SACE700 CWK1 Critical Review Marking Criteria
70+ 60-69
Depth of Understanding Thorough and detailed
command of the sources
combined with clear critical
engagement with theory and
methodology.
Level of Critical Analysis Thorough and detailed
analysis and connections of
ideas to larger issues.
Structure Judiciously uses headings,
sub-headings and other
organizational methods
which facilitate
understanding on the part of
the reader.
Language Accuracy Expression always clear,
fluent precise, focused on
the question, within word
limit, and in the appropriate
genre; meaning crystal clear.
Grammar, spelling &
punctuation is virtually free
of errors.
Referencing Faultless application of
Harvard referencing style.
All source material correctly
acknowledged, with
appropriate, balanced use of
paraphrasing, summarising
and quoting.
50-59
Thorough and detailed
understanding of sources,
including capacity to engage
critically with issues of theory
and methodology.
Very strong analysis and
connections of ideas to larger
issues.
Generally accurate use of
headings, sub-headings and
other organizational
methods) which help
facilitate understanding on
the part of the reader.
Expression clear and fluent,
within word limit, and in the
appropriate genre; meaning
clear.
Grammar, spelling &
punctuation is mostly free of
errors.
Harvard referencing style
applied with minor errors.
Sources acknowledged
through paraphrasing,
summarising and quoting
(although not always in
appropriate balance).
40-49
Sound understanding of
sources.
Competent analysis and
awareness of larger issues.
Mostly accurate use of
headings, sub-headings and
other organizational
methods which mostly
facilitate understanding on
the part of the reader.
Expression in the main clear
and fluent, within word limit,
and in the appropriate genre;
meaning mostly clear.
Non-impeding grammar,
spelling & punctuation
errors.
Harvard referencing style
applied with some significant
errors.
Most sources acknowledged
through paraphrasing,
summarising and quoting
(although not always in
appropriate balance).
30-39
Some evidence of knowledge
of the sources but this is
likely to be limited especially
at the lower end of the mark
scale.
Analysis could be brief and
lack much insight, with little
evidence of independent
thinking.
Largely inaccurate use of
headings, sub-headings and
other organizational
methods which attempt to
facilitate understanding on
the part of the reader.
Expression and/or meaning
frequently unclear or
ambiguous, repetitive, not
always to the point, and/or
inappropriate for purpose.
Interspersed with numerous
and impeding, grammatical,
spelling and/or punctuation
errors.
Inconsistently / inaccurately
applies the Harvard
referencing style.
Significant number of sources
not appropriately
acknowledged raising
questions of plagiarism.
0-30
Work that fails to No demonstration of
demonstrate adequate understanding of the sources
knowledge of the material
Very little or no evidence of No evidence of analysis
analysis and awareness of
larger issues.
No attempt made to No attempt made.
structure the answer in any No headings
meaningful way. Wrong/no
sub headings and largely
irrelevant/unhelpful
diagrams.
Expression is unclear, Expression impossible to
rambling, and/or follow.
inappropriate for the genre;
meaning is unclear.
Frequent impeding Errors make it impossible to
grammatical and other errors read.
seriously distract the reader.
Incorrect / incomplete No referencing.
referencing style used.
Most sources not No sources acknowledged.
acknowledged, or Serious plagiarism.
acknowledged
inappropriately.
Possible serious plagiarism.