Structure, Synthesis of Research

Marking CriteriaWeighting
Comprehension8
Structure, Synthesis of Research7
Research and Referencing Skills7
Written Expression3
Total Weight25%

Tutorial Questions Assessments 1 and 2

Criteria Ratings

Excellent 6.5 – 7Very Good 5 – 6.5Good 4 -5Satisfactory 3 – 3.5Unsatisfactory 0 – 2.5
Comprehension
Max 8 marks
Has understood and responded to each of the task requirements appropriately.Has understood and responded to most task requirements appropriately.Has understood some task requirement and attempted to respond appropriately.Limited understanding of the task was evident, but some requirements are missing.No evidence that the student has understood what is required in this task.
Structure, Synthesis of Research
Max7 marks
Excellent 6.5 -7Very Good 5- 6.5Good 4 -5Satisfactory 3 – 3.5Unsatisfactory 0 – 2.5
Cohesive paragraph structure consistently encourages engagement with the content. New information from research is synthesised and presented thematically (topic by topic) to address the assessment question in an analytical way.Cohesive paragraph structure supports engagement with the contents. Uses discrete paragraphs to present information. New material from research is structured into themes to address the assessment question in an analytical way.Some effort to achieve cohesive paragraph structure. Ideas are not always presented in discrete paragraphs. Some effort to include new material from research into themes to address the assessment question in an analytical way.Has used a report structure to organise information logically. But has presented response composed of a series of discrete paragraphs based on the summary of main ideas from each article. This report reads more like a book report than a piece of analysis.Limited or no attempt at a report structure. Information presented randomly or as a series of questions/answers only. No sense of cohesion between ideas. No evidence for synthesis of new ideas from research. No analysis attempted.
Research and Referencing Skills
Max 7 marks
Excellent 4Very good 3Good 2.5Satisfactory 2Unsatisfactory 0-1.5
Uses academic research skills to select 10 or more current, credible and authoritative academic references. The student has considered how the articles relate directly to assessment requirements. Uses Harvard style referencing style and in-text citations with no errors.Uses academic research skills to select 8 or more current, credible and authoritative academic references. Some evidence that the student understands the relevance of the articles to the assessment requirements. Uses Harvard referencing style and in-text citations with few errors.Uses academic research skills to select 6 or more current, credible, and authoritative academic references. Attempt to understand relevance of the articles to the assessment requirements. Uses Harvard referencing style and in-text citations, but with errors.Uses academic research skills to source 5 academic references. No real evidence that the student understands the relevance of the articles to assessment requirements. Limited attempt at using Harvard referencing style. In-text citations are either missing or show errors throughout.Has not located academic references or selected references do not meet the task requirements. Uses general web searches to locate online webpages or articles rather than library databases. Little or no attempt to use a referencing style or include in-text citations.
Written Expression
Max 3 marks
Excellent 2Very Good 1.5Good 1.5Satisfactory 1Unsatisfactory 0 – 0.5
Uses discipline language appropriate for an academic or professional audience. Writing is fluent and uses appropriate paragraph/sentence structures. No critical language or grammatical errors.Includes discipline-specific language sufficient for an academic or professional audience. Writing is generally fluent and uses mostly appropriate paragraph/sentence structures. Minor language or grammatical errors usually do not interfere with meaning, but some editing and proofreading is required.Some discipline-specific language included to meet general expectations of an academic or professional audience. Writing is generally clear and mostly uses appropriate paragraph/sentence structures. Editing and proofreading would reduce errors and improve clarity.Limited use of discipline-specific language which may not always meet expectations of an academic or professional audience. Inconsistent paragraph and sentence structures. Language and grammatical errors are frequent. Little evidence of proofreading or editing.Limited vocabulary. Inappropriate or incorrect use of discipline-specific language. Consistent and numerous errors in writing (grammar, paragraph and sentence structure) make reading difficult. No evidence for editing or proofreading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *