Research Essay Rubric

Criteria 标准

Excellent 非常好

Good/Very Good 好/非常好

Satisfactory 满意

Not Shown/Unsatisfactory 未显示/不满意

Marks 标志着

Extent to Which Essay Addresses Question
论文在多大程度上解决了问题

10 to > 8 marks
10 至 > 8 分

Clearly focuses on the question that has been set and offers sustained analysis that relates directly to the subject of the question
明确地关注已经设定的问题,并提供与问题主题直接相关的持续分析

8 to > 6 marks
8 至 > 6 分

The essay clearly relates to the question that has been set but does not provide a sustained and direct response throughout. Occasionally gets side-tracked and engages with issues that are not directly relevant to the question. Gives insufficient attention to some of the issues raised by the question.
这篇文章显然与已经设定的问题有关,但并没有在整个过程中提供持续和直接的回应。偶尔会偏离轨道,参与与问题没有直接关系的问题。对问题提出的一些问题没有给予足够的重视。

6 to > 4 marks
6 至 > 4 分

The essay does not directly engage with the question. The paper might refer in passing to issues with which the question is concerned, or discuss indirectly related concepts. The paper fails to address a significant aspect of the question, even though it addresses part of the question.
这篇文章没有直接涉及这个问题。该文件可以顺便提及与该问题有关的问题,或讨论间接相关的概念。该文件没有解决该问题的一个重要方面,尽管它解决了问题的一部分。

4 to > 0 marks
4 至 > 0 分

The essay does not address the question that has been set. There is sustained discussion of issues and subjects that are not related to the question. The essay is essentially a response to a question other than that set.
这篇文章没有解决已经设定的问题。对与问题无关的问题和主题进行了持续的讨论。这篇文章本质上是对那个集合以外的问题的回答。

10

Extent of research and use of sources
A. 研究的程度和资源的利用

25 to > 20 marks
25 至 > 20 分

The research represents a thorough canvas of relevant primary and secondary sources. The research represents awareness of jurisdictional issues that may arise. Primary and secondary sources relied upon are all relevant and current. Author has identified leading works and cases in the area. The research represents a range of perspectives and opinions. Sources are integrated into the paper so that they support the flow of the argument. Author demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the limitations and explanatory value of sources that are relied upon. The author clearly understands the importance of jurisdiction when considering the applicability of the primary law or secondary sources to the issue under discussion. Substantial number of sources have been considered.
该研究代表了对相关主要和次要来源的彻底了解。该研究代表了对可能出现的司法管辖区问题的认识。所依赖的主要和次要来源都是相关的和最新的。作者确定了该领域的主要著作和案例。该研究代表了一系列的观点和意见。来源被整合到论文中,以便它们支持论点的流程。作者展示了对所依赖来源的局限性和解释价值的深入理解。在考虑主要法律或次要来源对所讨论问题的适用性时,作者清楚地理解管辖权的重要性。已经考虑了大量的来源。

20 to > 15 marks
20 至 > 15 分

Primary sources cited are all current. Author has identified significant works in the area. All aspects of the question are addressed and given appropriate weight in the research. Primary and secondary sources are integrated into the paper in a way that supports the development of an argument or justification of a position, but author might provide inadequate explanation of the material relied upon. Use of material might lack sophistication either failing to recognise the limitations of the material relied upon, or failing to recognise the extent of support that it might provide.
引用的主要来源都是最新的。作者已经确定了该领域的重要作品。在研究中,这个问题的所有方面都得到了解决并给予了适当的权重。主要和次要来源以支持论点的发展或立场的理由的方式被整合到论文中,但作者可能对所依赖的材料提供不充分的解释。材料的使用可能缺乏复杂性,要么没有认识到所依赖材料的局限性,要么没有认识到它可能提供的支持程度。

15 to > 11 marks
15 至 > 11 分

Relevant primary and secondary sources have been identified and are current. Some signficiant and relevant materials are missing. Some sources might be out of date, or inappropriate for the specific jurisdiction. The author tends to present the research in a stilted format (for example):
已经确定了相关的主要和次要来源,并且是最新的。缺少一些重要和相关的材料。某些来源可能已过时,或不适合特定司法管辖区。作者倾向于以生硬的格式介绍研究(例如):

