Literature Review – NURBN 3035 Assessment Task 1
Assessment Task 1 – Literature Review
In this assessment task students are required to conduct a review of the current literature using a systematic approach. There will be several key sections to this assessment task, including creation of a flow chart that represents how the literature search was conducted including the inclusion / exclusion criteria, the final selected papers (10-12) represented in a table format highlighting the following aspects; author/year/country, methodology, participants, key findings, and a detailed description of the key findings of the selected papers.
Purpose: To develop and demonstrate skills related to reviewing literature using a systematic approach.
Description: Students will be required to choose a research topic of interest and conduct a review of the literature. Students are required to complete a written piece of work with the following headings:
- Introduction or Background: 1-2 paragraphs that introduces the reader to the topic of interest. Older references may be used here to give context to the topic.
- Aim or Purpose: 1-2 sentences that succinctly gives the aim or purpose of the literature review.
- Method: 2-3 paragraphs that includes a summary of the Search Strategy, quality appraisal tool used and a Flow chart of the literature search.
- Results: Summary Table of Selected literature (10-12 articles), Quality appraisal scores and 1-2 paragraphs summarising the Key findings. This may include the demographics/qualities of the selected articles.
- Discussion: 3-4 paragraphs discussing the findings of the articles and any commonalities or themes identified between them. This could also include any limitations of the review and/or any recommendations for future work in the area.
- Conclusion: 1 short paragraph that summarises the findings of the review.
- Reference list: Following correct formatting and citations throughout the review.
Word limit: 2000 words. Note: Tables, figures and references will not count towards this word count limit.
Sample of a working literature review
Marking Rubric – Assessment Task 1 – Literature review
The minimum possible score for this rubric is 0 points and the maximum score is 50 points with a 50% weighting applied to the task. Intermediate scores will be converted respectively and rounded to the nearest available grade. This guide will be available via the Moodle Grade tab.
| Task | 0 points | 1 point | 2 points | 3 points | 4 points | 5 points |
| PRESENTATION
Structure |
Presentation displayed no clear structure and sequence. Did not follow the assessment guidelines. | Moderate structure and/or sequence of presentation. Poorly followed the assessment guidelines. | Presentation required a clearer structure/ sequence, and/or better linking dialogue between information. | Presentation displayed a clear structure and sequence – introduction, body, and conclusion, references Linking dialogue provided. | Presentation displayed a good structure and sequence –introduction, body, and conclusion, references Linking dialogue provided. | Presentation displayed excellent structure and sequence –introduction, body, and conclusion, references Linking dialogue provided. |
| PRESENTATION
Fluency |
Format of presentation was poor with no fluency between, themes or information, no topic sentences, and transitions between paragraphs. | Flow of information was poor with indistinct ideas per paragraph, missing topic sentence and limited connections between paragraphs used. | Many ideas per paragraph,
missing topic sentences, abrupt transition, and/or missing or rough connections between paragraphs |
Format of presentation flowed at times, one idea or point per paragraph, some transitions, mostly clear topic sentences, some connections made between paragraphs. | Format of presentation flowed most of the time, appropriate themes and mostly relevant information was included. | Format of presentation always flowed, with sound themes and relevant information. Clear topic sentences and smooth connections between paragraphs. |
| CONTENT
Introduction or Background |
Failure to demonstrate an understanding of the background of the topic and fails to introduce the topic/argument. | Present but lacks detail or is too short to introduce the topic. | Minimal explanation of background or introduction to the topic. | Minimal background or introduction to the topic, some or no sources of background literature cited throughout. | Good introduction or background. Provides sufficient information and background sources of literature cited throughout. | Excellent background or introduction to the review and relevant sources cited throughout. |
| CONTENT
Aim or Purpose |
Not present. | Present but lacks sufficient detail so aim or purpose is not clarified. | Purpose and aim are articulated but lacks sufficient detail. | Present with some demonstration of thought when using a PICO approach. | Present with good demonstration of thought when using a PICO approach. | Present with excellent demonstration of thought when using a PICO approach. |
| CONTENT
