Marking Rubric for Assignment | My Assignment Tutor

Version 3_November 2019 Page 1 of 3Marking Rubric for Assignment – Literature Review CriteriaFail (0-49%)Pass (50-59%)Credit (60-69%)Distinction (70-79%)High distinction (>80%)MarkIntroduction10%Aims5%Approach• LiteratureSearchStrategies• Study qualityappraisal• Data analysisplan20%0 – 4.95 – 5.96 – 6.97 – 7.98 – 10Absence of introduction or onethat poorly or partially situatesthe reader in the context of theconcern, debate, or contentionaddressed in the review.Rationale missing or poorlydeveloped. Difficult to ascertainthe background leading up tothe rationale.0 – 2.4Satisfactory introduction thatoutlines the content, scope, andorganization of the review.Rationale requires furtherelaboration and refining. Backgroundleading up to the rationale needsstrengthening.2.5 – 2.9Reasonably well-presentedintroduction that provides alogical description of content,scope, and organization of thereview.Rationale for the review issatisfactorily described butrequires further elaboration andstrengthening. Backgroundleading up to the rationale isadequately described, althoughneeds more detail.Well-presented introduction thatprovides a clear and logicaldescription of content, scope, andorganization of the review.Rationale for the review is clear andpersuasive. The background leadingup to the rationale is clearlypresented.Excellently articulated introductionthat provides a clear, logical, andsuccinct description of content,scope, and organization of thereview, which draws the reader’sattention to a central concern,debate, or contention.Rationale or significance of thereview is persuasively articulated.The background leading up to therationale is succinctly and clearlypresented.3 – 3.43.5 – 3.94 – 5Unclear and confusing aims ofthe review. Lacksconceptualization.0 – 9.9Aims of the review are presented butrequires clarity and articulation.Lacks adequate conceptualization.10 – 11.9Aims of the review arereasonably well presented butwould benefit from furtherdevelopment and articulation.Adequate conceptualization.12 – 13.9Aims of the review are wellpresented and articulated.Sound conceptualization.14 – 15.9The aims of the review are clearlystated and articulated, in terms thatare objective, measurable andfeasible, and that addresses thereview rationale. Excellentconceptualization.16 – 20Scanty and/or incompletedescription of Literature SearchStrategies. Lacks cleardescription in terms ofappropriate search terms,choice of scholarly databases.Absent or incomplete selectioncriteria for potential papers.Absence of assessment of studyquality.Data analysis plan poorlyconceptualized and described.Poor summarizing, thematicanalysis and synthesis.Search strategy is described, butrequires further elaboration andrefinement. Greater range ofdatabases needed to be used, andselection criteria for papers needfurther development.Assessment of data quality notincluded or poorly described.Data analysis is described butrequires greater clarity andcoherence. Summarizing, thematicanalysis and synthesis requiresgreater work and development.Search strategy includingselection criteria for papers isadequately described. Journalselection includes only a fewpapers from leading journals.Assessment of data quality isreasonably well described.Data analysis is reasonably welldescribed. Summarizing,thematic analysis and synthesisreasonably well done, howeverwould benefit from furtherdevelopment and refinement.Proficient search strategy usingterms that reflect the review aims.Structured approach is evident inapplying appropriate selectioncriteria and determiningappropriate source materials.Assessment of data quality is welldescribed.Data analysis is well described.Summarizing, thematic analysisand synthesis well done,however would benefit fromfurther development andrefinement.Clear search strategy, using searchterms that reflect the review aims. Astructured approach is used todetermine the source materials forthe review, with leading journalsforming the main sources.Appropriate scholarly databases arelisted and used. Selection criteria areused to select potential papers forinclusion.Assessment of data quality is welldescribed.Data analysis is systematic with astep wise approach incorporatingassessment of data quality,summarizing, thematic analysis, andsynthesis. Version 3_November 2019 Page 2 of 3 CriteriaFail (0-49%)Pass (50-59%)Credit (60-69%)Distinction (70-79%)High distinction (>80%)MarkFindings• Literaturesearch results• Outcome ofstudy qualityassessment• Critical Analysisof Literature35%0 – 17.417.5 – 20.921 – 24.424.5 – 27.928 – 35Inaccurately or poorlydescribed findings. Poor orunclear links to the aim/s.Absence or limited descriptionon literature search results.Absence of limited descriptionon results of study qualityassessment.Lacks adequate collation andsynthesis of evidence, leavingeach article as a standalonepiece. Weakly organizedthemes with no logicalsequencing or structure.Absence or minimum criticalanalysis of the evidence/article.Findings are adequately described,but lacks detail and organization.Needs better linkage to the aim/s.Literature search results aredescribed, but requires more detailsand refinement. PRISMA isincluded.Adequate description on results