Marks can be lost in the first ten minutes of an assignment, long before the last ten hours. The essay is well written and carefully referenced, and it answers a slightly different question from the one that was set.
The brief tells you what to do. The rubric tells you how the result will be judged. Read closely, they work as a specification, and a specification can be turned into a checklist. It takes about half an hour, before any reading or writing. EdCitation's free Check your paper can make the first pass: paste in the brief and it pulls the stated requirements out into a checklist, so the half hour goes on the question and the rubric.
What are the parts of an assignment question?
An assignment question has three parts: an instruction word that says what to do, a subject that says what to do it to, and a focus or limit that narrows the subject. The University of Hull (n.d.) breaks questions down in exactly this way, and calls the third part the focus or constraint: it either rules things out or fixes the context.
Take an invented question:
Critically evaluate the claim that remote working increases productivity, with reference to UK service industries since 2020.
- Instruction: critically evaluate. You must reach a judgement, with reasons.
- Subject: remote working and productivity. More exactly, a claim about them, which you are asked to test.
- Limits: UK, service industries, since 2020. Evidence from American factories in 2015 is off the question unless you say why it is relevant.
An essay that describes the rise of remote working, however fluently, has answered none of this.
When there is no question, only criteria
Some modules give you a task description and a list of criteria rather than a title. Hull's guide points out that the same three parts are still there, buried in the criteria: "select two learning theories" and "reflect on an experience" are instruction words with their own subjects and their own limits. Mark them up as if they were a question, because each one is a thing the marker will look for. If you are asked to invent your own title, write one that contains all three parts, and you will have planned the essay while you were naming it.
What do command words such as analyse, evaluate and discuss mean?
Each command word asks for a different kind of thinking, and the difference decides what the marker looks for. The meanings below follow Reid (2020), writing for the University of Bath's academic skills blog. The last column is our own note on how each one goes wrong.
| Command word | What it asks for | How it usually goes wrong |
|---|---|---|
| Describe | A detailed account of something | Rarely goes wrong, and rarely earns high marks alone |
| Outline | The main features or general principles, without the minor detail | Turns into a description of everything |
| Explain, account for, interpret | The facts, plus the causes and reasons behind them, and sometimes the implications | Facts given, reasons left out |
| Analyse | Break the subject into its component parts and examine them critically or closely | Parts listed, with nothing on how they relate |
| Compare | How things relate, mainly their similarities, perhaps ending in a justified preference | Each item described in turn, never side by side |
| Contrast, distinguish, differentiate | How things relate, mainly their differences | The same |
| Discuss, consider | The least specific words: decide what the main issues are, then proceed as for evaluate | A tour of the topic with no position |
| Evaluate, assess, comment on, criticise | Judge the value of something: analyse, describe and explain first, lay out the arguments for and against neutrally, then give a judgement backed by reasons and evidence | A verdict in the last line with nothing under it |
| Critically evaluate | The same as evaluate. Bath groups the two together | Treated as "criticise", so only the faults appear |
| To what extent, how far, how true | Accept that there are several views: outline them, weigh their strengths and weaknesses, explore alternatives, then give your judgement | A plain yes or no |
| Justify | Explain, with evidence, why something is the case, answering the main objections as you go | Objections ignored |
| Refute | Give evidence to show why something is not the case | Assertion instead of evidence |
| Define | The precise meaning of a word or phrase, sometimes weighing rival definitions | One dictionary line, unexamined |
| Illustrate | Make something clear and explicit, usually through carefully chosen examples | Examples with no point made from them |
Where these definitions come from, and where they stop applying
It is worth knowing that these lists have a history rather than an authority. The Bath list is adapted from a 1995 student guide published at the University of Stirling, and versions of it circulate at most universities, which is why the wording is so similar wherever you look. That is a strength, because the core meanings are stable, and a weakness, because nobody has ratified them.
So if your module handbook defines its own command words, that definition wins over any list, including this one.
The word "critically" deserves its own note. The University of Hull (n.d.) treats "critically evaluate" and "with reference to relevant literature" as redundant phrases: all university writing is expected to be critical and to refer to the literature, so the words are a reminder of an expectation that was already there. Critical means weighing evidence before you conclude. It does not mean finding fault.
What requirements are hidden in the brief?
The requirements that cost marks are usually stated once, in a sentence that is easy to skim. Go through the brief and mark anything that is a number, a format or a "must".
- Length. The word limit, whether there is any tolerance, and what counts towards it.
