UU114: ESSAY MARKING CRITERIA:

Discussion Essay (Two Sides)

Plan: BLOCK or POINT-BY-POINT

4. Full plan provided, showing a clear grasp of both sides with
mature choice of argumentation pattern.
3. Sound plan provided showing a grasp of both sides with a
basic argumentation pattern for both sides.
2. Weak plan provided showing limited grasp of both sides
and simple argumentation pattern for either side or both
sides.
1. Plan does not reflect two sides of the issue.
0. No plan provided.

Introduction: Both Sides

4. Context, subject, limited subject, issue and thesis statement
presented as a clear and effective unit covering both sides.
3. Context, subject, limited subject, issue and thesis statement
presented as a clear and developed unit covering both sides.
2. Context, subject, limited subject, issue and thesis statement
presented mentioning both sides.
1. Context subject, limited subject, issue and thesis statement
attempted but hold together ineffectually.
0. Introduction incomplete, flawed or missing.

Quality of arguments: Two Sides

4. Controlling ideas/reasons soundly maintained, evenly developed
and strongly supported by appropriate, thoughtfully balanced and
evaluated evidence.
3. Controlling ideas/reasons reasonably maintained, evenly developed
and well supported by appropriately analysed evidence.
2. Controlling ideas/reasons maintained, supported by appropriate
evidence.
1. Controlling ideas/reasons weak and not maintained, poor
supporting evidence.
0. No appropriate controlling ideas/reasons, arguments collapse,
not enough forethought given to ideas.

Logical organization of ideas: Block or Point-By-Point

Method
4. Ideas presented in a subtle sequential pattern that enhances
the effect of both sides evenly, using the appropriate choice of
organizational method effectively.
3. Ideas presented in a sequential pattern that enhances both
sides of the discussion evenly using the appropriate method.
2. Ideas presented in a reasonable pattern that supports both
sides of the discussion, using the appropriate method.
1. Attempt made to create a logical pattern, though the effect is not
sustained.
0. Poor organization of ideas weakens the arguments of either
side.

Development of argument: Both Sides

4. Arguments develop effectively in a well-structured, connected
sequence with cohesion and sophisticated transitions.
3. Arguments develop logically in sound sequence with
appropriate transitions and cohesion.
2. Arguments develop but not consistent, appropriate sequence
but weak transitions and cohesion.
1. Arguments do not develop: sequence is not well-structured,
weak transitions and cohesion.
0. Little attempt to develop arguments. Not enough cohesion
evident.

Conclusion:
4. Conclusion provides appropriate, strong final perspective with
mature closing comment, arriving at a reasoned decision.
3. Conclusion provides appropriate, thoughtful final perspective
with logical closing comment / decision.
2. Conclusion provides appropriate, modest final perspective
with satisfactory closing comment / decision.
1. Conclusion attempts a final perspective with weak or unsubtle
closing comment or decision.
0. New material included in concluding paragraph or no
conclusion offered.

Paragraphing:
4. Each paragraph well developed and exemplified ; effective,
complete SEXI pattern.
3. Each paragraph clearly developed and exemplified; sound,
complete SEXI pattern.
2. Each paragraph developed and exemplified; some
inconsistencies; occasional good SEXI pattern.
1. Paragraphs poorly developed; one or two elements of SEXI
pattern missing.
0. Too little apparent attempt to write coherent paragraphs;
SEXI pattern not reflected.

Grammar:
4. Grammar wholly accurate in tense, mode, agreement and voice.
3. Grammar mostly accurate in tense, mode, agreement and voice.
2. Grammar errors in tense, mode, agreement and voice minor
but consistent.
1. Grammar errors in tense, mode, agreement and voice impede
comprehensibility.
0. Errors of grammar seriously compromise comprehensibility.

Accurate writing conventions:

4. Vocabulary wide and accurate; spelling and punctuation
error-free; neutrality of tone sustained.
3. Vocabulary wide with occasional errors in word choice;
spelling and punctuation mostly correct; neutrality of tone
sustained.
2. Vocabulary adequate with several errors in word choice;
spelling and punctuation errors noticeable; neutrality of tone
mostly sustained.
1. Vocabulary simplistic or pretentious with frequent word choice
errors; errors of spelling and punctuation impede
comprehensibility; neutrality of tone inconsistent.
0. Errors of vocabulary, spelling and punctuation compromise
comprehensibility; neutrality of tone uncertain.
Application of research to essay and bibliography:
5. Wide range of wholly appropriate and relevant references,
fully integrated into the text with a sound mix of direct and
indirect quotation. Quotations wholly support thesis. Citations
wholly accurate; bibliography complete and accurate.
4. A range of wholly appropriate and relevant references,
generally well-integrated into the text with a mix of direct and
indirect quotation. Quotations support thesis. Most citations
correct; bibliography good, only minor errors
3. An attempt made to apply research to the essay: the balance
of direct and indirect quotation is uneven, and relevance is
sometimes questionable. Quotations occasionally replace
student input. Occasional major citation errors; bibliography
satisfactory.
2. Application of research to essay is uncertain: relevance of
material is very questionable and/or balance of direct and
indirect quotation is poor. Quotations often replace student
input. Citations show many errors; bibliography complete but
poor.
1. Application of research to essay is poor: heavy reliance on
direct quotes, relevance is very questionable; quotations too
often replace student input. Too many citation errors. Heavy
reliance on one source; bibliography incomplete.
0. No citations; bibliography missing.

Abstract:
4. Abstract accurate in format, clear and thorough.
3. Abstract accurate in format and clear; some elements may be
weak.
2. Abstract unclear, some elements missing.
1. Abstract inaccurate in format.
0. Abstract missing.

Overall impression:
5. Excellent academic standard.
4. Above average academic standard.
3. Average academic standard.
2. Below average academic standard.
1. Unacceptable work.
0. No assessable work.

Penalties:
• An assignment without a signed plagiarism statement
will not be marked.
• Failure to show or include any one of the following
requirements will incur a penalty of half (½) a mark each:
o Typed
o Double space
o Cover sheet in the format shown on Moodle
o Correct marking schedule
o Correct placement of abstract