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 |
10 to > 8 marks Clearly focuses on the question that has been set and offers sustained analysis that relates directly to the subject of the question |
8 to > 6 marks 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. |
6 to > 4 marks 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. |
4 to > 0 marks 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. |
10 |
|
Extent of research and use of sources |
25 to > 20 marks 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. |
20 to > 15 marks 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. |
15 to > 11 marks 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): • Discussing cases one by one in a list, rather than providing a statement of the law as it stands with reference to the cases • 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. • Patchwork writing (discusses one secondary source after another as a means of presenting arguments) • The author may not appreciate the limits of relevance when considering research that deals with multiple jurisdictions. |
11 to > 0 marks 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): • 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. • Relies on transcripts of speeches, information pages of institutions etc, where academic writing on the issue is available. • Relies on academic writing on common law legal systems and principles published in non- common law jurisdiction.
|
25 |
|
Referencing 引用
|
15 to > 14 marks 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. |
14 to > 10 marks 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. |
10 to > 7 marks 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. |
7 to > 0 marks 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. |
15 |
|
Quality of argument and critical analysis |
20 to > 16 marks 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: • evaluating the strength of arguments in these sources by contrasting them in detail • supporting your position with reference to the selected arguments and the contemporary context • 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 |
16 to > 12 marks 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: • evaluating the strength of arguments in these sources by contrasting them in some detail • supporting a position with reference to the selected arguments |
12 to > 10 marks 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. |
10 to > 0 marks 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. |
20 |
|
Organisation 组织 |
10 to > 8 marks 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. |
8 to > 6 marks 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. |
6 to > 5 marks 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. |
5 to > 0 marks 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. |
10 |