- Length of each part. A report with four sections and a mark for each has, in effect, four word limits.
- Sources. How many, of what kind (peer-reviewed, primary research, set readings), and how recent. See how many references an essay needs. When you start searching, Find sources on EdCitation filters by kind of source and by years, so a rule such as "published since 2020" is set before the first result appears.
- Referencing style. Which style and which edition. EdCitation's Cite a source builds references in six styles, APA 7, MLA 9, Harvard (Cite Them Right), Chicago 18 author-date, IEEE and Vancouver; if the brief names another style or an older edition, the brief wins.
- Structure. Required sections, headings, an abstract, a reflective part, a title page.
- Format and submission. File type, spacing, student number in place of name, the deadline and its time zone.
- Learning outcomes. The University of Sheffield (n.d.) notes that marking criteria are almost always tied directly to the module's learning outcomes, so the outcomes tell you what the marker is really looking for.
- Rules on tools. What the module allows for AI tools, proofreading and collaboration.
Check your paper looks for most of this list in a brief: the length of each part, the headings it requires, the number and age of sources, the style, and the font, spacing and margins. Learning outcomes and the rules on tools are not on that list, so those two stay a job for your own reading.
What actually counts towards the word limit
This is the requirement students most often assume they know, and universities genuinely disagree. Two published policies show how far apart they sit.
| SOAS University of London (2019) | University of Edinburgh, School of Social and Political Science (n.d.) | |
|---|---|---|
| Counted | Titles, headings, abstracts, summaries, in-text citations, quotations, footnotes | Headings, subheadings, in-text references, tables, charts, graphs, footnotes and endnotes |
| Not counted | Acknowledgements, contents, list of acronyms, glossary, lists of tables or figures, bibliography | Appendices and the bibliography or reference list |
| Tolerance | Up to 10% over is not penalised | None stated |
| Penalty | 10 percentage points over 10%, 15 points over 20%, zero over 30% | A flat 5 marks |
Two things follow. First, a 2,000-word essay with 300 words of block quotations is a different essay at SOAS than at Edinburgh. Second, the penalty structures reward different behaviour: a flat deduction makes a small overrun expensive, while a banded one makes a large overrun catastrophic. Neither policy is the general rule, and your own department may differ from both. Find yours in the brief, then the programme handbook, then ask.
How do I read a rubric?
Read the top band of each criterion as a description of the work you are trying to produce. The University of Auckland (n.d.) sets out the three parts a rubric has: the criteria, which are what you need to include; the descriptors, which describe each level of performance and show the progression between them; and the weightings, which tell you how important each part is.
Three readings get the most from it:
- The top band, as a specification. If the top descriptor for "use of evidence" says a wide range of current, peer-reviewed sources is integrated into the argument, that is a requirement, however gently it is worded.
- The top band against the one below. The words that change are the words that earn marks. "Describes relevant theories" in one band and "evaluates competing theories" in the next tells you exactly what the step up consists of.
- The weightings. A criterion worth 40% deserves more of your time and more of your word count than one worth 10%. Sheffield's advice is to ask, before you plan, whether the criteria are weighted evenly or not.
Auckland's guide also makes the unglamorous point that the rubric is meant to be used three times: alongside the instructions before you start, while you write, and once more before you submit.
How do I turn the brief and rubric into a checklist?
Write every requirement as a line you could tick, before you start reading for the essay.
- Copy out the question. Mark the instruction word, the subject and the limits.
- Write one line for each stated requirement: length, sources, style, sections, format. The quickest way is to paste the brief into Check your paper, which writes these lines with the sentence behind each; read its list against the brief and add anything it has not picked up.
- Write one line for each rubric criterion, reworded from its top band as something the draft must show.
- Note the weightings and share out your word count to match.
- Ask about anything unclear now, in writing. Auckland's guide tells students to do this rather than guess.
- Keep the list open while you write, and mark your own draft against it, which is what Sheffield recommends.
For the invented question above, with an invented brief, the list might begin:
- Reaches a clear judgement on the claim, in the introduction and the conclusion.
- Evidence is from UK service industries, 2020 onwards. Anything else is justified.
- Both sides of the claim are set out fairly before the judgement.
- 2,000 words. Reference list not counted (brief, page 2). Quotations counted.
- At least 10 peer-reviewed sources, most from the last five years.
- APA 7, with every citation matched to an entry and every entry to a citation. See APA 7 in-text citations.
