Automation in the workplace is transforming the nature

Automation in the workplace is transforming the nature of work in Australia and will result in high unemployment and greater inequality. Do you agree?

Research Essay Final Draft – Marking rubric
Research essay Argum. O 1 2 3 4 5
Criteria 1
Relevance to Task 15%
Research essay addresses
the question.
Development of main ideas
is cohesive and coherent
with academic support
Academic writing style is
used: formal, non-colloquial,
academic expression
-no clichés or expressions
characteristic of spoken
language
– hedging used where
appropriate.
Cohesion (micro) achieved
through the use of key words
/ use of pronouns /
transition signals/ logical
organization of ideas.
Coherence (macro) is
established-the connection
and organisation of the text
to create unity.
Sources are synthesised well
& paraphrasing is done well
with academic support.
Word length achieved 800-
1000.
ALL must be
present
Response is
completely off
topic.
Incorrect structure
for this genre.
Academic writing
conventions not
adhered to.
No submission
Response only partly
covers the key topic
areas.
Main ideas are
insufficient or must be
inferred through
support. Support for
ideas is limited or nonexistent.
Informal style
characteristic of
spoken, personal
language. Nonadherence to
academic writing
rules.
No synthesis of
sources and text is not
paraphrased well.
Word length is not
adhered to.
Response is mostly
relevant with some
lapses. Demonstrates
a limited
understanding of the
fundamental aspects
of the topic.
Presents several main
ideas, but they are not
fully developed.
Support is limited in
places.
Some informal style,
more characteristic of
spoken, personal
language. Some errors
in academic writing
style (some nonadherence to
academic writing
rules).
Little synthesis of
sources with poor
paraphrasing of
information.
Word length is not
adhered to.
Response is generally
relevant with
occasional minor
lapses. Demonstrates a
substantial
understanding of the
topic.
Presents several main
ideas with adequate
development. Support
is simple but sufficient.
Generally, formal style,
basic academic writing
style (with some minor
errors in academic
writing rules).
Generally, good
synthesis of
information from
sources & information
is paraphrased well.
Generally, correct
word length adhered
to.
Response is relevant &
demonstrates
originality and some
insight into the genre
& topic.
Presents plentiful
relevant main ideas.
Support is extensive
and well developed
Formal style evident
throughout the text.
Academic writing style
applied in most
instances.
Information from
sources is synthesized
and paraphrased well.
Correct word length
adhered to.
Response is
completely relevant &
demonstrates
considerable
originality and insight
into the genre & topic.
Presents and critically
engages with plentiful
relevant main ideas.
Support is extensive,
varied and well
developed.
Formal style expertly
maintained across the
text. Academic writing
style consistently
adhered to.
Information from
sources expertly
synthesized with
effective paraphrasing
of information.
Correct word length
adhered to.
Research Essay Final Draft – Marking rubric
Criteria 2.
Introduction 10%
Background- briefly
introduces the topic and
previous research referred
to and significance noted.
Thesis clearly communicates
position and outline
concisely previews the 2
argument.
Information paraphrased
well.
Correct structure
not achieved.
Many stages may
be missing with no
/ little logical
organisation of
ideas.
Some stages may be
missing, or unclear.
Little attempt to
organise information
into a coherent
paragraph.
No thesis statement or
missing outline
statement.
Not paraphrased well
Most stages are
present, but some
elements are not
clearly expressed or
sufficient.
Organisation of ideas
is mostly logical
Thesis may be weak
and outline statement
may be unclear.
Needs better
paraphrasing of
information from
sources.
All stages are present
and generally clearly
expressed.
Organisation of ideas is
logical.
Generally, well written
thesis and outline
statement stating 2
arguments.
Better paraphrasing
required of
information from
sources.
All stages are present
and sufficiently
developed to answer
the question.
Organisation of ideas
develops logically.
Well written thesis
and outline
statements stating 2
relevant arguments.
Very good
paraphrasing of
information from
sources.
All stages are present
and well developed.
Organisation of ideas
develops logically and
flows seamlessly.
Clearly expressed and
well written thesis and
outline statements
stating 2 relevant
arguments using
sophisticated
language.
Effective paraphrasing
of information from
sources.
Criteria 3
Body Argument 1 10%
Effective Paragraph
structure: the topic sentence
ties argument to the thesis
statement.
Supporting sentences
provide supporting evidence
and examples develop the
argument logically.
Cohessive devices used
effectively. Concluding
sentence reinforces the
thesis statement and
summarises the key points
of the argument.
Good readability of
information and paragraph
unity is good.
Information paraphrased
effectively.
Correct structure
not achieved.
