EDGS918: 2015

Tutor:
Criteria
Structure

Student name:

Student No:

0- Limited Achievement

1- Sound Achievement

2- High Achievement

3- Outstanding Achievement

Absence of spelling
mistakes and
grammatical
inconsistencies, sound
format
The work is of a very good
English standard and
follows academic writing
conventions
Adheres to word count

Sound information
provided
Uses own words to
demonstrate an
understanding of the
theory with convincing
links to key strengths and
weaknesses and related
theoretical concepts
Arguments are supported
with evidence and a
capacity to be critical,
evaluative or to make
judgments is
demonstrated
Reflection demonstrates a
considered response of
theories

Content

Assessment Task 1 Marking Rubric

Spelling mistakes or
grammatical
inconsistenciesproofreading needs
attention
Lacks appropriate content
from the subject materials,
very poor presentation and
organization of ideas,
irrelevance and sources not
acknowledge/plagiarized or
a combination of these.
Well in excess or well below
word count
Lack of understanding
regarding type of research
critiqued (method)
Article selected did not
relate to the task requested.
Links not made or unclear
between research and own
teaching practice

Minimal spelling mistakes or

grammatical errors
Basic formatting
Work is of an acceptable
English standard.
Adheres to word count

Demonstrates a basic
understanding of three
different theories of reading.
Uses own words to
demonstrate understanding
of the reading theory
Equal weight given to each
theory (400 words each).
Students may organize the
assignment into three
distinct sections
Reflection (400 words)
demonstrates response to
the balanced approach.

Absence of spelling mistakes,

grammatical inconsistencies, and
corrections
Superior presentation and attention
to detail and clear structure
maintained throughout
Clearly articulated
Adheres to word count

Clear and concise information

Thorough and comprehensive
understanding of the breadth of
content
Capacity to compare, contrast,
evaluate and draw logical, well
justified conclusions
High degree of precision and vigor
in arguments
Reflects wide reading and
independently identifies relevant,
quality primary source materials
where appropriate

Sources &
Referencing

Errors using Harvard style

referencing (article source)
Direct text not indicated
No reference list

Article sourced is referenced

Direct text referenced
Reference list attached

Article sourced is
referenced correctly
Direct text referenced
consistently throughout
Consistent use of Harvard
referencing in-text and
reference list

Systematic and consistent use of

the Harvard style of referencing
throughout.

Comment:

Mark: __________/30

Signed: Virginia Sipos

Marking guide reference

This marking guide expands upon the criteria stated in the subject outline and is based on the Faculty of Education
Guide to Assessment of Written Work. Criteria are listed down the right hand column and there are three levels of
performance (1,2,3).
High Distinction
85-100%
For all criteria at level (3)
Distinction
75-84%
For the majority of the criteria at level (2) with some at level (3)
Credit
65-74%
For the majority of the criteria at level (2) with some at level (1)
Pass
50-64%
For the majority of the criteria at level (1) with some at level (0)
Fail
below 50%
For all or some of the criteria listed below:
Very poor presentation, no grasp of theories or concepts, waffled, incomplete, unreadable, not on topic, no evidence of
relevant reading, no line of argument, misunderstanding of set material, superficial, major errors of focus, way under

length, way over length. A fail grade will also apply to any piece of work that does not satisfy the Faculty of Education
lateness of work and plagiarism policy.