1. PSP3: Literature Review Assessment Grid
Student Name: Amelia Edmondson
Criteria 0-20% 20-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-80% 80-100% mark
Research
sources and
reading
20%
Little or no
evidence of use of
research sources
limited evidence of
use of research
sources, heavy
reliance on non-
academic sources,
with little
acknowledgement
of the academic
contribution to the
topic
Poor selection of
research resources,
may be reliant on
secondary sources
such as text books
or web sites
Some academic
sources used but
essay also cites a
range of non-
academic sources,
some of which may
be poor sources of
evidence for
academic review
writing
A good attempt to
engage with a
range of relevant
academic
literature, much of
which is up to date.
judicious use of
web sites or other
non-academic
sources
engage with a
breadth of relevant
academic
literature, good
attempt to engage
with primary
sources, judicious
use of non-
academic sources
is justified
wide range of relevant
academic literature
sources used including a
serious attempt to engage
with primary literature
sources, at the forefront of
the field
15/ 20
Scientific
content
20%
Little or no
scientific content
Content lacks
scientific focus,
Partial answer, with
major omissions.
Choice of content
may be limited, or
there may be major
errors
Superficial or
inconsistent grasp
of material.
Evidence of some
understanding of
subject area.
Content may lack
scientific focus
Essay displays
understanding of
the main concepts
underpinning the
issue, attempts to
identify and
describe
complexities,
Relevant scientific
content has been
included.
Good
understanding of
the area gleaned.
Range of relevant
content included,
with strong
scientific focus,
explains
complexities in
topic
An excellent choice
of scientific
content, pertinent
examples, chosen,
displaying
excellent
understanding of
the concepts,
clearly addresses a
range of
complexities.
An excellent -outstanding
answer displaying
excellent understanding of
the concepts, clearly
identifies and objectively
addresses a range of
complexities in the chosen
topic
11/ 20
Argument
and Analysis
20%
No analysis Little or no analysis
Descriptive account
of topic, little
analysis, may
attempt to develop
argument or
express judgments
made but may lack
support
Attempts to develop
an academic
argument although
with a largely
descriptive focus.
Some judgments
made, limited
evidence of critical
analysis.
Strands of
academic
arguments are
made, judgments
well supported by
sound analysis
Evidence of some
independent
thinking and
critical analysis.
Good standard of
intelligent, critical
thought and
argument. Clear
evidence of
informed,
independent
thinking.
Creative analysis of
situation
Outstanding critical
analysis and effective
integration of own ideas
and independent thought. 11/ 20
Essay
Structure
10%
Very poor
organization,
essay lacks
structure or focus.
Essay may lack
focus and clarity
throughout. May
lack effective use of
subsections and
structure
Weak structure
and organization,
lacks coherence
and clarity in many
areas, May lack
effective use of
subsections and
structure
Satisfactory level of
coherence. although
in places ideas may
be poorly organized
within paragraphs
or paragraphs
poorly grafted
Good structure and
planning. Clear and
coherent. Good
introduction and
conclusion. Good
use of subsections
and paragraphing
Excellent structure.
Clear and coherent.
Good introduction
and conclusion.
Flows well. Good
use of sections
paragraphing to
enhance clarity of
argument
Outstanding structure and
organisation Strong
introduction and
conclusion. Excellent and
effective use of sections
and paragraphing to
clarify argument
5/ 10

2. Academic
writing style
10
Very poor style,
leading to
substantial
problems in
expression of ideas
and description of
subject material
English may be
confused and
inappropriate
Style of written
English, lacks
academic rigour or
adherence to
scientific
convention
Attempts
engagement with an
academic style of
written scientific
English and
adoption of
scientific
conventions
Demonstrates good
engagement with
academic style of
written English and
adherence to
scientific
conventions.
Demonstrates
excellent
engagement with
academic style of
scientific English
and consistent
adherence to
scientific
conventions.
Accomplished
professional use of
academic English 6.5/ 10
Presentation
and Grammar
10 %
Major errors and
inaccuracies
Poor presentation,
grammar and
spelling. Various
errors and
inaccuracies
Presentation,
grammar and
spelling need closer
attention. Frequent
errors.
Satisfactory
presentation.
standard may be
inconsistent or
contain a range of
typographical and
grammatical errors in
text
Good standard of
presentation
Grammar
satisfactory. May be
some minor errors.
Excellent standard
of presentation,
with few
typographical or
grammatical errors
Produced to a
professional
standard with no
errors Outstanding
grammar
6.5/ 10
Not
marked
for
spelling
and
grammar
Citation and
Referencing
format
10%
Little or no
engagement with
the academic
convention of
citing sources and
providing a list of
reference sources
Few or no citations
in text, citation
style is poor, few
references listed,
formatting style of
references does not
adhere to required
format
There may be a
lack of citation or
referencing, lack of
adherence to
required format or
inconsistent
formatting
Citation and
referencing may
lack adherence to
required format.
More citation
needed to support
arguments
Good citation,
referencing and
citation adhere to
required format.
Good attention to
detail
References cited
frequently and
appropriately in
text, referencing
and citation
consistently adhere
to required format
Sophisticated
citation indicates
strong
understanding of
importance and
role of citation in
academic writing.
Referencing and
citation adhere to
required format in
all areas
7/ 10
TOTAL
62/ 100

3. Signed: P. Stafford Date: Oct 2018
Strengths
-Figs included and mentioned within the main text
-Relevant information identified
-Engaged with the scientific style of writing
Suggestions for Improvement
-See annotated text
-Several sections are under-referenced
-Some sections are very descriptive
-Could be more in depth with added scientific explanation
-Make sure that all abbreviations are defined
-More primary references required in places; do not rely heavily on lit reviews to write a review
Student comments for Feed-forward (how will you use this feedback to improve your future work?):
To remember for other CW and research project report: See above but special attention need to be placed on coherence and flow of information. Sometimes you
write about a point and refer to papers but you do not explain it in depth …or explain it later.. This disrupts the coherence. Some sections felt a bit repetitive.
Remember to write in more depth, explain the underpinning reasons as opposed to simply describing