Assessment 1: Legal research

Overview
Task type
Method
Individual weighting
Due date
Length/time
Mindmap Individual 15% 23:59 AEST Sunday 4 September4
2022, Week 1 600 words +/- 10%
Purpose
1. Identify the core requirements and capacities relevant to the study of law
2. Re ect on the professional skills required of lawyers
3. Identify and begin to apply required writing skills in law
Outcomes
Unit learning outcomes alignment
Graduate learning outcomes alignment
ULO1: Gain and apply core legal writing skills including in relation to writing legal documents
ULO2: Use and interpret primary sources of law, such as common law and statute, as well as
secondary sources, such as journal articles and books P1: Employ up-to-date and relevant knowledge and skills
P2: Communicate effectively
P3: Use creativity, critical thinking, analysis and research skills to solve theoretical and real-world problems

Submission guidelines
The assessment must be submitted online via the teaching site in UCLearn. The rst page of each assessment item should include the assessment coversheet declaring the authenticity of the work.
? Click on the link below to download the assessment coversheet template.
? Assessment coversheet
(https://courseapps.studyonline.canberra.edu.au/courses/JD/11751_Legal_Methods/JD%20assessment%20coversheet.docx)
Students' names are not to be included on any assessment tasks/submission. Only Student ID numbers should be included (as per the Assessment Policy (https://www.canberra.edu.au/Policies/PolicyProcedure/Index/260) and Assessment Procedures (https://www.canberra.edu.au/Policies/PolicyProcedure/Index/261) ).
? If you would like to check your draft submission for plagiarism, click on the link below to access the draft submissions box.
? Draft submissions box
Requirements
Referencing style: Australian Guide to Legal Citation (4th ed.) - AGLC4; references/footnotes are for noting your sources or to clarify minor matters, not to ‘park’ content
Only Word (*doc or *docx) to be uploaded
Submission via the teaching site in UCLearn; access to draft plagiarism checking via Ouriginal is available
In submitting, students acknowledge that they have presented their own work and that they have acknowledged fully when relying on the knowledge or sources of others.

Instructions
The unit provides core skills and capacities to function as a law student and budding lawyer. The rst assessment is an opportunity to re ect on what it means to be a ‘good lawyer’ and to engage with relevant research. Students are to address the following question:

These two angles should be linked. A minimum of six current, high-quality sources are supposed to be drawn upon in tackling the question. Students are to present the assessment as a referenced mind-map.
Using MindMap: You will not need to register to use this tool, simply click 'Create a Free Map', create your map and export/save for your records.
? Click on the button to access the website.

1. A mind-map that details the elements of what makes for a good lawyer and how these are linked
2. An annotated bibliography of research articles or reports which supports the information in the mind-map.
An annotated bibliography is a list of research sources (think: book chapters, journal articles, research reports), with each source accompanied by a short commentary (ca. three sentences) as to its relevance (in this case to the content of your mind-map).
The assessment provides an opportunity to receive feedback early in the unit.
? Click on the tab below to read the assessment declaration before you submit.
Assessment declaration

Useful resources
For more tips and tricks on annotating articles watch the below videos.
Video 1: For Mac users Video 2: For Windows 10 users

