Literature review

Criteria

Unacceptable

Low

Medium

High

Marks Obtained

Adherence to assignment requirements

(Max: 3 Marks)

Did not adhere to majority of submission guidelines

(0‐1 Marks)

Adhered to minimal submission requirements

(1.1‐1.5 Marks)

Adhered to most of the submission requirements.

(1.6‐2.5 Marks)

Adhered to all submission requirements.

(2.6‐3 Marks)

Quality of expression, writing style and presentation. (Max: 6 Marks)

Very limited or no evidence of quality of expression, writing style and presentation.

(0‐1 Marks)

It is hard to know what the writer is trying to express. Writing is convoluted. Misspelled words, incorrect grammar, and improper punctuation are evident. The correct style of language required for a literature review has not been followed. Layout shows no attempt or a basic attempt at professionalism.

(1.1‐3 Marks)

Writing is generally clear, but unnecessary words are occasionally used. Meaning is sometimes hidden. Paragraph or sentence structure is too repetitive. Few spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors are made. The correct style of language required for a literature review has been followed inconsistently. Professional layout.

(3.1‐5 Marks)

Writing is crisp, clear, and succinct. The writer incorporates the active voice when appropriate and supports ideas with examples. No spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors are made. The correct style of language required for a literature review has been followed. Highly Professional layout.

(5.1‐6 Marks)

Critical appraisal and synthesis of literature

(Max: 10 Marks)

Major sections of pertinent content have been omitted or greatly run‐on. Sources have not been cited when specific statements are made. Major flaws evident. The topic is of little significance to the course.

(0‐5 Marks)

All major sections of the pertinent content are included, but not covered in as much depth, or as explicit, as expected. Minor flaw in citing sources when specific statements are made. Significance to the course is evident.

(5.1‐8 Marks)

The appropriate content in consideration is covered in depth without being redundant. Sources are cited when specific statements are made. Significance to the course is unquestionable.

(8.1‐10 Marks)

Clear, coherent, logical structure

(Max: 6 Marks)

Neither implicit nor explicit reference is made to the topic or purpose of the article. The summary appears to have no direction, with subtopics appearing disjointed. There is no indication the author tried to synthesise the information or make a conclusion based on the literature under review.

Readers are aware of the overall problem, challenge, or topic of the article. There is a basic flow from one section to the next, but not all sections or paragraphs follow in a natural or logical order.The author provides concluding remarks that show an analysis and synthesis of ideas occurred. Some of the conclusions, however, were not supported in the body of the

report.

The topic is introduced, and groundwork is laid as to the direction of the article.mary goes from general ideas to specific conclusions. Transitions tie sections together, as well as adjacent paragraphs. The author was able to make succint and precise conclusions based on the review. (5.1‐6 Marks)

Referencing (Comprehensiveness of literature coverage, Harvard style, relevance, accuracy) (Max: 5 Marks)

Either did not provide an adequate list of references OR included a bibliography instead i.e. not all references were cited in the body of the report or vice versa. Failed to provide a bare minimum of 7 references. (0‐2.5 Marks)

Provided 7‐10 references from credible sources such as books, journal papers, conference papers etc. Well structured reference list. May not have strictly adhered to Harvard guidelines. Some flaws may be evident.

(2.6‐4 Marks)

Evidence of wide and relevant readings provided. Provided more than 10 references from credible sources such as books, journal papers, conference papers etc. Well presented reference list.

Adherence to Harvard guidelines done well No flaws evident.

(4.1‐5 Marks)

Student ID and Name:

Total (out of 30)=

No. of Days assignment was late=

Late Submission Penalty=

Adjusted Total=

Grade=