opic: Write a report of up to 1500 words (excluding references), consisting of three tasks
ECON7530 Country Trade Report Marking Rubric – Semester 2, 2023
(Marks for each part are given in parentheses, 30 marks in total)
Criteria 4 3 2 1 0
Task 1 – Clarity of
trade overview (4)
Clear and precise
overview, with proper
support from the
data/sources provided
Good overview,
though one trading
partner can be
improved, by clearer
explanation, and/or
support from
data/sources
Flawed overview in
either or both trading
partners, either
inaccurate or with
severe lack of support
by data/sources
Very flawed
overview in both
trading partners,
either very inaccurate
or not supported by
data/sources
No, or irrelevant
overview given
Task 2 – Use of trade theories, and clarity of explanation (4)
- Partner 1 –
Explanation (2)
Trade theory clearly
stated and defined,
and good
explanations, with
good use of research
to reflect the
arguments.
Trade theory stated
but may not be well
defined; or with
flawed explanation
and/or severe lack of
evidence.
No attempt shown
- Partner 2 –
Explanation (2)
Similar to above
Similar to above, or if
the same trade model
is used
Criteria 4 3 2 1 0
Task 3 – Evaluation of how well the model fits the trade relationship (8)
- Discussion on
Partner 1 (4)
Very clear and
insightful discussion.
The arguments are
valid, and both sides
of the argument
(including
shortcomings of the
model’s fit) are given,
and discussed in
detail, with excellent
evidence support, and
clear justification on
why the student chose
the model overall
Good discussion,
though some
arguments are flawed.
Both sides of the
argument are given
and discussed, with
good evidence
support. There is
clear justification on
why the student
chose the model
overall
Flawed discussion
overall, with some
irrelevant arguments,
or the student’s
conclusion is not
clear. Both sides of
the argument are
mentioned, with some
extent of evidence
support.
Very flawed
discussion, and not
all sides of the
argument are
discussed, or with
very limited evidence
support. It might not
be clear why the
student chose the
model overall
No attempt shown
- Discussion on
Partner 2 (4) Similar to above
No attempt shown, or
if the same trade
model is used
Evidence of research and use of relevant data (4)
Excellent evidence of
research and relevant
data are used,
arguments are
supported by highly
suitable and relevant
sources in all sections
Good evidence of
research and relevant
data provided and
explained, with most
arguments supported
by suitable and
relevant sources in
most sections
Flawed evidence of
research, with some
arguments in some
sections not
supported by suitable
and relevant sources
Either some key
arguments are not
supported by relevant
sources/data, or
sources/data are
provided but not
explained in detail,
reflecting a lack of
depth in reading
No, or very
inconsequential
evidence of research
and/or choice of
suitable sources
Criteria 4 3 2 1 0
Writing quality (5)
- Essay format (1) Clear, and relevant
introduction and
conclusion
No, or irrelevant
introduction or
conclusion given
- Writing style (1) Academic writing
style is used, with a
good flow between
paragraphs, sections,
or discussion points
Academic writing
style is not used, or
there is no essay flow
between paragraphs,
sections, or discussion
points
- Grammar,
Structural clarity
(3)
Both grammar and
spelling are faultless
throughout the essay
There are occasional
grammatical and/or
spelling errors but
these do not affect
readability of the
essay
Spelling and/or
grammar is
consistently incorrect,
hindering the report's
‘flow’ and readability.
The grammar and
spelling are too poor
to make sense of most
of the essay
Presentation (1)
The essay has a cover
page, detailing name,
student ID, and word
count
Not all details are
given, or the word
limit is not followed
Criteria 4 3 2 1 0
Reference (4)
- Reference style
(2)
Reference style,
including reference
list and in-text
citations, is consistent,
and the reference list
is alphabetically
ordered
Reference style,
including reference
list and in-text
citations, is mostly
consistent with some
errors, and the
reference list is
alphabetically ordered
Inconsistent, or
incorrect reference
style
Important note: even
if students use the
reference tools from
database such as UQ
Library or Google
Scholar, please
double check them
as they might be
incorrect
- Reference quality
(2)
Quality academic
and/or news sources
are chosen, which
greatly support the
arguments
Flawed/missing
reference list and/or
irrelevant/missing in-
text citations
Inconsequential, or no
reference given