- "Evaluates competing explanations" (top band, criterion 2, 40% of the mark): about 800 words.
What if the brief and the rubric disagree?
Ask the module leader in writing, before you start, and keep the reply. It happens more often than it should: the brief asks for three case studies and the rubric rewards depth in one, or the brief says 2,500 words and the module handbook says 3,000.
A short email that quotes both passages and asks which takes precedence usually settles it in a sentence, and the reply is worth having if the mark is ever questioned. Where the answer comes back that both stand, write to the rubric, because the rubric is what the marker holds while reading.
How do I check the draft against the brief?
Go down the checklist and, for each line, point to the paragraph that does it. If you cannot point, it is not done. Then read your introduction and conclusion beside the question and ask whether they answer it in its own terms.
Which lines a tool can check
Some lines on the checklist can be checked by a tool, and the judgement lines stay with you and, in the end, the marker.
| Line on the checklist | How to check it in EdCitation | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Word limit for each part, headings, number and age of sources, style, font, spacing, margins | Check your paper marks each met or not met, quoting the sentence of the brief | Free, no account |
| Every in-text citation has an entry, and every entry a citation | Verify references, with the whole paper uploaded | Free, no account |
| Each reference is real and set out in the named style | Verify references, then Cite a source to rebuild any entry that needs it | Free, no account |
| Formatting against the style, left-over comments and tracked changes | Mechanics QA | Pro, $8 a month |
| The paper does what the brief asks, criterion by criterion | You first, then Theoretics QA | Max, $24 a month |
EdCitation is the best tool for the lines a tool can check, because it works from sentences it can show you rather than from a guess. Check your paper puts the brief's own sentence beside each line of its checklist, and that matters because, as above, the requirements that cost marks are usually stated once, in a sentence that is easy to skim. Verify references finds each reference in the publisher's record instead of composing one, something no chatbot can do. Both are free, with no account. Mechanics QA comes with Pro, at $8 a month.
Theoretics QA, part of Max at $24 a month, goes a step further: it judges the finished paper against the assignment's own instructions and quotes the passages of your paper that it is relying on. It never rewrites anything. None of these tools predicts a mark or replaces the marker's judgement. They tell you whether you did what was asked. See pricing.
Quick questions
What is the difference between analyse and evaluate?
To analyse is to break a subject into its parts and examine how they work. To evaluate is to judge its value, which means analysing first, weighing the arguments on both sides, and then giving a verdict backed by reasons and evidence.
What does critically evaluate mean?
Critically evaluate means reach a reasoned judgement after weighing the evidence and arguments on more than one side. It does not mean listing faults. Reid (2020) groups it with evaluate, assess and comment on as a single task.
What is the difference between an assignment brief and a rubric?
An assignment brief says what to do: the task, the length, the format and the deadline. A rubric, or marking criteria, says how the work will be judged, with criteria, descriptions of each level of performance and often the marks each criterion carries.
Does the reference list count towards the word limit?
It varies between universities and between modules. SOAS and Edinburgh's School of Social and Political Science both exclude the bibliography, but they differ on quotations, tables and tolerance, so look in the brief, then the handbook, and ask if neither says. EdCitation's Check your paper reads the limit for each part from the brief and quotes the sentence it read, so you can see at once whether the brief itself says what counts.
How long should I spend reading the brief?
About half an hour at the start, and ten minutes again before you submit. Almost nothing else you can do in forty minutes protects as many marks.
References
- Reid, T. (2020, October 2). Understanding instruction words in academic essay titles. Academic and Employability Skills, University of Bath. https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/academic-and-employability-skills/2020/10/02/understanding-instruction-words-in-academic-essay-titles/
- SOAS University of London. (2019). Word count range and marking of over-length coursework policy. https://www.soas.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-07/word-count-overlength-coursework-policy.pdf
- University of Auckland. (n.d.). Understanding marking rubrics. Learning Essentials. https://learningessentials.auckland.ac.nz/learning-at-university/understanding-marking-rubrics/
- University of Edinburgh, School of Social and Political Science. (n.d.). Assessment deadlines and penalties. https://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/students/your-studies/assessment-deadlines-penalties
- University of Hull Library. (n.d.). Essay writing: Analysing questions. Skills Guides. https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/essays/questions
- University of Sheffield. (n.d.). How to use marking criteria and assessment briefs. StudySkills@Sheffield. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/study-skills/assessment/literacy/marking-criteria