Method |
No discussion of databases searched, method used in search or process followed. | Present but no detailed discussion on the method used or the process followed. | Present but no detailed discussion on the databases used or the key search terms used etc. |
Present but only slightly explained. |
Good summary of the methods with most databases specified as well as, key search terms etc. | Excellent summary of the method with all databases detailed, key search terms included etc., and process followed. |
| CONTENT
Results: Summary Table and use of CASP tool |
No understanding of the task demonstrated. No links or connections made between ideas. Information was irrelevant and poorly expressed. No evidence of the use of the CASP tool. | Poor understanding of the task demonstrated. Links and connections between ideas unclear. A lot of information was irrelevant or poorly expressed. CASP tool mentioned. | Minimal understanding of the task demonstrated. Numerous links and connections between ideas unclear. Some information was irrelevant or not well expressed. CASP tool mentioned and demonstrated. | Moderate understanding of the topic demonstrated. Some links and connections between ideas unclear. Most information was relevant. CASP tool used to critique papers and scores present in table. | Substantial understanding of the task demonstrated. Links and connections between ideas generally clear. Information was relevant. CASP tool critique is demonstrated well throughout table. | Excellent understanding of the task demonstrated. Links and connections between ideas made clear. Information was relevant and well expressed. CASP tool critique is demonstrated well and explained. |
| CONTENT
Results: Literature search flow chart |
Flow chart was absent, did not follow the assessment guidelines for this task. | The flow chart was poorly constructed, with little evidence of a logical sequence. | The Flow chart showed some detail and logical sequence. | The Flow chart showed moderate detail and logical sequence. | The Flow chart showed good sound detail and logical sequence. | The Flow chart showed excellent detail and logical sequence. |
| CONTENT
Discussion and Critique Conclusion |
Discussion and/or conclusion section was absent, did not follow the assessment guidelines for this task No critique of the literature. | The discussion and/or conclusion section was poorly constructed, with little evidence of a logical sequence. Literature is poorly critiqued. | The discussion and/or conclusion section showed some detail and logical sequence. Some attempt at critique of the literature was made. | The discussion and/or conclusion section showed moderate detail and logical sequence. The literature has been critiqued with some attempt at linking the papers together. | The discussion and/or conclusion section showed good sound detail and logical sequence. May or may not have included limitations and/or recommendations. The literature has been critiqued well with some attempt at linking research papers together. | The discussion and conclusion sections showed excellent detail and logical sequence. Including limitations and/or recommendations. An excellent literature critique with a link between papers demonstrated. Makes connections explicit, discusses implications, relevance, or significance. |
| STRUCTURE
Professional Prose |
Inconsistent levels of articulation or expression, numerous spelling and grammatical errors and lack of sentence/paragraph structure makes paper difficult to read/understand. | Poor level of articulation and expression, with sentence or paragraph structure unclear, and/or extensive spelling or grammatical errors. | Minimal level of articulation and expression, with some sentence or paragraph structure unclear, and/or a considerable number of spelling or grammatical errors. | Moderate level of articulation and expression, with some sentence or paragraph structure unclear, and/or a number of spelling or grammatical errors. | Substantial level of articulation and expression, with clear and concise sentence and paragraph structure, and minimal spelling or grammatical errors. | Excellent level of articulation and expression, with clear and concise sentence and paragraph structure, and no spelling or grammatical errors. Used complex and varied sentence structure; appropriate tone and style |
| REFERENCES
APA Style and credibility |
No references cited. | Incorrect APA referencing style for in-text citations quotes and/or references. | Numerous errors noted in APA referencing of in-text citations, quotes or references. Some references are NOT reputable, current, extensive or relevant. | A couple of errors noted in APA referencing of in-text citations, quotes or references. A number of references are reputable, current, extensive and relevant. | In-text citations and quotes and referencing are in APA style of a sound quality. Most references are reputable, current, extensive and relevant. | All in-text citations, quotes and references are in APA style of a very high quality. All references are reputable, current, extensive and relevant. |
