ICT30005_PIIT_OAUSP2_Rubric_Assignment1
1 | P a g e
Marking Criteria Rubric: ICT30005 Briefing Paper
Criteria High Distinction
(80 – 100%)
Distinction
(70 – 79%)
Credit
(60 – 69%)
Pass
(50 – 59%)
Fail
(<50%)
The extent to which the
assignment is presented in
accordance with the
submission requirements
and an ‘academic literature
review’ style, with citations
and referencing in
accordance with the
Swinburne Harvard
referencing style.
Weighting 20%
Citations and the reference list are
fully compliant with the Swinburne
Harvard style.
The cited literature is well
integrated into the paper, such that
it flows.
Adhered to all submission
requirements.
The cited literature is
integrated into the paper,
such that it flows.
Citations and the reference
list are fully compliant with
the Swinburne Harvard
style.
Adhered to all submission
requirements.
In most cases the cited
literature is well
integrated into the
paper.
Whilst the style of the
citations and the
reference list are based
on the Swinburne
Harvard style, there are
deviations.
Adhered to most
submission
requirements.
The cited literature
could bebetter
integrated. Whilst the
style of the citations
and the reference list
are based on the
Swinburne Harvard
style, there are many
deviations.
Adhered to some
submission
requirements
Significant work is
requiredto make the
citationsand reference
list consistent with the
Swinburne Harvard
style.
Adhered to minimal
submission
requirements.
The extent to which writing
is clear, effective and
precise. The extent to
which there is a clear and
logical structure and
effective organisation of
the review.
Weighting 20%
The paper is written in a flowing
manner, rather than a stop-startstop style. This is evident from a
structure that includes an
introduction, body and conclusion.
If headings are used, they enhance
the flow. Clear and effective writing.
Clear and effective organization of
ideas There is a clear and logical
structure and organisation of the
review. The writing is precise and
concise.
The paper is written in a
flowing manner, rather
than a stop-start-stop style.
This is evident from a
structure that includes an
introduction, body and
conclusion. If headings are
used, they enhance the
flow. Writing that is clear
and effective for the most
part. Organization and
transitions are clear and
effective for the most part.
There is a coherent
structure and organisation
of the review. The answer is
generally well written.
Generally clear and
effective. Organisation
of ideas are reasonably
clear. The review is
generally coherent but
there are occasional
deficiencies. The review
is reasonably well
written.
The paper lacks a
consistent flow. At
times paragraphs
appear unrelated to
those surrounding
them. Writing is
acceptable.
Organisation is
understandable. There
are some defects in
structure and
organisation. The
writing is difficult to
follow in parts.
The paper lacks flow and
hence is challenging to
read and make sense of.
Unclear and ineffective
writing. Unclear and
ineffective organization
and choppy transitions.
The structure and
organisation of the
review is incoherent and
lacking. The answer is
poorly written and
difficult to follow.ICT30005_PIIT_OAUSP2_Rubric_Assignment1
2 | P a g e
The extent to which there
is evidence of clarity of
discussion, depth of
reading and a balanced
viewpoint. Equally, the
quality of synthesis and
summary of information.
The quality of selected
literature.
(Weighting 30%)
Review exceeds expectations.
Information is accurate and
attributed to correct resources;
Includes primary research articles
and/or articles from well-respected
journals in the field. Information is
gathered from more than 9 current
high quality, peer reviewed journal
articles or industry white papers.
Clearly summarized the major ideas
of sources.
Clearly drawn thematic connections
between sources.
An objective, balanced view from
various perspectives was presented.
Information is accurate and
attributed to correct
resources; Information is
gathered from at least 7 - 9
current high quality, peer
reviewed journal articles or
industry white papers.
Summarized the major ideas
of sources.
Drawn thematic
connections between
sources. The findings/results
of articles were thoughtfully
compared and contrasted.
Information is accurate,
gathered from 5 - 7
current peer reviewed
journal articles or
industry white papers.
The finding of articles
was compared,
contrasted and/or
connected to each other.
Relationship of major
ideas evident.
Presented an
underdeveloped
review of the
literature.
Has sometimes been
unclear in summarizing
ideas.
Has sometimes been
unclear in drawing
thematic connections
between sources.
Review contains poorly
defined terms; there is
an over-reliance on low
quality journals and/or
sources; the findings of
articles were mentioned
with little and or no
comparison or
connection to each
other. Presented a
deficient review of
academic literature.
Presented an unclear
summary of ideas.
Organization is a
challenge to reader
Relevance, understanding
and analysis of topic
selected.
(weighting 30%)
Review exceeds expectations.
Current, comprehensive; shows
superior discrimination between
relevant and nonrelevant material;
shows evaluative knowledge of the
primary literature; critically
evaluates opinions of experts. There
is evidence of a methodical,
extensive and meticulous approach
to the literature resulting in highly
reliable conclusions.
Addresses the topic clearly;
shows effective
discrimination between
relevant and nonrelevant
material; ideas are welldeveloped; explores the
topic thoughtfully and
evaluatively. Structure
supports legibility of text.
There is evidence that
reliable conclusions can be
drawn with only minor
corrections or additions are
required.
Addresses the topic;
shows some
discrimination between
relevant and
nonrelevant material;
shows knowledge of the
primary literature;
evaluates some opinions
of experts. Line of
thought mostly clear.
There is evidence that
conclusions can be
drawn but there is some
need for additional
work, additions and
improvement.
Addresses the topic;
shows limited
discrimination
between relevant and
nonrelevant material;
shows deficient
knowledge of the
primary literature;
evaluates some
opinions of experts.
Some conclusions may
be able to be drawn
but considerable
additional work is
required.
Treats the topic casually,
limited in scope; shows
no evaluative
discrimination between
relevant and
nonrelevant material;
shows little knowledge
of the primary
literature; does not
critically evaluate
opinions of experts