Assessment 1: Legal research
Criteria Ratings Pts
Quality, focus and depth of mind map 25 to 21.25 Pts HD (High distinction)
The response
articulates in a sophisticated way how the learning experience being reflected upon is relevant and meaningful to participant and their learning goals. The mind map makes many excellent and highly perceptive connections between the experience and material from the course, past experience, and/or personal goals. 21.25 to 18.75 Pts
DI (Distinction)
The response clearly and insightfully articulates how the learning experience being reflected upon is relevant and meaningful to participant and their learning goals. The mind map demonstrates some complex and integrated connections between the experience and material from the course, past experience, and/or personal goals. 18.75 to 16.25 Pts
CR (Credit)
The learning experience being reflected upon is relevant and meaningful to participant and their learning goals. The mind map demonstrates connections between the experience and material from the course; past experience; and/or personal goals. 16.25 to 12.5 Pts
P (Pass)
The learning experience being reflected upon is relevant and meaningful to student and course learning goals. 12.5 to 0 Pts F (Fail)
Most of the mind map is irrelevant to participant and/or course learning goals. 25 pts
Synthesis and use of relevant evidence and research 30 to 25.5 Pts HD (High distinction)
Number of relevant scholarly reference exceeds requirements, and these are used in a highly integrated way to support a sophisticated level of analysis or argument. s 25.5 to 22.5 Pts
DI (Distinction)
Number of relevant scholarly references exceeds requirements, and these are used in an integrated way to support an advanced level of analysis or argument. 22.5 to 19.5 Pts
CR (Credit)
Number of relevant scholarly references exceeds requirements, and these are used effectively to support an advanced level of analysis or argument. 19.5 to 15.0 Pts
P (Pass)
Number of relevant scholarly references meets requirements, and these are sometimes used
effectively to support the analysis or argument. 15 to 0 Pts F (Fail)
Number of relevant scholarly references does not meet requirements. References are not used
effectively to support the analysis or argument. 30 pts
Criteria Ratings Pts
Integration of research with reflection 15 to 12.75 Pts
HD (High distinction)
Concise, coherent and clear integration of research with the mind map reflection 12.75 to 11.25 Pts
DI (Distinction)
Clear and concise integration of research with the mind map reflection. 11.25 to 9.75 Pts
CR (Credit)
Clear integration of research with the mind map
reflection 9.75 to 7.5 Pts
P (Pass)
Some integration of research with the mind map reflection 7.5 to 0 Pts F (Fail)
Very little or no clear integration of research with the mind map reflection 15 pts
Clarity of organisation and structure 15 to 12.75 Pts HD (High distinction)
Expertly structured and organised. The mind map is logically and creatively organized and flows smoothly, with unity and coherence. 12.75 to 11.25 Pts
DI (Distinction)
Structured and organised complex and highly developed ways. The mind map is logically and creatively organized. 11.25 to 9.75 Pts
CR (Credit)
Coherently and logically structured and organised to support the central purpose. 9.75 to 7.5 Pts
P (Pass)
Mostly effective and organised to support the central purpose, however may be poorly structured or disorganised in parts. 7.5 to 0 Pts F (Fail)
Not clearly or logically organised. The central purpose is
difficult to discern. 15 pts
Effective communication 10 to 8.5 Pts HD (High distinction)
Language and vocabulary are sophisticated, but also clear and precise. Sentences display consistently strong, varied structure. Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are followed. Spelling is correct. There are no grammatical or vocabulary errors that could affect clarity. 8.5 to 7.5 Pts
DI (Distinction)
Language and vocabulary are highly advanced, and used with clarity and precision. Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are nearly always followed. Spelling is nearly always correct. There are no more than a few grammatical or vocabulary errors, but these do not affect clarity . 7.5 to 6.5 Pts
CR (Credit)
Language and vocabulary are used effectively, and mostly with clarity and precision. Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are mostly followed. Spelling is mostly correct. There are no more than a few grammatical or vocabulary errors, but these do not affect clarity. 6.5 to 5.0 Pts P (Pass)
Language and vocabulary are used soundly, although sometimes unclear or imprecise. Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are mostly followed. There are some grammatical or vocabulary errors that may affect. 5 to 0 Pts F (Fail)
Language and vocabulary are often unclear, or sentence structure disorganised. Rules of grammar, usage, and punctuation are not followed.
There are some significant errors in
grammar and vocabulary that affect clarity. 10 pts

Criteria Ratings Pts
Referencing 5 to 4.25 Pts HD (High distinction)
Outstanding, advanced and correct use of prescribed referencing style, including a reference list with no content or formatting errors. 4.25 to 3.75 Pts
DI (Distinction)
Correct use of prescribed referencing style, including a reference list with no content or formatting errors. 3.75 to 3.25 Pts
CR (Credit)
Correct use of prescribed referencing style, including a reference list with minimal content or formatting errors. 3.25 to 2.5 Pts
P (Pass)
Effective use of prescribed referencing style, including a reference list with some significant content or formatting errors. 2.5 to 0 Pts F (Fail)
Poor or incorrect use of prescribed referencing style, with significant content or formatting errors, and/or does not include a reference list. 5 pts
Total points: 100