Unit LAW2605 – Security and the Law
Rubric
Assessment task 3 – Research paper
| Criteria | High Distinction (80-100%) | Distinction (70-79%) | Credit (60-69%) | Pass (50-59%) | Fail (49% 0r Below) |
| Quality: level of analysis, synthesis, critical thinking, and justifications provided (15%) | Provides outstanding analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of material associated with the incident under consideration; for example, puts together pieces of the discussion to develop new approaches that take the class further. Outstanding contribution consisting of expression of legal principles aligned with issues of security. | Provides broad, insightful justifications and supporting evidence about the security issues addressed in paper argument. | Provides suitable justifications and supporting evidence about the security issues addressed in the paper argument. | Provides appropriate but unclear justifications, lacks observations about the security issues addressed in the paper argument. | Provides little or inappropriate supporting evidence about the security issues addressed in the paper argument. |
| Quantity: frequency of interactions with peers, structure & Flow (15%) | The paper argument has a sophisticated structure and highly logical order. The paper argument is efficiently structured, distinguished from deep and sophisticated analysis, justified from scientific considerations and conclusions linked with seamless transitions and the meaning is very clear. | The paper argument has a well-balanced and cohesive structure and logical order. The paper argument is well presented, characterised from sophisticated analysis, justified from scientific considerations and conclusions are linked with effective transitions and the meaning is quite clear. | The paper argument has a clear structure and logical order. The argument flow is presented in a moderate manner, relied on restricted number of scientific considerations and its conclusions are consistently linked with transitions and meaning is mostly clear. | The paper argument is distinguished from a basic structure and logical order. In addition, the paper argument is not so efficiently presented in terms of sophistication and synthesis of ideas, scientific considerations and conclusions are inconsistently linked with transitions. The meaning is not always clear. | The paper argument does not have a balanced structure, logical order. In addition, the paper argument is not relied on scientific considerations and conclusions are not linked with transitions. |
| Citations/ reference to literature review (5%) | Outstanding expression of legal principles. Highly accurate reference to legal sources (i.e., primary, and secondary legal sources, references to scholars’ perspective related to the research topic under examination) and associated incidents of security. Arguments supported by references to legislation, case law, writings by scholars in areas of law and security, relevant international perspectives (if applicable) or law reform discourse in the context of security (e.g., New Cybersecurity Strategy 2020). Complied with the AGLC 4.0 citation style. | Highly accurate reference to legal sources (i.e., primary, and secondary legal sources, references to scholars’ perspective related to the research topic under examination) and associated incidents of security. Arguments supported by some references to legislation, case law, writings by scholars in areas of law and security, relevant international perspectives (if applicable) or law reform discourse in the context of security (e.g., New Cybersecurity Security Strategy 2020). Well complied with AGLC 4.0 citation style. | Accurate reference to specific legal sources (primary or/ and secondary legal sources, limited reference to other scholars’ perspective concerning discussion related to the research topic under examination). Most arguments supported by some references to legislation, case law, writings of scholars in areas of law and security. Not well complied with AGLC 4.0 citation style. | Mostly accurate reference to legal sources (i.e., primary/ secondary legal sources). Arguments are characterised from lack in references to legal sources (i.e., primary, or/ and secondary legal sources, no reference to other scholars’ perspective concerning the research topic under examination). Inadequate compliance with AGLC 4.0 citation style. | Little or no reference to legal sources (i.e., primary, or/ and secondary legal sources) or incident that raises security questions or references to other scholars who argue on topics related to the research topic under examination. No AGLC 4.0 applied. |
Get expert help for Unit LAW2605 – Security and the Law and many more. 100% safe, Plag free, 24X7 support, Order Online Now!
