Lit Review: Instr. - Outcomes - Assessment Rubric

Literature Review Assignment: Instructions, Learning Outcomes and Assessment Marking Rubric

For this assignment, you need to write a literature review on your allocated topic. Your literature review must be no longer than 6 sides of A4, single spaced, with a minimum font size 12. The 6 side limit excludes your reference list. Appendices are not to be used.Â

The literature review counts for 80% of your overall unit grade.

1.Effectively identify and use different research sources to underpin lines of argument.

2.Critically analyse relevant evidence from the literature in an effective written form.

3.Apply consistent and appropriate referencing and in text citations to demonstrate sound professional and academic practice.

This is an individual piece of work. You are asked to write a critical review of literature on a set topic, which will be introduced to you by your tutor in the dedicated assignment briefing session. To get started, you will be provided with seven journal articles, which you should read. There will be taught sessions devoted to discussing and critiquing these articles, which will be helpful in informing your literature review, but you will need to ensure that you have thoroughly read and understood these articles in order to maximise the benefit you get from these sessions.Â

In addition, you need to find a minimum of three additional journal articles on the same topic to inform your literature review.Â

Your critical review of literature should synthesise the literature on your given topic, drawing on these ten articles. You can include more if you wish, but please bear in mind the need for depth of argument â€“ you must ensure that you are critiquing the body of literature and not simply describing work or name-checking articles for the sake of it. The review, which should be no longer than 6 single line spaced sides of A4 (see below for full details), should critically analyse this body of literature to provide a clear appraisal of the topic and how it has been approached in the academic literature.

CRITERIA	0-19%	20-29%	30 - 39%	40-49%	50-59%-	60- 69%	70-85%	86-100%
Critical analysis of relevant literature (ULO2)	No discussion of literature provided.	Minimal discussion of literature provided.	Little discussion of the suggested Literature. Lacking in critical analysis.	Limited discussion of the suggested Literature. Lacking in critical analysis.	Satisfactory critical analysis of the suggested literature.	Good critical analysis of the suggested literature.	Excellent critical analysis of a broad range of literature extending beyond the suggested reading.	Outstanding critical analysis of a broad range of literature extending beyond the suggested reading.
Selection of appropriate literature sources to underpin lines of argument (ULO1; PLO 1.1.1)	No engagement with relevant, credible literature sources.	Largely fails to engage with relevant and credible literature sources.	Lack of evidential backing of assertions, or use of inappropriate sources.	Limited evidential backing of assertions, using sources of questionable value.	Evidential backing of some assertions, drawing on some credible sources.	Evidential backing of most assertions, using mainly credible sources.	Evidential backing of all assertions with credible sources.	Evidential backing of all assertions with highly credible sources.
Understanding of core theories, models and principles to develop coherent lines of argument (PLO 1.1.2)	Demonstrates no understanding of core theories, models and principles.	Very little understanding of core theories, models and principles. Incoherent lines of argument.	Little understanding of core theories, models and principles. Lines of argument frequently confused.	Limited understanding of core theories, models and principles. Lines of argument not always clear.	Sufficient understanding of core theories, models and principles. Lines of argument mostly clear.	Good understanding of core theories, models and principles. Clear lines of argument.	Excellent understanding of core theories, models and principles. Coherent and flowing lines of argument.	Outstanding understanding of core theories, models and principles. Insightful arguments put forward.
Literature review is well structured, logical and organised (ULO1; ULO2)	Unstructured, illogical flow; disorganised.	Poor structure; disrupted flow. Limited logical flow.	Some structure and logical flow, but still too jumbled.	Some structure and flow, with mostly logical organisation of ideas.	Satisfactory structure and organisation. Coherent and logical flow.	Good structure and organisation. Â Critical flow and connectivity between elements.	Superior structure and organisation. Â Fluent and precise connectivity between elements.	Outstanding structure and organisation. Â Authoritative connectivity between elements.
Appropriate academic language, spelling, grammar & syntax (ULO2)	Inappropriate language and syntax; unacceptable grammar and spelling.	Very poor usage of language, syntax and spelling; extremely poor grammar.	Poor use of academic language; too many spelling errors; bad grammar.	Somewhat poor language, grammar and syntax. Â Still needs to be more academic.	SatisfactoryÂ use of academic language. Appropriate syntax, some spelling or grammatical errors.	Good use of academic language. Â Precise syntax. Â Few grammatical or spelling errors.	Exemplary use of academic language; sophisticated syntax. Â Excellent spelling and grammar.	Complex language and syntax. Â Outstanding grammar.
Consistent and appropriate referencing and in text citation (ULO3; PLO 2.1.2)	No referencing apparent.	Very few references; poor in text citation. Â Poor use of Harvard style.	Some references and in text citation. Not in the Harvard style or inconsistently applied.	Somewhat poor Harvard referencing with some inconsistences.	SatisfactoryÂ Harvard referencing, Sufficient in text citations.	Thorough and sufficient referencing. Precise in text citations.	Complex referencing and in text citations.	Authoritative referencing and in text citations.