Many stages may
be missing with no
/ little logical
organisation of
ideas or incorrect
text type written.
No body
paragraph 1.
Unsatisfactory
paragraph structure as
some stages may be
missing or unclear in
meaning.
Topic sentence
needed.
Some supporting
sentences are
irrelevant.
The organization of
ideas do not flow
logically, and the
argument is vague,
unclear and not
sufficiently logical.
Llittle use of
cohesive devices.
Argument not
paraphrased well.
Paragraph structure
needs work but most
stages are present, but
some elements may
be missing.
A more relevant topic
sentence is needed.
Most supporting
sentences are relevant
to the argument.
Main points are simple
and clear but may
need more coherent
justification.
Organisation is mostly
logical, but the
arguments are difficult
to follow. Some
cohesive devices used.
Needs better
paraphrasing of
information from
sources.
Good paragraph
structure with all
important stages
present although key
elements may be
brief.
Topic sentence ties
argument to thesis.
Supporting sentences
are relevant to the
argument.
The main points are
simple and clear with
coherent justification.
Organisation is
completely logical but
simple and the
arguments are easy to
follow. Cohseive
devices used.
Paraphrasing of
information from
sources is generally
well done.
Very good paragraph
structure as all stages
are present and
sufficiently developed
to answer the
question.
Topic sentence is well
written and ties the
argument to the thesis
with relevant
supporting sentences.
Organisation develops
logically and
paragraphs flow well.
Main points are well
considered with
considerable
justification. Cohesion
is well done.
Very good
paraphrasing of
information from
sources.
Expert paragraph
structure as all stages
are present and well
developed.
Topic sentence is well
written and ties the
argument to the thesis
with ideas clearly
expressed and
supported in
supporting sentences.
Organisation develops
logically and
paragraphs flow
seamlessly, and the
main points are well
considered with
appropriate
justification using
sophisticated
language. Paragraph is
very cohseive.
Effective paraphrasing
Research Essay Final Draft – Marking rubric
Criteria 4.
Body Argument 2 10%
Effective Paragraph
structure: the topic sentence
ties argument to the thesis
statement.
Supporting sentences
provide supporting evidence
and examples develop the
argument logically
Concluding sentence
reinforces the thesis
statement and summarises
the key points of the
argument.
Good readability of
information and paragraph
unity is good.
Well paraphrased
information.
Correct structure
not achieved.
Many stages may
be missing with no
/ little logical
organisation of
ideas or incorrect
text type written.
No body
paragraph 2.
Unsatisfactory
paragraph structure as
some stages may be
missing or unclear in
meaning.
Topic sentence
needed.
Some supporting
sentences are
irrelevant.
The organization of
ideas do not flow
logically, and the
argument is vague,
unclear and not
sufficiently logical.
Llittle use of
cohesive devices.
Argument not
paraphrased well.
Paragraph structure
needs work but most
stages are present, but
some elements may
be missing.
A more relevant topic
sentence is needed.
Most supporting
sentences are relevant
to the argument.
Main points are simple
and clear but may
need more coherent
justification.
Organisation is mostly
logical, but the
arguments are difficult
to follow. Some
cohesive devices used.
Needs better
paraphrasing of
information from
sources.
Good paragraph
structure with all
important stages
present although key
elements may be
brief.
Topic sentence ties
argument to thesis.
Supporting sentences
are relevant to the
argument.
The main points are
simple and clear with
coherent justification.
Organisation is
completely logical but
simple and the
arguments are easy to
follow. Cohseive
devices used.
Paraphrasing of
information from
sources is generally
well done.
Very good paragraph
structure as all stages
are present and
sufficiently developed
to answer the
question.
Topic sentence is well
written and ties the
argument to the thesis
with relevant
supporting sentences.
Organisation develops
logically and
paragraphs flow well.
Main points are well
considered with
considerable
justification. Cohesion
is well done.
Very good
paraphrasing of
information from
sources.
Expert paragraph
structure as all stages
are present and well
developed.
Topic sentence is well
written and ties the
argument to the thesis
with ideas clearly
expressed and
supported in
supporting sentences.
Organisation develops
logically and
paragraphs flow
seamlessly, and the
main points are well
considered with
appropriate
justification using
sophisticated
language. Paragraph is
very cohseive.
Effective paraphrasing
Criteria 5.
Conclusion 10%
All stages for the conclusion
present.
Thesis restated concisely.
Main ideas are summarised
coherently.
Relevant recommendation
given.
No new information is
introduced.
Information paraphrased
well.
There is no logical
organisation of
ideas.
Conclusion
structure is not
achieved.
