Literature Review - Marking Scheme
STUDENT:
MARKER:
WEIGHTING:
i.e.
Percentage
overall mark
attributable to
section
Literature review
(technical approach)
Literature appraisal
Formatting
Structure and development of
argument
Grammar &
Spelling
Hypothesis or paradigm
10%
35%
10%
25%
10%
10%
100%
80-99
70-79
60-69
50-59
40-49
10-39
0-9
TITLE:
Outstanding evidence of
systematic review using
multiple searches, multiple
databases
Very careful reviewing,
systematic combinations of
search terms
Evidence of reviewing,
possibly incomplete but
using appropriate
approaches
Incomplete and not
systematic, but adequate to
identify part of the literature
Outstanding evidence of
appraisal and evaluation of
most or all papers cited,
clear critical thinking
Evidence of critical appraisal
of most or all papers cited.
There is a clear organisation to
the paper, but may not always
be logical or flowing
Very little evidence of critical
evaluation of papers cited.
Generally meets criteria set by
journal, some errors
throughout. An obvious
attempt to strive for the
formatting guidelines. Endnote
less than perfect.
Fails to identify enough of
the literature to yield an
informative review.
No evidence of evaluation of
papers.
Falls far short of the formatting
criteria
Poorly structured argument, no
development
Little or no evidence of a
systematic approach,
incomplete review
No evidence of literature
review
Little or no evidence of
having read completely
papers cited.
Little or no evidence of having
read the formatting criteria of
the target journal
Little or no evidence of
organisation, no logical
development
MARKS
OUT OF 10
Some evidence of critical
appraisal or partial critical
appraisal
Could be submitted to target journal without further editing
The paper is well organised,
developing a clear argument and
Meets criteria set by journal,
very few errors, referencing /
rooting this in evidence, shows
endnote near perfect
balance breadth and
consideration for reader
The paper is well organised,
Meets criteria set by journal, a
developing an argument and
few addressable errors
rooting this in evidence.
OUT OF 35
OUT OF 10
Evidence of organisation of the
argument, but only adequately
structured
Out of 25
PASS MARK 65%
Excellent, few or consistent
grammatical or spelling
mistakes
Develops new hypothesis from
review of existing literature or
questions or rejects a major
paradigm.
Clear, some grammatical or
spelling errors
Develops or enriches hypothesis
under direction, or questions or
rejects a major paradigm.
Generally good, a few errors,
inconsistent spellings
Some evidence of questioning
validity of paradigm or moving
towards a new model or hypothesis
Little or no originality, accepts
literature, whether appropriate or not.
Poor, grammar sometimes
makes meaning difficult to
interpret, Inconsistent spelling
or grammar
Falls far below the standard
for submission and is
frequently difficult to follow.
Unintelligible
No evidence of original thought or
critical appraisal of the field of study.
Little or evidence of understanding
the literature, nor reporting or
appraisal.
Out of 10
TOTAL MARK
Out of 10
___________
Different titles or reviews may have different aims or emphases and the degree to which, for example, a new hypothesis can be derived from a review or a paradigm
should be reflected in the way marks are allocated.
Please provide written feedback to justify your marks and help the students improve.
14