
clear and
organised and
structured
manner.

Good
presentation.
Information was
generally
presented in an
organised and
structured
manner.

The level of
communication
showed a fairly
good
understanding
of business or
academic
writing style.
Information was
appropriately
categorised.

The level of
communication
showed a
reasonable
understanding
of business or
academic
writing style.

Although the
meaning was
generally
apparent, but
with regular
errors in
spelling,
sentence or
word choice.

The level of
communication
was sometimes
appropriate for
an academic or
business context.
However, there
were sometimes
problems with
spelling, syntax
and/or grammar.

The level of
communication
was not
appropriate for
an academic or
business writing.
There were
frequent errors in
spelling, syntax
and/or grammar.

The level of
communication
did not display
appropriate
business or
academic
writing skills.
The work
caused
significant strain
on the reader.

Referencing
Adherence to APA
6th edition
referencing
standard.
5%

Referencing was
consistently
accurate in
content and style,
adhering to the
APA 6th edition.

Referencing was
very good, but
some minor
issues in
adhering to APA
6th edition.

Good
referencing, in
adhering to APA
6th edition, but
there was one
mistake which
appeared
consistently
throughout the
text.

Reasonable
referencing, it
adhered to APA
6th edition, but
some minor
issues.

In-text and end
of text
referencing was
present where
required, but
with minor
errors.

In-text or end of
text where
required and
stylistically
consistent, but
did not adhere
to APA 6th
edition

In-text
referencing or
quotation marks
missing for at
least one source;
or inaccurate/
missing content
for at least one
reference.

Some in-text
references
missing, or some
quotation marks
missing. Some
references that
are occasionally
inaccurate in
content or some
items missing
from reference
list.

Many in-text or
end of text
references were
missing; or
frequently in
accurate in
content; or no
reference list or
use of non-APA
6th edition style.

Word Count Penalty
Where a student exceeds the word limit length, the student will lose 10% of the total marks. However, when the submission is 10% above the word length
they will lose 10% of the total mark, but for each 10% over, they will lose a further 10% of the total marks.
Late Penalty
Late submission penalty will be 5% per day after the due date for up to 10 calendar days, after which a mark of zero is applied. The closing date is 10
calendar days after the due date.
Appendix/Appendices
The word limit for the assessment is 1100 words. Any appendices are included in the word count and will not be considered where these exceed the word
limit.