No conclusion
Some stages may be
missing or unclear.
Thesis is not restated.
Summation of main
points is weak or
lacking.
Recommendation is
missing.
New information
introduced.
Information is not
paraphrased well.
Most stages are
present but some
elements are not
well written. Thesis
not restated well.
Summation of main
points is brief.
Recommendation
present but not clearly
expressed.
Some new information
may be introduced.
Needs better
paraphrasing.
All important stages
are present and
generally well
written.
Thesis is restated
briefly but is clear.
Basic but effective
summation of main
points.
Recommendation is
relevant.
No new information
introduced.
Generally paraphrasing
is done well.
All stages are present
and well written.
Thesis restated well.
Effective summary of
main points.
Recommendation
stated well.
No new information is
introduced.
Very good
paraphrasing.
All stages are present
and expertly written.
Excellent summary of
thesis argument with
concluding ideas.
Effective
recommendation
stated well.
No new information is
introduced.
Effective paraphrasing
of information.
Research Essay Final Draft – Marking rubric
Criteria 6.
Grammar- range 5% Proper
sentence construction
demonstrates variety of
sentences (simple,
compound, complex with no
fragments or run-ons.)
Poor sentence
structure which
impedes clarity of
the ideas.
Many grammar
errors make the
writing difficult to
understand or the
writer does not
paraphrase well.
Limited range of
sentence structures
used. Uses simple
structures and some
may be overused.
Occasionally attempts
complex structures.
Frequent run-ons and
fragments.
Errors in sentence
structure are frequent
enough to be a major
distraction to readers.
Uses a range of simple
sentence structures.
Attempts a limited
range of complex
structures and some
may be overused.
There may be some
run-ons and
fragments.
Some sentences are
awkwardly
constructed so that
the meaning is
somewhat affected
and the reader is
occasionally
distracted.
Uses a range of simple
& complex sentence
structure mostly
accurately. Errors are
mostly limited to
complex structures.
Some run- on
sentences but
fragments are rare.
Generally, the meaning
is clear.
Uses simple and
complex sentence
structures generally
accurately. Most
sentences are error
free.
Fragments and runons are rare.
The meaning is clear
Uses a wide range of
sentence structure,
accurately and
appropriately. Errors
in sentence structure
are rare.
No fragments or runons.
The meaning is clear
and well expressed
Criteria 7.
Grammar accuracy 5%
Language communicates the
message clearly, free from
errors such as:
1. subject/verb agreement
2. verb tense errors
3. incorrect preposition use
4. capital letter errors
5. punctuation misuse &
misplacement.
Many grammar
errors make the
ideas impossible
to read and
understand.
Many different types
of grammar errors
occur so that the
meaning is obscured.
Many capital letter
and punctuation
errors in placement
and misuse.
Errors of different
kinds which
sometimes are
distracting.
Errors may be more
frequent in complex
sentences and these
occasionally obscure
the meaning.
Punctuation and
capital letters
sometimes are
omitted or misplaced.
Grammatical errors
have minimal effect on
meaning and are not
distracting.
Errors do not obscure
the meaning and are
usually of one or two
types.
Generally, appropriate
punctuation & capital
letters placed at all
necessary points.
Generally,
grammatical errors are
rare and do not
obscure the meaning.
Appropriate
punctuation and
capital letters placed
at all necessary points.
No grammatical
errors.
Appropriate
punctuation and
capital letters placed
at all necessary points.
Research Essay Final Draft – Marking rubric
Criteria 8.
Vocabulary- range 5%
Disciplinary vocabulary
skilfully integrated and used
appropriately. Message is
precisely and clearly
expressed through
sophisticated / formal, noncolloquial – academic word
choices. No clichés or
expressions characteristic of
spoken language- no
abbreviations.
Personal references are not
used.
Demonstrates a
lack of
understanding of
what constitutes
formal language
for academic
texts.
Disciplinary language
omitted or misused.
Uses only simple
vocab with frequent
repetition. Lacks
formal tone.
Many phrasal verbs
and colloquial terms.
Many inappropriate
vocabulary choices.
Some use of personal
references.
Disciplinary language
infrequently used.
Uses a modest range
of vocabulary,
including some precise
vocabulary.
Generally, appropriate
vocabulary choices
with some errors in
formality. Some use
of phrasal verbs and
colloquial terms
Some use of personal
references.
Some (limited) use of
disciplinary language.
Uses a wide range of
vocabulary, including
some precise vocab.
Formal language used
mostly throughout the
text.
Rare use of personal
references.
Disciplinary language
integrated effectively
into the text.
Uses a widening range
of vocab choices to
give mostly precise
meanings.
