Every semester, thousands of students lose marks on criteria they thought they understood. The words on the rubric seem straightforward -"critical analysis", "coherent argument", "evidence-based" -but what markers look for is often very different from what students assume.

After analysing feedback patterns across thousands of graded submissions, here are the five rubric criteria that consistently trip students up -and exactly what you need to do differently.

1. "Critical Analysis"

What students think it means:

"Criticise something" or "Find problems with the topic"

What it actually means:

Break down ideas, examine their components, evaluate strengths and limitations, and form a reasoned judgement supported by evidence.

"Critical" in academia doesn't mean negative -it means analytical. You're examining something from multiple angles and making a judgement. The word comes from the Greek kritikos, meaning "able to judge."

Here's the difference in practice:

Descriptive (Pass band)

"Smith (2020) states that social media marketing increases brand awareness among young consumers. Jones (2021) also found that Instagram is the most effective platform for reaching Gen Z."

Critical (Distinction band)

"While Smith (2020) demonstrates a correlation between social media marketing and brand awareness, the study's sample was limited to US university students, which limits generalisability. Jones (2021) addresses this gap with a broader demographic, but relies on self-reported engagement metrics rather than behavioural data -a methodological limitation that Smith's experimental design avoids."

The critical version does three things the descriptive version doesn't: evaluates methodology, identifies limitations, and compares sources against each other. That's what moves you from Pass to Distinction on this criterion.

How to fix it

After every source you cite, ask: "So what? What are its limitations? How does it compare to other evidence?" If you can't answer these, you're describing, not analysing.

2. "Coherent Argument" or "Logical Structure"

What students think it means:

"Have an introduction, body, and conclusion"

What it actually means:

Each paragraph logically follows from the previous one. There's a clear thesis that every section supports. The reader never has to wonder "why is this here?"

Structure isn't about formatting -it's about flow of reasoning. A well-structured essay reads like a logical chain: premise > evidence > analysis > conclusion, where each link connects to the next.

The most common structural problem: paragraph islands. Each paragraph makes a valid point, but there's no connection between them. The reader can rearrange your paragraphs and the essay reads the same -that's a coherence problem.

The "Paragraph Link" Test

Read the last sentence of each paragraph and the first sentence of the next. Do they connect? If not, you need a transition that shows the logical relationship:

Building: "Building on this finding..." / "This pattern extends to..."
Contrasting: "However, an alternative perspective..." / "This conflicts with..."
Narrowing: "Within this broader trend, a specific example..."
Concluding: "Taken together, these findings suggest..."

How to fix it

Write your thesis statement, then write one sentence per paragraph summarising its main claim. Read just those sentences in order. If the logic flows, your structure works. If it doesn't, rearrange before you write the full paragraphs.

3. "Evidence-Based Reasoning"

What students think it means:

"Include lots of references"

What it actually means:

Every claim you make is supported by relevant, credible evidence -and you explain how the evidence supports your point, not just that it exists.

Reference quantity is not evidence quality. Markers look for three things:

Relevance

Does this source directly support the specific claim you're making?

Credibility

Is the source peer-reviewed, current, and from a credible publisher?

Integration

Do you explain how the evidence supports your argument?

The biggest failure mode: citation dumping. Students place a reference at the end of a sentence without explaining the connection. The marker reads "Social media impacts purchasing decisions (Smith, 2020; Jones, 2021; Lee, 2022)" and thinks: "But which study found what? And how does that support your specific argument?"

How to fix it

After every citation, add one sentence that explicitly connects the evidence to your argument. "Smith (2020) found X, which supports [your claim] because Y." The "because" is the part most students skip -and it's what markers are looking for.

4. "Academic Integrity" / "Referencing and Citation"

What students think it means:

"Don't plagiarise and include a reference list"

What it actually means:

Consistent, correct use of the required referencing style throughout. Every in-text citation matches a reference list entry. Paraphrased ideas are attributed. Formatting follows the style guide exactly.

Students lose marks on this criterion not from deliberate plagiarism but from sloppy referencing. The most common errors:

Inconsistent formatting -mixing APA and Harvard styles, or using "et al." incorrectly
Missing in-text citations for paraphrased ideas (not just direct quotes)
Reference list mismatches -sources cited in text but missing from the list, or vice versa
Incorrect date formats, missing DOIs, wrong italicisation
Secondary referencing errors -citing a source you found in another paper without noting "as cited in"

How to fix it

Before submitting, do a "reference audit": Ctrl+F every in-text citation and confirm it appears in your reference list with correct formatting. Then check every reference list entry appears somewhere in your text. This 15-minute check prevents the most common marks lost on this criterion.

5. "Professional Presentation" / "Communication"

What students think it means:

"Spell-check and make it look nice"

What it actually means:

Academic tone, precise language, correct grammar, proper formatting (headings, margins, page numbers), and clear expression of complex ideas. The writing enables the reader to follow the argument without effort.

This criterion isn't about surface-level errors -it's about whether your writing communicates effectively at an academic level. Common issues:

Informal language -"a lot of", "things", "stuff", "really important", contractions like "don't"
Passive voice overuse -"It was found that..." repeated throughout (active voice is clearer)
Run-on sentences -if a sentence is more than 3 lines, split it
Missing the template -if a template or formatting guide was provided, follow it exactly
Incomplete work -submitting a draft that ends mid-sentence or has placeholder text

How to fix it

Read your assignment aloud. Every place you stumble, the sentence needs rewriting. Then check: does every heading match the rubric's expected sections? Is the formatting consistent? Did you follow the template? These mechanical checks take 20 minutes and prevent easy mark losses.

Stop Guessing -Check Against the Rubric

These five criteria account for the majority of marks lost across university assignments. The pattern is the same: students understand the surface meaning but miss the deeper expectation.

The fix is always the same: read the band descriptors, not just the criterion title. Understand what separates each level. Then check your work against those descriptors before you submit.

If you want to automate this process, Rubrica checks your assignment against every rubric criterion and shows you exactly where you're meeting the brief and where the gaps are -before your marker sees it.

Summary Cheat Sheet

Criterion	Common Mistake	Quick Fix
Critical Analysis	Describing instead of analysing	After every source: "So what? What are its limits?"
Coherent Argument	Paragraph islands with no links	Read first/last sentences of adjacent paragraphs
Evidence-Based	Citation dumping without explanation	Add "because..." after every citation
Referencing	Inconsistent or missing citations	15-minute reference audit before submitting
Presentation	Informal tone, incomplete formatting	Read aloud + check against template

References: Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman. | Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Open University Press. | Wingate, U. (2012). "Using Academic Literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction." Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 26-37.