• Discussing cases one by one in a list, rather than providing a statement of the law as it stands with reference to the cases
• 一一列举地讨论案件,而不是参照案件提供现行法律声明

• Fails to integrate secondary sources into the development of an argument, justification of a position, or analysis. Material introduced without adequate explanation of its relevance and significance.
• 未能将二手资料整合到论点的发展、立场的辩护或分析中。介绍的材料没有充分解释其相关性和重要性。

• Patchwork writing (discusses one secondary source after another as a means of presenting arguments)
• 拼凑写作(讨论一个又一个次要来源,作为提出论点的一种手段)

• The author may not appreciate the limits of relevance when considering research that deals with multiple jurisdictions.
• 在考虑涉及多个司法管辖区的研究时,作者可能没有意识到相关性的局限性。

11 to > 0 marks
11 到 > 0 分

Clearly very little research has been done; the bibliography is short and there are relatively few references to primary and secondary sources. While some relevant primary and secondary sources have been found, there are still serious gaps in the material relied upon. Significant cases, academic writing and other writing are not cited. Secondary sources irrelevant, or inappropriate. Material relied upon might be dated and not represent contemporary ideas and understanding of the issues. Some significant and relevant materials are missing. Some sources might be out of date, or inappropriate for the specific jurisdiction. The author tends to present the research in a stilted format (for example):
显然,所做的研究很少;参考书目很短,对主要和次要来源的引用相对较少。虽然已经找到了一些相关的主要和次要来源,但在所依赖的材料中仍然存在严重的差距。重大案例、学术写作和其他写作不予引用。次要来源无关紧要或不合适。所依赖的材料可能已经过时,并不代表当代的想法和对问题的理解。缺少一些重要且相关的材料。某些来源可能已过时,或不适合特定司法管辖区。作者倾向于以生硬的格式介绍研究(例如):

• Discussing cases one by one in a list, rather than providing a statement of the law as it stands and using cases as examples to it. The author clearly does not understand the importance of jurisdiction when considering the applicability of the primary and/or secondary sources to the issue under discussion. Little consideration appears to have been given to the authoritativeness and appropriateness of sources.
• 一一列举地讨论案例,而不是提供法律现状的陈述,并以案例为例。在考虑主要和/或次要来源对所讨论问题的适用性时,作者显然不理解管辖权的重要性。似乎很少考虑来源的权威性和适当性。

• Relies on transcripts of speeches, information pages of institutions etc, where academic writing on the issue is available.
• 依赖演讲稿、机构的信息页面等,在这些地方有关于该问题的学术著作。

• Relies on academic writing on common law legal systems and principles published in non- common law jurisdiction.
• 依赖在非普通法司法管辖区出版的有关普通法法律制度和原则的学术著作。

 

25

Referencing 引用

 

15 to > 14 marks
15 至 > 14 分

Every statement of the law has a footnote. Every statement that is not common knowledge has a footnote. All footnotes are fully compliant with AGLC format. The bibliography is complete and complies with AGLC.
法律的每一项声明都有一个脚注。每个不为人知的陈述都有一个脚注。所有脚注均完全符合AGLC格式。参考书目完整并符合 AGLC 的要求。

14 to > 10 marks
14 至 > 10 分

Every statement of the law has a footnote. Every statement that is not common knowledge has a footnote. Some footnotes contain minor errors with respect to format (italics, missing periods, etc). The bibliography contains all materials relied upon. There are only minor AGLC inaccuracies.
法律的每一项声明都有一个脚注。每个不为人知的陈述都有一个脚注。一些脚注在格式方面存在小错误(斜体、缺少句点等)。参考书目包含所依赖的所有材料。只有轻微的 AGLC 不准确之处。

10 to > 7 marks
10 至 > 7 分

Most statements of the law have a footnote. Every statement that is not common knowledge has a footnote. Several footnotes are not in AGLC format. There is a bibliography but it is incomplete and not compliant with AGLC format.
大多数法律声明都有脚注。每个不为人知的陈述都有一个脚注。一些脚注不是 AGLC 格式。有一个参考书目,但它不完整并且不符合 AGLC 格式。