Sophisticated/ formal
language used well
without obscuring the
message.
Maybe one instance of
personal reference.
Disciplinary language
expertly integrated
throughout the text;
shows expert
understanding of the
terms used.
Expert use of a wide
range of formal and
sophisticated
vocabulary to convey
precise meaning
clearly and effectively.
No personal
references are used.
Criteria 9. Vocabularyaccuracy 5%
Academic word choices with
correct meaning according
to the context.
Accuracy of:
1. Word choice
2. Word form
3. Spelling
4. Appropriateness to
the context
Poor vocabulary
choices, word
form and spelling
errors make it
impossible to
understand
meaning.
Many words are used
inappropriately,
confusing the reader.
Many errors in word
forms, and spelling.
Word choice is merely
adequate. Some
inappropriate word
choices.
Some errors in word
form and spelling.
Word choice is
generally good and
appropriate for the
context.
Occasional word form
errors and spelling is
mostly correct.
Word choice is very
good. The writer goes
beyond the generic
word to find one more
precise and effective.
Word form and
spelling errors are
rare.
Word choice is
persistently precise
and accurate and
effectively used.
Word forms and
spelling are correct.
Criteria 10. Sources &
Reference list 10%
Academic, reliable sources
selected.
Minimum of 4 reliable&
relevant sources used.
Reference list is in
alphabetical order and the
Harvard style used.
All must be
present
No attempt to
incorporate
sources.
All sources are not
academically
reliable.
No reference list.
Sources are often
inappropriate.
Less than 4 sources
used. Some sources
are not academically
reliable.
Reference list
incorrectly written
with many errors.
Incorrect referencing
style.
Some sources are not
academically
appropriate or do not
fully relate to the
topic.
Less than 4 sources
used- at least 3
academically reliable
sources.
Reference list has
some errors. Different
kinds of errors.)
There is some evidence
of critical analysis and
review in the selection
of sources.
4 or more relevant and
reliable sources used.
Reference list has only
minor errors (capital
letters, italics- the
same kind of errors).
A reasonable variety
of appropriate
resources used.
Critical analysis,
review and selection
of sources has been
well managed.
4 or more relevant,
reliable sources used.
Reference list is well
written. Errors are
rare.
The selection of
sources shows a deep
critical understanding
of the content.
4 or more relevant,
reliable used.
Reference list well
written and well
presented with no
errors.
Research Essay Final Draft – Marking rubric
Criteria 11.
Referencing – in text
citations 10%
Harvard referencing style
used for in text citations
with appropriate
placement.
Variety of voice (indirect,
direct, external &
secondary).
Reporting verbs & reporting
structures accurately used.
All must be
present:
Breaches
academic honesty
policy.
No in text
citations.
Minimal attempt at
using academic
referencing
conventions
(according to the
Harvard guide).
Lacks variety of voices.
References are seldom
cited to support
statements.
Reporting verbs and
reporting structures
are rarely used.
Academic referencing
conventions have
been followed
(according to the
Harvard guide) with
some errors in
application.
More variety of voice
required. Reliance on
one type of voice.
Some unsubstantiated
claims (more in text
citations needed).
More reporting verbs
and reporting
structures need to be
used.
Academic referencing
conventions have been
applied (according to
the Harvard guide)
with some minor
systematic errors.
Basic adherence to
required features.
Variety of voice used.
Generally, claims are
supported with in text
citations. Generally
reporting verbs and
reporting structures
are used well.
Academic referencing
conventions have
been correctly applied
(according to Harvard
guide) with only rare
non-systematic errors.
Good variety of voice
used.
Claims supported with
in text citations at all
necessary points.
Reporting verbs are
reporting structures
are written/chosen
well
Academic referencing
conventions have
been correctly and
consistently applied
(according to the
Harvard guide).
Very good variety of
voice used.
Claims supported with
in text citations at all
necessary points.
Reporting verbs and
reporting structures
are very well
written/chosen.
Criteria 12.
Formatting 5%
Double spaced. No
indentations. Font and size
is correct. Line between
paragraphs
No headings except for
Refernce List
Header and Footer with
correct information
No attempt at
formatting
correctly
Minimal attempt at
formatting
No Header and Footer
Between 1 & 3
Double Spacing.
No indentations.
Font Times New
Roman Size 12.
Line between
paragraphs.
No headings.
Header and Footer
used but some
incorrect information
may be present.
Between 3 & 5
All formatting
requirements met
Plagiarism Penalty: If your work is found to include plagiarism or collusion, you will be penalised by having marks deducted from your total possible score.
The higher the amount of plagiarism, the higher the total deduction from your grade.