CHEM 426 TUTORIAL MARKING RUBRIC

TOTAL (/45)

Exceeds expectations

Meets expectations

Approaching
expectations

Does not meet

expectations

Spelling, grammar,
readability and
completeness (/5)

Report written eloquently and free

from errors in terms of grammar
and spelling mistakes. The work is
highly readable and engaging.

Per page there may be 1-2 errors

in terms of grammar, spelling and
sentence structure but work still
highly readable nonetheless.

Per page there may be 3-4 errors

in terms of grammar, spelling and
sentence structure. Flow and
readability could be improved

Major errors in terms of grammar,

spelling and sentence structure.
This seriously hinders the
readability of the work with lots of
room for improvement.

Report highly professional

Organisation of work logical
and coherent

The paper has been critically

examined with respect to the
highlighted extra reading and
a balanced discussion is
presented
No glaring errors in any
scientific discussion
Excellent coverage of the
concepts reported with some
detailed focus and in depth
discussion.
Level highly appropriate for
MChem (and prospective PhD
student).

Marks for 4
categories
5-4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Report presentation,
consistency and
organisation (/5)

Marks for 4
categories
5-4 / 3 / 2 / 1
Content: Critical
discussion of the
science (/20)
Marks for 4
categories
20-18 / 9 / 10-6 / 5-1

Report looks professional and

is well written, but lacks
consistency in its presentation.
Organisation of work logical
and coherent, with only very
minor issues

Good critical coverage of the

science within the paper with
evidence of additional reading
Some discussion may be a
little superficial or focussed
narrowly.
Material presented and
argued as expected by a 3rd
year student concentrated on
overview rather than detail in
places.

Organisation lacks clarity with

concepts a bit muddled.
Layout and presentation lacks
clearly defined paragraphs and
flow of argument

Lots of room for improvement.

Report a mismatch of styles

as though multiple concepts
are being described at the
same time.
Lacks professional feel
Very disorganised with little
coherence.

Poor coverage of the science

in the paper.
No evidence of extra reading
Very little scientific analysis
presented.
Some major errors in the
details.
Unbalanced report with
conclusions made that have
no evidence within the paper
or additional sources.
Lacking sufficient detail.

Little critical review of the

paper with reiteration of the
content.
Level of detail far too general,
or too focussed without
consideration of wider
context.
Little evidence of reading
outside of the presented
paper
The level has generally been
pitched incorrectly.
Some minor errors in the
detail.

Content: Use of data,

Tables, Figures,
Schemes (/10)

Marks for 4
categories
10-8 / 7-5 / 4-3 / 2-1

Depth of reading and

referencing (/5)

Marks for 4
categories
5-4 / 3 / 2 / 1

Excellent inclusion of key

figures/tables or schemes to
elaborate scientific points or
support conclusions
Interpretation of data within
the paper and description of
its relevance to the aims and
objective of the presented
science
Good level of critical
assessment and possible
suggestions for other
approaches to presenting the
data.
Discussion of correlation of
data with external reading
Excellent connection shown
between the different
disciplines described within
the paper

Considerable additional
reading over and above the
suggested extra reading
Correct and accurate
presentation of references for
additional source material
with correct and consistent
citations (ie, websites have
dates last accessed, journals
referenced in a professional
manner (RSC format))

Limited selection of and

reference to the data, tables,
figures and schemes within
the paper.
Detail of discussion
appropriate but lacks depth of
discussion or understanding.
Some critical discussion of the
data
Limited correlation to
additional extra reading.
Good attempt to pull together
aspects of the different
disciplines.

Some additional reading over

and above extra reading
Correct and accurate
presentation of references for
additional source material
with correct and consistent
citations (ie, websites have
dates last accessed, journals
referenced in a professional
manner (RSC format)).

Some reference to the data

presented in the paper
Discussion lacking clarity in
some areas but overall a good
attempt at understanding the
presented data and
interpretation.
Some comparison to extra
reading
Some minor
misunderstandings
Only one (e.g. chemistry)
discipline described in detail

Little additional reading over

and above extra reading

Inaccuracies and
inconsistencies in presentation
of references for additional
source material

Poor in all areas of data

analysis, interpretation and
presentation.
No evidence of connection to
extra paper reading.
Major misunderstanding and
lack of consideration of the
presented data, tables, figures
and schemes
Lacking an understanding of
the relevance or implications
of the paper and its results.

No additional reading over

and above the suggested extra
reading