Essay/report assessment criteria sheet
Criteria
Sophisticated/exemplary
1. Depth and breadth of knowledge demonstrated:
Mark allocation:
Mark range:

All relevant ideas,
concepts, theories covered
with clear explanation,
and with clear recognition
of the provisional nature
of knowledge and/or
multiple perspectives
possible.

Clear evidence of a wide
range of relevant, current
and credible sources used
to answer/explore the
question/task.
Competent/sound
Marginal
Clear fail
Mark range

Main relevant ideas,
concepts, theories
covered, (but with
some minor
omissions); and with
some awareness of
the provisional
nature of knowledge
and/or perspectives
possible.
Mark range

Some important ideas,
concepts, or theories
relevant to the topic
have been overlooked,
or insufficiently
described to indicate a
clear understanding.
Mark range

Fails to grasp or
address the core
concepts, ideas
and/or theories
pertinent to the
assignment (e.g.
by not answering
the question).



A variety of listed
sources used with
discrimination to
support the answer.

Goes beyond listed
resources to carry out
independent research.
2. Quality of thinking in evidence
Mark allocation:
Mark range:
2.1 Integration of
Ideas, theory and information
relevant ideas to
sources well integrated to
support the answer
provide sound argument for
the conclusion(s) reached.
2.2 Application of
theory to solve
problems/issues
Applies all relevant theory with
precision and rigor to resolve
the problem/issue.
2.3 Use of
examples/personal
experience
Uses a range of well selected
examples/personal experience
and reflections to effectively
support the points being made.
Mark range:
Ideas, theory and
information sources
sufficiently integrated to
support the general
thrust of the
conclusion(s) made.
Applies most of the
relevant theory in a
proficient manner in
order to resolve the
problem/issue.
Examples/experience
used generally support
the points being made.
Only a limited (or
minimum) number of
listed sources used to
support the answer.
Some sources lacking
in currency, credibility
and/or relevance.
Little or no
evidence of
reading/research
relevant to the
topic.
Mark range:
Conclusions not always
supported by evidencebased argument (e.g.
reliant upon anecdotes or
generalizations).
Mark range:
Little attempt to
integrate ideas and
information sources in
any meaningful way to
support the argument.
Fails to apply, or accurately
apply, some important
theoretical aspects related
to the problem/issue.
Theory in the main
ignored, or
inappropriately
applied, in addressing
the problem or issue.
Uses no or few
examples or personal
experience to
effectively support the
points made.
Uses minimal examples or
personal experiences to
support the points being
made, and/or those used,
not always supportive of
the argument.
2.4 Depth of analysis
and/or evaluation
(e.g. of self, or own
organization)

Identifies all relevant
factors/matters pertinent
to the problem, case, or
issue and recognizes the
significance of any interrelationships.

Identifies the major
factors/matters
pertinent to the
problem/case/issue
and the significance
of any interrelationships.

Fails to identify a
number of significant
factors/matters
pertinent to the
problem/case/issue
and/or their interrelationships.

Fails to identify
most of the
relevant
factors/matters
and/or the
significant interrelationships that
exist.

Critically evaluates
information/evidence (e.g.
in terms of reliability,
validity, significance,
relevance, contradictions,
linkage to theory).

Most of the key
information/evidenc
e scrutinized in some
depth.

Significant aspects of
information/evidence
either not scrutinized
or scrutinized in only a
superficial way.

Little attempt to
evaluate the
information/evide
nce in any critical
way.

Critically and perceptively
evaluates self/self
experiences or
organizational practices
and/or culture in light of
theory.

Evaluates self/self
experiences or
organizational
practice/culture with
reference to
appropriate theory,
but to varying depth.

Some significant
aspects of self/self
experiences or
organizational
practice, culture not
referenced against
appropriate theory,
and tending towards
description.

Little attempt to
relate
organizational
practices/culture
to theory; purely
descriptive.
3. Quality of communication
Mark allocation:
Mark range:
3.1 Logical structure

Judiciously uses headings,
and organization
sub-headings and other
organizational methods
(such as tables, charts,
diagrams) to facilitate
understanding on the part
of the reader.
3.2 Clarity &
succinctness of
writing (including
syntax, adherence to
word limit and
appropriateness for
purpose)
Mark range:

Generally structured
and organized to aid
the reader
Mark range:

Poorly and/or
ineffectively
structured to aid the
reader
Mark range:

No attempt made
to structure the
answer in any
meaningful way

Ideas flow clearly and
coherently, with
appropriate use of
paragraphs to make
points.

Ideas in the main
flow logically in
suitable paragraph
structure.

Flow of ideas not
always clear or logical.

Line(s) of logic not
clear at all

Expression clear, fluent
precise, focused on the
question, within word
limit, and in the
appropriate genre;
meaning crystal clear.

Expression in the
main clear and
fluent, within word
limit, and in the
appropriate genre;
meaning clear.

Expression and/or
meaning frequently
unclear or ambiguous,
repetitive, not always
to the point, and/or
inappropriate for
purpose.

Expression is
unclear, rambling,
and/or
inappropriate for
the genre;
meaning is
unclear.

Grammar, spelling &
punctuation is virtually
free of errors.

Grammar, spelling &
punctuation is
mostly free of errors.

Interspersed with
numerous
grammatical, spelling
and/or punctuation
errors.

Frequent
grammatical and
other errors
seriously distract
the reader.
2
Criteria
Sophisticated/exemplary
Competent/sound
Marginal
4. Conformance to MLM Dept. formatting guidelines and referencing standards
Mark
Mark range:
Mark range:
Mark range:
allocation:
4.1 Referencing 
Faultless application of

MLM Dept.

Inconsistently applies
MLM Dept. referencing
referencing style
the MLM Dept.
style.
applied with few
referencing style.
errors.

4.2 Formatting
All source material
correctly acknowledged,
with appropriate,
balanced use of
paraphrasing,
summarizing and quoting.
Closely adheres to all
formatting requirements.

Sources generally
acknowledged
through
paraphrasing,
summarising and
quoting (although
not always in
appropriate
balance).
Generally adheres to the
specified formatting
requirements.

Significant number of
sources not
acknowledged or
otherwise not
acknowledged
appropriately, raising
questions of
plagiarism.
Significantly deviates from
formatting requirements.
Clear fail
Mark range:

Incorrect referencing
style used.

Most sources not
acknowledged, or
acknowledged
inappropriately.
Guidelines/requirements
largely ignored.
MLM Toolbox links
Criterion element
Toolbox section
1.1
Preparing for an assignment>Understanding the assignment task
1.2
Getting started>Other study skills
Preparing for an assignment>Locating resources
Preparing for an assignment>Organising and analyzing your resources
3.1
Preparing for an assignment>Writing effective assignments
Preparing for an assignment>Preparing an academic essay
Preparing for an assignment>Sample assignment; Steve’s automotive’
3.2
Preparing for an assignment>Writing effective assignments
Preparing for an assignment>Using MS Word (2003) (to lay out and check your assignment)
4.1
Preparing for an assignment>Referencing and plagiarism
4.2
Preparing for an assignment>Preparing an academic essay
Preparing for an assignment>Sample assignment; Steve’s automotive’
Preparing for an assignment>Using MS Word (2003) (to lay out and check your assignment)
3