|Task Fulfilment (15%)||0 –7||7.5-8.5||9-10||10.5-11.5||12-15|
Awareness of purpose
and concise discussion of the issue in the introduction
Length 600 words (excluding references)
Little or no evidence of awareness of purpose. Poor discussion of the issue.
The assignment may be significantly under or over length.
Awareness ofpurpose is discernible, but limited. Limited discussion of issues.
Within word limit.
|Awareness of purpose is generally clear and appropriate. Discussion of the issue are mostly adequate. Within word limit. Addresses most elements of the task appropriately.||Awareness of purpose and discussion of issue areclear and appropriate. Within word limit. All aspects of the task are addressed including an effective discussion.There is room for development.||A sophisticated awareness of purpose. Concise discussion of the issue and all aspects of the task are comprehensively addressed. Within word limit.|
|Judgement & Argument (25%)||0-12||12.5-14.5||15-17||17.5-19.5||20-25|
Position and logical progression
Critical evaluation of using graphs in financial reports (at least one advantage and one disadvantage)
Reference to the Conceptual Framework
Degree of support
|Position may be unclear. May lack logical progression and/or accurate interpretation.Poor evaluation of the issues leading to inadequate argument and conclusion.||A position is discernible. Evidence of logical progression. Limited evaluation of the issues. There is some attempt at argument and conclusion, but support is limited.||A position is presented, developed and supported. Evaluation of the issues is mostly adequate. Argument and conclusion are developed with some support but there may be inconsistencies.||Logical progression from a clear position to acritical stance in the evaluation ofthe issues drawing upon relevant support.Argument and conclusions are persuasive and engaging.||A clear, well-integrated position is evidentthroughout. There is thorough critical evaluation of the issues leading to logical, well-supported and convincing argument and conclusions.|
|Research & Evidence (20%)||0 –9.5||10-11.5||12-13.5||14-15.5||16-20|
Selection of relevant academic texts (minimum 3 academic journal articles)
Integration of sources
Citing and referencing
|Little or no evidence of relevant research and/or poor use and acknowledgement of sources. Texts selected may be inappropriate and/or poorly integrated, and cited. Referencing may be uniformly poor.||Evidence of basic research, but some sources may be inappropriate or irrelevant. Use of readings to support position may be variable. Citing and referencing is attempted, but may be faulty.||
Academic sources are used appropriately to support position but they may be limited in scope and quality. Some errors in citing and referencing may persist.
Well selected texts and evidence of wide reading. Clear engagement with academic sources which are well-utilised to support position. Citing and referencing is generally appropriate and accurate.
||Clear evidence of a wide variety of quality academic reading. Skilful engagement and deployment of sources to enrich discussion and evaluation. Accurate citing and referencing.|
|Clarity & Structure of Communication (15%)||0 –7||7.5-8.5||9-10||10.5-11.5||12-15|
Balance and cohesion
|Essay structure is poor. Paragraphs are poorly organised and linked. There are numerous errors and inaccuracies in written expression.||Essay contains essential elements; however organisation and linking may be weak. Written expression may be inconsistent and inaccurate in parts.||Essay contains essential elements; paragraphs are fairly organised and linked. Written expression is generally adequate and appropriate.||Essay contains essential elements; paragraphs are well-linked and balanced. Written expression is well-controlled for accuracy and concision with only occasional error.||Essay contains essential elements; each paragraph is very well-linked and balanced. Idea is clearly organised and expressed in concise, accurate and engaging language.|