7 to > 0 marks
7 至 > 0 分

Most statements of the law and statements that are not common knowledge lack footnotes. Footnotes that have been provided are consistently not in AGLC format. The writing includes work that has been reproduced from other sources and not inadequately indicated as such. The work does not contain a bibliography.
大多数法律声明和不为人知的声明都缺乏脚注。提供的脚注始终不是 AGLC 格式。该作品包括从其他来源复制的作品,并且没有不充分地表明这一点。该作品不包含参考书目。

15

Quality of argument and critical analysis
论证和批判性分析的质量

20 to > 16 marks
20 至 > 16 分

Argument is presented clearly and logically. Logical points build directly upon the thesis and prior points. Counter- arguments are addressed, dismantled, and folded into the main argument of the paper. Persuasive reasoning is used to develop and support thesis consistently; causal connections between ideas are evident. Offers an original contribution to the broader discussion. Identifies and accurately explains the key concepts with reference to research. Appropriately uses the concepts in order to develop an argument that contributes to the debates, rather than simply repeating previous discussions. Concepts are related to each other in interesting and creative ways. Acknowledges problems with the argument (or the conclusions) and provides a thoughtful response. Argument is convincingly justified by:
论点清晰合乎逻辑地呈现。逻辑要点直接建立在论点和先验要点之上。反驳论点被处理、拆解并折叠到论文的主要论点中。说服性推理用于始终如一地发展和支持论文;思想之间的因果关系是显而易见的。为更广泛的讨论提供原创性贡献。识别并准确解释关键概念,并参考研究。适当地使用这些概念,以便发展有助于辩论的论点,而不是简单地重复以前的讨论。概念以有趣和创造性的方式相互关联。承认论点(或结论)存在问题,并提供深思熟虑的回应。论点有令人信服的理由:

• evaluating the strength of arguments in these sources by contrasting them in detail
• 通过详细对比这些来源的论点强度来评估它们

• supporting your position with reference to the selected arguments and the contemporary context
• 参考所选论点和当代背景来支持您的立场

• original analysis that acknowledges the analytical limits or gaps in previous work on the topic Argument goes substantially beyond points raised in classes and readings
• 原创分析,承认以前关于论点这一主题的工作中的分析局限性或差距,大大超出了课堂和阅读中提出的观点

16 to > 12 marks
16 至 > 12 分

Argument is presented clearly and logically; pursues thesis consistently and supports by reference to primary sources of law, elaborates by reference to the secondary sources. However, points do not necessarily build on each other. Counter arguments are addressed, but many are left hanging or are dealt with inadequately. Argument is strong and interesting, but plays it safe and does not push boundaries. Identifies and accurately explains the relevant key concepts. Concepts are put in conversation with each other but may not be used consistently. Disagreements and conflicts are identified and evaluated by reference to other authors, but no original analysis is offered. Argument is convincingly justified, for the most part, by:
论点清晰合乎逻辑地提出;始终如一地追求论点,并通过参考主要法律渊源提供支持,通过参考次要来源进行阐述。但是,积分不一定相互依赖。反驳论点得到了解决,但许多论点悬而未决或处理不当。争论是强烈而有趣的,但要谨慎行事,不会突破界限。识别并准确解释相关关键概念。概念相互对话,但可能不会一致地使用。分歧和冲突是通过参考其他作者来识别和评估的,但没有提供原始分析。在大多数情况下,论点有令人信服的理由:

• evaluating the strength of arguments in these sources by contrasting them in some detail
• 通过对这些来源的某种细节进行对比,评估这些来源中论点的强度

