Second year reading week essay assessment criteria

Plagiarised work

Essays containing plagiarised work will be given a mark of 0%, and may result in disciplinary action being taken.

The essay should be 2000 words. Essays outside this range by more than 10% will have their final mark reduced by 10%.

The essay is marked according to 4 categories, each equally weighted and worth up to 5 marks. The categories are:

Relevance: a good 2nd year essay will cover both the history and the current state of the art in some detail; a poor one will be a ramble loosely related to the chosen topic.
Understanding and analysis: to what extent has the author understood the topic being discussed? A strong essay will demonstrate some mastery of the field, be able to place it in context, analyse the changes that have taken place etc.
Research and references: a weak essay will tend to cover at most material from the article, perhaps with some unfounded speculation. A strong essay will need wider reading, and will contain authoratative references.
Structure, spelling and grammar: how well does the essay read as a whole and in parts. Good essays will guide the reader through a structured history/argument; poor essays will jump about randomly. You must run your essay through a suitable spelling checker; there is no excuse for failing to do this. Essays with poor spelling or grammar will incur a 10% penalty.

5. Entirely relevant to the task addressed; and comprehesive in scope and coverage
4. Largely relevant to the task addressed; and fairly comprehensive in scope and coverage
3. Tasks addressed competently, with little superflous content
2. Tasks are addressed, but with evident limitations and some irrelevant content
1. Little or no attempt to address the task with much irrelevant content

5. Highly analytical in style and approach, with critical understanding and interpretation
4. Analytical in style and approach, with some critical interpretation
3. Analytical in style and approach at times, although descriptive for the greater part
2. Some grasp of the relevant ideas and issues is evident, although limited
1. Limited grasp of the relevant ideas and issues

5. Highly judicious in use of evidence and sources, with excellent references taken from a range of sources
4. Judicious in use of evidence and sources, with a good range of references
3. Reasonable use of sources, with adequate range of references
2. Makes some use of sources and references, although significant inadequacies are present
1. Inadequate use of, and an insufficient number of, sources and references

5. Details are integrated into a totally coherent whole; both specific claims and more general conclusions are clear and well-supported; and language is entirely appropriate and the style is polished
4. Details are integrated into a coherent whole; both specific claims and more general conclusions are well-supported; and language is appropriate and style is clear, with very few errors
3. Attempts to create a coherent whole; both specific claims and more general conclusions are supported in the large part; and the large majority of language is appropriate and style is clear
2. Links parts together but does not create a coherent whole; some specific claims and more general conclusions are supported, but only in part; and the language is often inappropriate or the style is poor
1. No attempt to link parts together or to support specific claims and more general conclusions; and the language is inappropriate or the style poor throughout