Essay Marking Rubric

Student Name: Marker:

High quality sources were used High quality journal articles were used to
No or very low An over-reliance on
Sources were used but there to empirically evaluate the empirically evaluate the approach.
Sources of quality sources textbook sources,
Basic Elements 20%

were too few, misunderstood approach and/or appropriate Appropriate sources including primary
Information of information and/or only few
or of low quality. sources were referred to for sources were referred to for the counselling
used. sources used.
the counselling approach. approach.

Inappropriate, unclear Clear and well-focussed. Main Clear and well-focussed. Main ideas were
Clarify and Specifies some of the
Of low quality or unfocussed, not ideas were clear, but more clear and well supported by detailed and
Focus information, but unclear.
pertaining to subject. depth needed. accurate information.

Practical components of the

Analysis of therapeutic style were Practical components of the therapeutic style
Unclear, ambiguous or Technique was described but
theoretical discussed, with some were discussed, with a clear analysis of how
None inaccurate discussion not analysed in light of
assumptions evaluation of how the the theoretical assumptions impact on
of technique/s. theoretical assumption
and techniques theoretical assumptions impact techniques used in therapy.
on techniques used in therapy.
Critical Evaluation 30%

Critical and Basic empirical evaluation of Commentary on the empirical The analysis of the empirical support for the
None, or did not Only a cursory attempt
Empirical the theory was included, but support for the theory in approach in workplace settings was
examine the at including supporting
Evaluation of conclusions were not workplace settings was fair and discussed with skill and based on supporting
approach in a evidence for the
Use in supported by evidence, or based on supporting evidence. evidence. Limitations of empirical support
workplace counselling approach in
Workplace there are misinterpretation or Quality of evidence for the were included where appropriate, and quality
context. workplace settings.
settings overzealous statements. theory evaluated and critiqued. of evidence was critiqued and evaluated.

Introduction stated the main Introduction was inviting and stated the main
Introduction stated the main topic and an overview of the topic. An overview of the paper was
Introduction No clear introduction or
No introduction topic. Main topic explained, but paper was included. Main topic included. Information was relevant and
and main body structure.
not in detail explained, but not well argued. presented in logical order. Main topic well
Organisation was clear. described, argued, and clearly organised.
Structure 20%

Conclusion was clear and there was strong

Conclusion None justification from content in main body.
No clear conclusion Reasonable conclusion
Clear conclusion based on Included a summary of the paper
and/or summary included, but no summary
content within main body of
 essay
Self-evaluation

No personal Limited personal Personal reflection included,

Personal reflection was of low Personal reflection was
Self-evaluation reflection reflection (or <250 clearly written with reference to values and
20%

quality. included and well-written.

included. words) personal experience.

Unclear, disorganised, Writing displayed occasional

Written Writing was mostly Writing was grammatically correct & mature.
and/or verbose writing. grammatical and/or spelling
expression, grammatically correct. Writing Writing style was clear, succinct, & fully
Of low quality Grammatical errors. Writing style was
grammar & style was mostly clear & expresses the writer’s ideas. All sentences
conventions were acceptable but lacks clarity
spelling succinct. were well constructed.
followed. and/or is verbose.
Presentation 10%

APA formatting has

APA Formatting was mostly APA Formatting was mostly APA Formatting completely and accurately follows
Not followed been attempted but
formatting with a few errors. with 1-2 minor errors. APA/Findlay.
contains major errors.

Attempt at appropriate Referencing conventions were

Many references Correct referencing conventions were used
Referencing & referencing when required but correctly used within text & in
Not done missing or within text and in the reference list with no
citations (APA) some references missing or the reference list, some minor
inappropriately cited. errors.
cited incorrectly. errors.

Partial plagiarism of one

essay section – e.g. Number of words within 2000
Extensive plagiarism
Penalties (more than paraphrasing, excessive (not including reference list)
Other None
one may apply) use of quotations
Zero grade
-10%
-15%