• supporting a position with reference to the selected arguments
• 参照选定的论点支持立场

12 to > 10 marks
12 到 > 10 分

Argument is rambling, and there are contradictions left unaddressed. Counter arguments may be presented, but are left unaddressed. Only partially develops the argument; shallow analysis; some ideas and generalizations are undeveloped or unsupported; makes limited use of primary and secondary sources to support argument. Relies on the arguments of other authors, and does not offer any original analysis. Argument is expository rather than analytical. Concepts are described, but dealt with separately and not explicitly related to each other. Concepts may be superficially mobilised in support of the argument. Conclusions are supported by the law, but the analysis is not clearly communicated. Identifies valid implications and consequences but misses significant implications.
争论是漫无边际的,还有一些矛盾没有得到解决。可能会提出反驳论点,但未得到解决。仅部分发展了论点;浅层分析;一些想法和概括没有得到发展或没有得到支持;有限地使用主要和次要来源来支持论点。依赖于其他作者的论点,不提供任何原创分析。论证是说明性的,而不是分析性的。对概念进行了描述,但单独处理,彼此之间没有明确的关联。为了支持这一论点,概念可能只是肤浅地被调动起来。结论得到法律的支持,但分析结果没有明确传达。确定有效的影响和后果,但遗漏了重要的影响。

10 to > 0 marks
10 到 > 0 分

There is no discernable argument. Frequently only describes rather than analyses; digresses from one topic to another without developing ideas or terms; makes insufficient use of primary sources and superficial, if any, use of secondary sources. Does not explain key concepts effectively, misunderstands or misapplies the law. Simply repeats the arguments of other authors, does not critically engage with the topic. Conclusions are superficial and unsupported by analysis. Primarily a statement of personal opinion.
没有明显的论点。通常只描述而不是分析;从一个主题偏离到另一个主题而没有发展想法或术语;对第一手资料的使用不足,对第二手资料的肤浅使用(如果有的话)。没有有效地解释关键概念,误解或误用法律。只是重复其他作者的论点,没有批判性地参与这个话题。结论是肤浅的,没有分析的支持。主要是个人意见的陈述。

20

Organisation 组织

10 to > 8 marks
10 至 > 8 分

The argument is clear and well stated in the introduction. There is an outline that explains the part that each section plays in the development of the argument or justification of the position adopted. Each section supports the primary argument and transitions are provided between sections. Each heading signposts a stage of the analysis. The analysis is presented in an order the builds from fundamental concepts through analysis of contentious issues to recognition of possible critiques of the argument. Each paragraph has a topic sentence.
这个论点很清楚,在引言中也说得很好。有一个大纲解释了每个部分在发展所采用立场的论点或理由方面所起的作用。每个部分都支持主要论点,并且各部分之间提供了过渡。每个标题都标志着分析的一个阶段。分析是按顺序呈现的,从基本概念到对有争议的问题的分析,再到对论点可能提出的批评的认识。每个段落都有一个主题句。

8 to > 6 marks
8 至 > 6 分

The argument overall is well- organized. The introduction has a coherent argument and map of the paper. Each section is signalled with an effective heading. However, some paragraphs or elements could be tied more tightly to the central thesis. The essay is tightly focused. There are no digressions.
整个论点组织得很好。引言有一个连贯的论点和论文的地图。每个部分都有一个有效的标题。但是,某些段落或要素可以与中心论点更紧密地联系在一起。这篇文章重点突出。没有题外话。

6 to > 5 marks
6 至 > 5 分

The essay has a clear statement of the argument and structure in the introduction, but the rest of the paper does not follow this approach. Each section has an informative heading and is coherent but there are no transitions. Relevant information is presented but not tied to the overarching argument. There may be occasional digressions into discussion of interesting tangential matters that do not support the central argument.
这篇文章在引言中对论点和结构有明确的陈述,但论文的其余部分没有遵循这种方法。每个部分都有一个信息丰富的标题,并且是连贯的,但没有过渡。提供了相关信息,但与总体论点无关。在讨论不支持中心论点的有趣的切线问题时,可能偶尔会有题外话。

5 to > 0 marks
5 至 > 0 分

The essay is consistently deficient in structure. There is no clear statement of the argument and conclusion in the introduction, no map of the paper The headings are uninformative. The sections might be in an order that is confusing for the reader. The sections do not have transitions, Insufficient use of paragraphs leading to passages of text that jump from issue to issue. Paragraphs are unrelated, each paragraph does not have a clear point to make.
这篇文章在结构上一直存在缺陷。引言中没有明确说明论点和结论,没有论文的地图,标题没有信息量。这些部分的顺序可能会使读者感到困惑。这些部分没有过渡,段落使用不足,导致文本段落从一个问题跳到另一个问题。段落是不相关的,每个段落都没有明确的观点要表达。

10