MICE
H-8
CBEP2.docx
Please note that achievement of the learning outcomes for this assessment is demonstrated against the assessment criteria shown overleaf. Sources of help with your academic work are listed in the module handbook and on the module blackboard site.
|
Assessment Criteria (and weighting %) |
The five-point scale below reflects the ratings on the marking grid |
|
Identifying relevant literature (10%) |
A B C D E |
|
Content of literature review (20%) |
A B C D E |
|
Analysis of literature (20%) |
A B C D E |
|
Evaluation of literature (20%) |
A B C D E |
|
Synthesis of ideas (10%) |
A B C D E |
|
Presentation (20%) |
A B C D E |
|
Overall strengths of this assignment are:
Some of the sources identified were interesting.
The main ways to improve this assignment are:
Ensure you read and understand the task completely before writing and submitting the work.
|
TURN OVER FOR DETAILED FEEDBACK
DETAILED FEEDBACK ON LITERATURE REVIEW
1. COVER, TITLE, ABSTRACT AND CONTENTS PAGE
Your cover title and contents page are adequate. Your abstract gave good insight into the project.
2. INTRODUCTION
Your introduction was too long (1200 plus words!). Some of the information was irrelevant/poorly placed in this section and as a result, the key point(s) the project would explore are a little unclear.
3. MAIN BODY, INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND/OR PRACTICE
Your methodology was vague and descriptive. Some attempts made to identify and justify the approach but this was unsubstantiated.
It seems as though you have not understood the task; the main body of your work seems to consist of 6 standalone reviews of articles and a brief identification of some if the findings from the articles rather than a critical discussion of the literature based around the themes that emerge from the literature. As a result, your work lacks depth and a critical insight into the themes you attempt to identify as the work does not draw on a wider body of knowledge/literature.
The section ‘analysis of the literature review findings’ doesn’t have much by way of analysis; it seems to simply identify themes which are not substantiated/justified through the use of sources. Further, the second and third themes seem quite unrelated to technology.
There are some attempts to demonstrate the implications for policy/practice but they are quite general.
4. CONCLUSION
Your conclusion makes some attempts to give closure to the work however it is very brief.
5. REFERENCES
Your reference list is not consistent in style. Please see the UWE referencing guidelines.
