CASA0007 - Assessment Criteria for Written Work (2018-)

19-20 17-18 15-16 12-14 10-11 7-9 4-6 2-3 0-1
Context and
Review

(20 Marks)
Evidence of
considerable
extra-curricular
reading with
original
interpretation.
Evidence of extra-
curricular
academic reading,
critical thought
and original
interpretation.
Demonstration of
critical thought,
extra-curricular
reading, and
excellent
understanding of
literature.
Evidence of extra-
curricular reading,
good
understanding,
sound
referencing.
Some evidence of
extra-curricular
reading
understanding of
literature,
adequate
referencing.
Limited evidence
of extra-curricular
reading,
inadequate
referencing.
Little evidence of
reading, poor or
sloppy
referencing.
Very little
evidence of any
reading, very
poor referencing
with items
missing.
No evidence of
any reading and
no referencing (or
almost no
referencing).
Structure and
Communication

(20 Marks)
Excellent write up
both in terms of
readability, clarity
and structure,
with faultless
presentation of
data.
Excellent write up
with only minor
faults, highly
readable,
extremely clear
with excellent
structure.
Very good
academic
structure. Clear &
logical narrative.
Good
presentation of
data.
Conforms well to
correct structure
for academic
writing. Mostly
clear & relevant.
May have errors
in presentation of
data.
Broadly conforms
to the correct
structure for
academic writing.
May lack clarity/
focus/relevance in
places.
Failure to fully
conform to
correct structure,
with important
omissions.
Perhaps not fully
coherent/not fully
relevant/rushed.
Write up is poor,
unstructured,
some parts
missing, writing
needing significant
improvement.
Major failure in
write up structure
with missing
parts, very poor
readability, not at
all clear.
Write up
substantially
absent,
incomprehensible
or wrong.
Ambition

(20 Marks)

Extraordinarily
ambitious and
unquestionably
original. Making
an undeniable
contribution to
existing research.
Relevant and
meaningful
research question.
Significant
contribution with
clear original
thought.
An interesting and
well thought-out
research question
with good
evidence of
original thought.
A fair research
question is posed,
though with little
extension. Limited
evidence of
original thought.
A basic research
question is posed
and addressed,
with no
extension.
The research
question is either
unclear, flawed or
not properly
addressed.
No clear or
explicit research
question or aims
to support the
work.
Actual goals very
few or not
apparent.
No possible
contribution. No
concrete goals or
focus.
Accuracy

(20 Marks)
Faultless
execution,
exemplary
analysis with
entirely
appropriate
methods.
Only very minor
faults in execution
or depth of
understanding.
At most, some
minor faults in
execution or
understanding.
Demonstration of
good familiarity
with techniques
used although
possibly some
errors made.
Mostly
demonstrates
understanding of
techniques used,
but with
occasional errors
of judgement.
Some serious
flaws in
understanding
methods and
techniques used.
Topic has not
been handled at
all well, lack of
understanding of
techniques used.
All aspects of the
topic have been
handled badly,
with no
understanding or
confusion of
techniques used.
No evidence of
understanding,
perhaps some
mention of
relevant terms.
Technical
Difficulty

(20 Marks)
Challenging goals,
elegant and
impressive
technical content.
Challenging goals,
and substantial
technical content.
Challenging
approach, difficult
twists required to
achieve a result.
Project throws up
some challenges.
Relatively easy
goals. No attempt
to do anything
more than
reproduce
existing examples.

Unchallenging
project. Perhaps
existing examples
are just copied
without thought.
Completely
undemanding
project.
Technical content
is very limited or
very poorly
handled.
Virtually no
technical content
whatsoever.