Identifying relevant Content of literature
Analysis of literature
literature
10%
Evidence of ample reading
around the topic and
extensive identification of
A
the literature, including
70% + major papers, rarer and
very recent articles.
Evidence of identification
of key literature, including
B major papers and recent
articles.
60-69%
Evidence of identification
of some the literature,
C including major papers,
probably missing more
50-59% recent articles.
Evidence of basic
identification of the
D
literature, including some
40-49% major papers.
Missing major papers, with
E a limited number of papers
or ^5% textbooks or non-
0-39% academic sources.
Literature Review Marking Grid
Evaluation of literature
review
20%
Comprehensive review of the
findings of literature
associated with the topic.
Accurately interpreted and
documented, well organised
into relevant themes, with
clear links between related
areas.
Good review of the findings of
the body of literature
associated with the topic. Well
interpreted and documented,
well organised into relevant
themes, with clear links
between related areas.
Brings out key issues from the
literature on the topic, but will
miss more subtle points and
recent developments.
Generally a solid review of key
themes.
Review focuses on only a few
authors so is descriptive,
partial and superficial as a
result. Tendency to miss
recent developments and
some key areas.
Basic review, purely
descriptive and lacking insight
Synthesis Presentation
20%
Strong structure with clear, focused and
logical themes. Contains introductions
and conclusions which are
comprehensive but direct and effective.
Clear description of own methodology,
and outline of authors’ methodologies.
Identifies limitations of own review.
Good structure with clear themes.
Contains introductions and conclusions
which are very competent Student will
describe own methodology and may
identify limitations of own review.
Clear themes, but perhaps covering too
broad areas. Introductions and
conclusions summarise and justify the
review but lack clear structure. Students
own methodology may be superficial,
unreflective, or overlooked altogether.
Loose themes, which may be too broad
or diverse. Tendency to be led by author
rather than topic, summarising whole
papers rather than drawing out key
points. Little or no discussion of own
methods or limitations.
Presented as an essay rather than as a
review of the literature. Lacks
meaningful introductions or conclusions.
No discussion of own methods or
limitations.
20%
Literature is surveyed in a critical
and scholarly way, possibly
referencing key methodology
authors. Implications for
management and/or policy
practice cogent, effective, and
clearly connected to the analysis.
Evaluates positions in a competent
way, with some critical elements.
Explicit description and evaluation
of authors’ methodologies. Clear
statement of practical
implications.
Some attempt to be analytical or
evaluative, but largely descriptive.
Crude discussion of methodology.
Implications for practice are
underdeveloped, unrealistic or
poorly connected to the analysis.
A descriptive approach to the
literature. Little, if any evaluation
of research methodologies.
Practical implication element
rudimentary or over-elaborated.
No evaluation of the literature,
failing to identify methodologies
or methods. No practical
implications discussed.
10%
Evidence of strong
attempts to develop
models, suggest further
research and identify gaps
in research. Offers a
genuinely creative and
original approach.
Evidence of attempts to
develop models, suggest
further research and
identify gaps in research.
Offers some new insights
into the topic.
Some evidence of
synthesis, for example
suggesting gaps in the
literature and areas for
further research. Perhaps
a basic model is included.
Little evidence of
synthesis, only identifying
areas for further research
with little justification.
No evidence of synthesis,
lacking areas for further
research.
Student Number:
20%
Presentation skills are
immaculate, using
appropriate referencing,
citing sources correctly and
with excellent spelling and
grammar. Within word limit.
Presentation skills and
referencing which are
generally effective and
competent, but with some
minor errors. Within word
limit.
Presentation and
referencing are generally
competent, some more
serious errors or omissions.
Occasionally fail to give
sources. Within word limit.
Poor or careless
presentation, poor
referencing. Minor
infringement of word limit.
Consistently fail to give
sources, poor spelling,
grammar, poor
presentation, or greatly
over word limit.