ofstudy quality assessment.Adequate collation and synthesis ofevidence/article. Satisfactoryorganization of themes but nological sequencing or structure.Adequate critical analysis of theevidence/article.Findings are accuratelydescribed. Good linkage withthe main research aims.Literature search results arereasonably well described, butrequires more details andrefinement. PRISMA isincluded.Reasonably well described results ofstudy quality assessment.Reasonably well collated andsynthesized evidence/article.Reasonably well organizedthemes, but lack of logicalsequencing.Reasonably well-presentedcritical analysis of theevidence/article.Findings are accurately reportedbased on the literature. Wellconducted assessment of mainfindings, with competent detectionof methodological issues andidentification of gaps in theresearch literature.Literature search results arewell described. PRISMA isincluded.Well described results of studyquality assessment. Wellorganized themes,demonstrates logical structure.Well collated and synthesizedevidence/article.Well-presented critical analysisof the evidence/article.Findings are not only accuratelysummarizes the relevantliterature, but also criticallyassesses the evidence/studies,detects methodological issues,and identifies gaps in theliterature.Excellent presentation ofliterature search results.PRISMA is included.Excellent description on results ofstudy quality assessment.Excellent collation and synthesisof evidence/article. Excellentorganized themes,demonstrates logicalsequencing and structure.Excellent critical analysis of theevidence/article.Summary &Conclusion15%0 – 7.47.5 – 8.99 – 10.410.5 – 11.912 – 15Absent or scanty summary ofkey findings, implications andrecommendations for practiceand/or research.Adequate summarization of keyfindings, implications andrecommendations for practiceand/or research.Overall, the conclusion needs to bedeveloped further to help inform adetailed and effective rationale andframework for the actual project inthe Project unit nextSuccinctly summarizes the keyfindings, implications andrecommendations for practiceand/or research.Succinctly summarizes the keyfindings, implications andrecommendations for practiceand/or research.Overall, the conclusion does a goodjob of helping inform a detailed andeffective rationale and frameworkfor the actual project in the Projectunit next semester.Succinctly and competentlysummarizes the key findings,implications and recommendationsfor practice and/or research.Overall, the conclusion fails toinform a detailed and effectiverationale and framework forthe actual project in the Projectunit nextOverall, the conclusion does areasonably good job of helpinginform a detailed and effectiverationale and framework for theactual project in the Project unitnext semesterOverall, the conclusion does anexcellent job of helping inform adetailed and effective rationale andframework for the actual project inthe Project unit next semester. Version 3_November 2019 Page 3 of 3 CriteriaFail (0-49%)Pass (50-59%)Credit (60-69%)Distinction (70-79%)High distinction (>80%)MarkOrganization,writing, andformatting10%0 – 4.95 – 5.96 – 6.97 – 7.98 – 10Very little discernableorganization; poor flow andlogical progression.Major difficulties in Englishlanguage expression; writing isconfusing, hard to follow;contains numerous errors ofgrammar, syntax andtypography.APA presentation andformatting may have been usedwith many errors.Organization is sometimes unclear;Information may be out of order &argument does not flow in parts.Writing sometimes difficult to follow.Some errors of grammar, syntax andtypography.APA presentation and formatting(including tables, figures, level ofheadings) have been used with anumber of errors.Organization is mainly clear;developing level of argument;gaps in the logical progressionof steps;Writing is mainly clear, with adeveloping academic writingstyle. Minor errors of grammar,syntax and typography.APA presentation andformatting (including tables,figures, level of headings) havebeen used with some errors.Organization is clear; all informationin effective order with good flow ofargument.Writing is clear, with an academicstyle of writing. A few minor errors ofgrammar, spelling and typography.APA presentation and formatting(including tables, figures, level ofheadings) have been used with someminor errors.Excellent organization; argumentflows powerfully and seamlessly;all ideas flow logically.Writing is smooth and coherent,with strong and expressivesentences. Well-developedacademic writing style. Very few, ifany, errors of grammar, spellingand typography.APA presentation and formatting(including tables, figures, level ofheadings) have been correctlyused.Referencing5%0 – 2.42.5 – 2.93 – 3.43.5 – 3.94 – 5APA style referencing not usedor used with many errors;Lack of citations andreferences.References are cited using APAstyle in-text and end-text withsome errors.References are cited using APA intext and end-text with minimumerrors.References are cited using APAstyle in-text and end-text. Mainlycorrect and consistent with minorerrors.References are cited usingAPA style in-text and end- textreference list is complete.Total Mark/10030% of the unit PUBH6024

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *