Assessment Overview
| Assessment Task | Details |
|---|---|
| Assessment Title | Assessment 2: Literature Review |
| Weighting | 25% of unit total |
| Due Date | Week 6 |
| Assessment Type | Individual assessment |
| Word Count / Length | 1,500 words +/- 10% |
| Unit Learning Outcomes | In this assessment, you will be tested on whether you have successfully met the following Unit Learning Outcomes (ULOs): • ULO-4: Appraise, critique and synthesise the findings of previous research to justify research question and a research methodology to investigate the research question. |
| Submission Type and Required Format | The type of assessment you will be completing is an individual assessment. It should include the following: • Critical review (literature review) for the research problem identified in Assessment 1 • Research gaps • Research questions • Completed Assessment Cover Sheet, including the AI Declaration, and attach it to the assessment • Completed assessment formatted as per the Assessment Presentation Guidelines |
| Assessment Details | |
| Assessment Purpose | The purpose of this assessment is to write critical review for the research problem which you have identified in Assessment 1. |
| Assessment Instructions | In this assessment, you will need to complete the following steps: 1. Conduct critical review (literature review) for the research problem identified in Assessment 1 and determine the topic of research. 2. Unless a cited reference is a seminal work, use at least 15 recent (published within last five years) and relevant peer-reviewed articles. 3. Research studies (thesis/desertion), government reports and/or industry reports may also be used a reference material, but websites are not acceptable resources for the purpose of the assignment. 4. Based on your literature review, identify research gaps. 5. Propose at least three research questions based on identified research gaps. |
| Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use | • In this assessment, the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools is NOT PERMITTED. • In this assessment, you must NOT use generative artificial intelligence (AI) to generate any materials or content in relation to the assessment task. This means you are NOT allowed to use any AI tools such as chatbots, text generators, paraphrasers, summariser, or solvers to complete your assessment. You are expected to produce your own work and cite any sources properly. • Engaging with AI tools for this assessment will be treated as a breach of academic integrity. Refer to the Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure for more details. |
| Assessment Resources | It is strongly recommended that you use the following sources of information: • ECA Library catalogue and databases • Textbook (Chapter 3) • ECA Library and Learning Support For in-text citation and referencing, follow the ECA HE Student Guide to APA 7th Referencing. |
| Submission Requirements | On completion of your assessment: • Submit your document as a PDF or MS Word document via the assessment submission link in Canvas. • Your assessment should have Turnitin similarly within the acceptable range of 24%. To know more about Turnitin similarity and how to interpret, refer to the resources at ECA Library. • Submit your assessment by the deadline. Any submission after the due date will be penalized by 10% of the maximum awardable mark per day (24 hours or pro-rata) that the assessment is late for five days after the assessment is due. |
| Assessment Support | • For academic support or feedback on a draft of your assessment, please email academic.support@eca.edu.au • For assistance with finding resources, such as books and journal articles, please email library@eca.edu.au • For information and guides on tackling assessments and developing your academic skills, please visit in the ECA Library and Learning Support website: https://eca.libguides.com/ • For queries about this specific assessment task, please contact the Unit Coordinator |
Assessment 2 Rubric
| Criteria | High Distinction (85-100) | Distinction (75-84) | Credit (65-74) | Pass (50-64) | Fail (0-49) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Literature Review (40%) | • Literature review cites comprehensive research and theoretical knowledge of the field in the way relevant to the contextual needs • Literature review is purposefully and excellently synthesized • Literature review is excellently organized around Assessment 1 • All literature is reviewed in the context of the problem identified in Assessment 1 |
• Literature review cites comprehensive research and theoretical knowledge of the field in the way relevant to the contextual needs • Literature review is very well synthesized • Literature review is very well organized around Assessment 1 • All literature is reviewed in the context of the problem identified in Assessment 1 |
• Literature review cites major research and theoretical knowledge of the field in the way relevant to the contextual needs • Literature review is well synthesized • Literature review is well organized around Assessment 1 • Most of the literature is reviewed in the context of the problem identified in Assessment 1 |
• Literature review cites some of the major theories and research in the field in the way relevant to the contextual needs • Literature review is satisfactorily written but not well synthesized • Literature is marginally linked to Assessment 1 |
• Literature review doesn't cite relevant theories • Literature review is not written in the way that can guide the development of research question • Literature is not linked Assessment 1 • Literature does not reflect the context of Assessment 1 |
| Knowledge Gap & Resources used (20%) | • The knowledge gap identified in the literature review is assessed as excellent • All citations referred in the text is the current (published in last three years) and relevant to the research topic |
• The knowledge gap identified in the literature review is assessed as very good • All citation referred in the text is the latest and relevant to the research topic |
• The knowledge gap identified in the literature review is assessed as good • Most of the citation referred in the presentation is the latest and relevant to the research topic |
• The knowledge gap identified in the literature review is assessed as satisfactory • The citations referred in the text are somewhat latest, and some literatures are not relevant |
• The knowledge gap identified in the literature review is assessed as not satisfactory • The citation referred in the text are the not the latest and not relevant to the research topic |
| Research Questions (20%) | • Research questions are clear, excellent, relevant, researchable and could potentially resolve a clearly identified problem from Assessment 1 • Questions are clearly guided by knowledge gaps in the literature and the context is excellently described |
• Research questions are clear, researchable, and relevant to the problem or issue identified in Assessment 1 • Questions are guided by knowledge gaps in the literature and the context is very well described |
• Research questions are researchable and relevant to the problem or issue identified in Assessment 1 • Questions are guided by knowledge gaps in the literature and the context is well described |
• Research questions are somewhat researchable and relevant to the problem or issue identified in Assessment 1 • Questions are somewhat guided by knowledge gaps in the literature, but the context is not well described |
• Research question does not reflect a problem related to Assessment 1 • Questions are not researchable • No or unclear description of the context • Questions are not guided by the knowledge gaps in the literature and context is either not present or unclear |
| Clarity of expression and referencing (20%) | • The writing is fluent and coherent with excellent structure and presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with no minor spelling or typing errors • The writing demonstrates a sense of the wider context of the ideas • The resources used are accurately cited using the recommended style of referencing |
• The writing is fluent and coherent with very good structure exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with few spelling or typing errors • The writing is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader of the argument who is left in no doubt of the purpose • The resources used are cited using the recommended style of referencing which contains few minor errors |
• The writing is fluent and coherent with good structure exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with minor spelling or typing errors • The resources used are cited using the recommended style of referencing which contains some errors |
• The writing is satisfactory and exhibits majority of grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with some spelling or typing errors • The writing does not go far enough in expanding key issues/concepts and requires further information to clarify main arguments • The writing shows inconsistent application of the recommended style of referencing and some of the resources used are not peer-reviewed |
• The writing is poor with no logical flow and has grammatical errors • Information is limited, unclear and the depth is not adequately developed • The writing shows insufficient application of the recommended style of referencing • The writing shows no in-text citation • In-text citations do not match with citations under Reference list |
Need Help with Your Research Methodology Assignment?
Our expert writers can help you create high-quality academic papers on research methodology topics.