Applied Mixed Method

BBS301: Systematic literature review marking guide

80-100 Excellent (HD) 70-79 Very good (D) 60-69 Good (C) 50-59 Acceptable (P) 49 Fail (N)

Technical approach to systematic review

Outstanding evidence of systematic review process, all steps fulfilled, clearly replicable process, evidence of multiple searches across the databases specified, excellent search terms with thoughtful search term combinations.

Evidence of very careful reviewing, most steps fulfilled, clearly replicable process, evidence of multiple searches across databases, good selection of search terms and search combinations.

Evidence of some systematic reviewing, possibly incomplete but using appropriate approaches.

Incomplete and not systematic, but adequate to identify useful and appropriate literature.

Fails to identify appropriate literature, little or no evidence of systematic approach, incomplete review.

Synthesis and evaluation of literature

Literature well synthesised. Excellent level of critical evaluation developed and justified own ideas, drawing from the literature to make conclusions.

Literature well synthesised. Evidence of good analysis and critical evaluation of literature. Some evidence of developing own ideas and drawing from the literature to make conclusions.

Some attempt to synthesise literature. Some evidence of critical evaluation of the literature.

Limited synthesis of the literature. Literature is presented uncritically, in a purely descriptive way. Limited understanding is evident.

Literature not synthesised. Little or no evidence of having read papers cited completely.

Level of understanding

Evidence of comprehensive and detailed understanding of topic presented with depth and rigour.

Evidence of very good level of understanding of the topic and an awareness of a variety of ideas and perspectives.

Evidence of a good level of factual and conceptual knowledge and use of appropriate terminology.

Evidence of limited knowledge of the topic. Some use of appropriate terminology.

Lacks evidence of knowledge relevant to the topic and significantly misuses terminology.

Written expression

Fluent and sophisticated writing style appropriate to document. Writing concise and direct. Grammar and spelling errors rare or absent. The author presents ideas in an accessible way with a sense of reader's need for variety, examples, and explanation.

Language is fluent. Grammar and spelling errors are minimal. The author often presents ideas in clear, lucid fashion, making difficult ideas accessible and explaining concepts and arguments effectively.

Language is mainly fluent. May have occasional grammar or spelling errors. Although some parts of the review are clear and persuasive, some may be hard to follow or convoluted.

Meaning apparent, but language not always fluent. Makes some spelling or grammatical errors, but writing readable. Needs better proofreading. Over relies on quotation.

Persistent writing problems. Needs significant proofreading. Frequent ungrammatical sentences, spelling errors, or convoluted writing. Over relies on quotation.

Presentation and structure

Polished and imaginative presentation. Clear, logical & engaging structure throughout the review, with effective introduction & conclusion. Clever or effective use of structure, such as

Very good presentation. Minor errors in consistency or formatting. Clear, logical structure throughout the review that is effectively initiated in the introduction and drawn to a conclusion.

Good presentation. Some errors in consistency and formatting. Shows organisation and coherence. Introduction and conclusion used effectively, including signalling the

Shows some attempt at presentation, but generally poor presentation. Shows some attempt to organise logically. Review does have basic sense of logic, but may

Shows no attempt to present appropriately. Significant errors and inconsistencies in presentation. Disorganised and incoherent.

cumulative points, creative development, or other effective writing strategy. Strong, intriguing introduction.

Effective use of paragraphs, sentence structure and overall outline.

primary contents of review, but may be overly plodding.

have problem with cohesion or organization. Introduction and conclusion not used effectively or well organized.

Movement between topics is random. Significant material is off topic or irrelevant. Paragraphs poorly structured.

Integration of cited material

Author embeds quotations well in his or her own prose, effectively integrating concepts. Cited concepts used effectively and creatively.

Author embeds quotations well in his or her own prose, integrating concepts into the review. Cited concepts are well understood and used correctly.

Quoted material advances the discussion and author leads into and out of quoted material effectively. Author uses concepts or ideas correctly from sources.

Quoted material generally appropriate although may be some lack of fit with discussion. Quoted material not well integrated into the surrounding text.

Quoted material not integrated or poorly integrated into review. Quotes do not say what author suggests. Material not embedded or depended upon too heavily.

Referencing

Referencing consistently accurate. In-text citations & Reference List complete & appropriate. Author efficiently integrates acknowledging sources with paraphrased as well as quoted material.

Referencing mostly accurate but some minor errors in consistency or formatting. In-text citations & Reference List complete & appropriate. Author efficiently integrates acknowledging sources with paraphrased as well as quoted material.

Referencing mostly accurate but some minor errors in consistency or formatting. In-text citations & Reference List complete & appropriate. Author efficiently integrates acknowledging the sources of material.

References meet minimal standards, include complete information, and Reference List is complete. Author includes too much information in paraphrase.

Little or no referencing. Errors or oversights in citations and Reference List. Incomplete reference information. Use of inappropriate sources.