Politics and Power in Public Health

Politics and Power in Public Health 1 of 2
A2 – PARL SUBMISSION [MARKING KEY]

Criteria Unacceptable (0%) Unsatisfactory (25%) Average (50%) Good (75%) Excellent (100%)
Evidence-based
thesis
Weight 30%
Lacks thesis (position taken or
ongoing idea). Lacking in
examples, reasons or evidence.
Vague thesis – position unclear.
Inappropriate or inconsistent
use of examples, reasons or
evidence.
Clearly stated thesis. Adequate
examples, reasons & evidence.
Effectively presented thesis.
Well supported by appropriate
examples, reasons and
evidence. Evidence of critical
thinking.
Effectively and insightfully
presented thesis. Thesis well
developed using excellent
examples, reasons and
evidence. Outstanding critical
thinking demonstrated.
Content knowledge
Weight 30%
Unable to demonstrate
understanding of policy topic.
Only a few general points
made. Factual errors presented.
Demonstrated understanding
of limited content. Little or no
specific details provided.
Irrelevant information given.
Demonstrated understanding
of most content. Some points
were elaborated with details.
Mostly relevant information
given.
Demonstrated understanding
of all content. Only relevant
information given. Some
original analysis presented.
Demonstrated well developed
understanding of all content.
Insightful discussion of fully
elaborated points. Clear and
detailed information.
Organisation and
structure
Weight 20%
Unable to structure an
argument: Sections are
disorganised and there is little
or no paragraphing. There is
little or no evidence of
continuity.
Attempts to structure an
argument but is not always
successful: Sections do not flow
on from each other, and
paragraphs within sections are
poorly constructed and disrupt
any flow. Attempts to link the
content throughout the
different sections in the
submission but is not always
successful.
Demonstrates some ability to
structure an argument:
Sections generally flow on from
each other, and paragraphs
within sections generally flow.
Is generally able to link the
content throughout the
different sections in the
submission.
Demonstrates the ability to
structure an argument well:
Sections flow on from each
other, and paragraphs within
sections generally flow. Links
the content throughout the
different sections in the
submission.
Demonstrates the ability to
structure an argument very
effectively: Sections flow on
from each other, and
paragraphs within sections
flow. Links the content
throughout the different
sections in the submission very
well. Effective summary.
Effective introduction. Effective
conclusion.

Politics and Power in Public Health 2 of 2
A2 – PARL SUBMISSION [MARKING KEY] CONTINUED

Criteria Unacceptable (0%) Unsatisfactory (25%) Average (50%) Good (75%) Excellent (100%)
Appropriate
references
Weight 10.00%
No references. OR Only
inappropriate references used.
OR References do not support
thesis.
1-10 appropriate peer
reviewed/credible references
support thesis and comments.
11-14 appropriate peer
reviewed/credible references
support thesis and comments.
15 appropriate peer
reviewed/credible references.
All references support the
purpose of the submission.
15 or more appropriate peer
reviewed/credible references.
All references support the
purpose of the submission and
are thoughtfully integrated into
discussion.
Correct
paraphrasing,
citation and
referencing
Weight 5%
Is unable to paraphrase; a
significant amount of content
is lacking references; and
makes significant errors in
referencing.
THE ABOVE MAY RESULT IN
PLAGIARISM.
Attempts to paraphrase with
limited success; and makes
significant errors in referencing.
THE ABOVE MAY RESULT IN
PLAGIARISM.
Attempts to paraphrase but is
not always successful; and
makes some noticeable errors
in referencing.
THE ABOVE MAY RESULT IN
PLAGIARISM.
Paraphrases appropriately; and
generally references well. There
may be some minor errors with
citing and referencing.
Paraphrases well; and
references well. No errors with
citing and referencing.
Writing style:
grammar, spelling
and use of language
Weight 5%
Uses very basic grammar and
vocabulary with very limited
control; errors severely distort
the meaning.
Uses basic grammar and
vocabulary with limited
flexibility and accuracy; errors
cause strain for the reader.
Uses an adequate range of
grammar and vocabulary with
some flexibility and is mostly
accurate: errors occur but these
do not impede communication.
Uses a sufficient range of
grammar and vocabulary with
ease and is mostly accurate;
occasional errors.
Uses a wide range of grammar
and vocabulary naturally and
with accuracy; rare minor
errors.