Presentation and quality of writing 15% Quality of writing at a very high standard. Paragraphs are coherently connected to each other. Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. Quality of writing is of a high standard. Paragraphs are mostly well structured. Few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes. Quality of writing is of a good standard. Few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes. Some problems with sentence structure and presentation Frequent grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes. Use of inappropriate language. Quality of writing is at a very poor standard so barely understandable. Many spelling mistakes. Little or no evidence of proof reading.

Organisation or structure 15% The ideas are arranged in an extremely logical, structured and coherent manner. The ideas are arranged in a fairly logical, structured and coherent manner. The ideas are arranged in a logical, some-what structured and coherent manner. The ideas appear less logical, structured and presents in fairly incoherent manner. There is little, if any, coherent structure to the document.

The assessment presents a detailed and focused summary of the ideas presented; drawing clear and well thought-out conclusions. The assessment presents a fairly detailed and focused summary of the ideas presented; drawing fairly clear and well thought-out conclusions. The assessment presents a somewhat detailed and focused summary of the ideas presented; providing some evidence of conclusions. The assessment provides limited detail with no clear summary of the ideas presented; drawing limited conclusions. The assessment fails to provide any clear evidence of the ideas presented; drawing no clear conclusions.

Argument 30% Excellent introduction; providing a very clear purpose which ensures all areas relevant to the topic are clearly outlined. Good introduction; providing a mostly clear purpose which ensures most areas relevant to the topic are clearly outlined. Fair introduction, addresses some points, lacks some detail; ensures some areas relevant to the topic are outlined. Poor introduction; addresses limited points, lacks detail; of which few areas are outlined. Very poor or non-existent introduction. Excellent and logical argument integrated throughout the work Strong argument throughout most of the work Some argument linking ideas throughout the work Weak argument Little or no argument

Key Criteria Exceeds Expectations (High Distinction) 85-100% Exceeds Expectations (Distinction) 75 - 84% Meets Expectations (Credit) 65 – 74% Meets Expectations (Pass) 50 – 64% Below Expectations (Fail) below 50% Content Knowledge 40% Demonstrates a balanced and very high level of detailed knowledge of core concepts by providing a very high level of analysis. Demonstrates a balanced and high level of knowledge of core concepts by providing a high level of analysis. Demonstrates a good level of knowledge of some of the core concepts by providing some level of analysis. Demonstrates limited knowledge of core concepts by providing a limited level of analysis. Demonstrates little, if any, knowledge of the core concepts with extremely limited, if any, analysis. Utilises more than 10 excellent, relevant and credible sources. Utilises more than 10 very good, relevant and credible sources. Utilises 10 current, relevant and credible sources. Utilises 10 mostly relevant and credible sources. Does not meet the requirement, in terms of quantity or quality of articles selected

Due date Week 12, Friday 1, 5.00PM Any requests for extension must be submitted through the CQU system at least 48 hours prior to the due date, with relevant supporting documents. Late submissions without approval will result in a penalty of 5% (2.25 marks) per day. Weighting 45% Length 2,500 words ± 10% (excluding title page and reference list)