Criteria F P CR D HD Coherence of report (3marks) The work was poorly constructed and it was considered sections vague and didn’t contain enough detail or citations to be considered a Literature review. Most aspects of a Literature review (balanced and objective) covered in detail, however, at times it is a little unclear in its coherence with a lack of clarity as to why inclusions are incorporated. Multiple aspects of a Literature review are covered in detail allowing it to be considered balanced and objective. At times it is a little unclear in its coherence with a lack of clarity although an evaluation of implications included. The Literature Review provides an informed evaluation of the implications of findings and showed a capacity to able to Identify a potential gap in the research with conflicting evidence included. The Literature review provided structured and coherent sections with the findings for many important aspects provided and demonstrates strong understanding of a gap in the research. Conflicting evidence or theory included. Introduction (4 Marks) The introduction was missing or poorly constructed e.g.it does restate the question, the focus of the review and does not set out the issues to be covered. Basic introduction which gives an indication of what is to be presented in the essay Introduction inclusive of some aspects of a Literature review introduction i.e. topic area, essay purpose, plan, and line of reasoning. Introduction inclusive of all but one of the aspects of an introduction i.e. topic area, report purpose, plan, and line of reasoning. Introduction inclusive of all aspects of an introduction i.e. topic area, report purpose, plan, and line of reasoning. Discussion of implications for topic Overall Integration of relevant theoretical concepts (6) Does not include relevant theoretical concepts or research which blocks a sound discussion of implications. Includes relevant theoretical concepts or research however in a descriptive manner shows some ability to appreciate implications. Includes relevant theoretical concepts and research however in a descriptive manner which has limited understanding of implications Integrates theoretical concepts and research into report to support arguments made and implications Integrates theoretical and research into the report showing multiple perspectives on the arguments presented and implications Conclusions (4 Marks) Theory is not identified and described which makes for a poor conclusion. Theory is identified and described allowing for a conclusion that acknowledges links between theory and practice. However conclusion indicate limited understanding Key aspects of theory identified, and related well to the link between theory and practice and drawn together into a balanced conclusion. Appropriate theory identified and explained clearly to demonstrate detailed knowledge of the subject allowing for a balance conclusion. Appropriate clear and relevant relationships made between theories and their application to the organisation allows for a conclusion that demonstrates superior understanding of the links established in the Literature review. Interpretation of Literature (6 marks) Interpretation was very limited as there were 1 or less textbook and or Journal articles used. Scant understanding and or a poor choice using only web sites and Wikipedia 3-4 quality reference used which evidenced the capacity to make limited interpretation of the topic. The use of 4-5 quality references was indicative of a greater understanding and interpretation of ideas. A high standard of interpretation gleaned from 6-8 quality references used as well as the text Outstanding effort in interpretation and synthesis developed through the inclusion of 10 + quality references. Use and application of Harvard Anglia citation techniques. (4 Marks) Harvard Anglia not adhered to in the reference list and or in text as per Harvard Anglia guidelines Harvard Anglia adhered to in the reference list and in text as per Harvard Anglia guidelines with 5 or more errors Harvard Anglia adhered to in the reference list and in text as per Harvard Anglia guidelines with 5 or less errors Harvard Anglia adhered to in the reference list and in text as per Harvard Anglia guidelines with 3 errors No errors or one error only Overall presentation, language, spelling and grammar. (3 Marks) Poorly constructed language. Difficult to understand the meaning. Many typographical errors. Does not meet report presentation guidelines. Meaning apparent but language not always fluent, grammar and/or spelling contain errors. Minimal consideration given to the reader. Meets some report presentation guidelines. Language appropriate grammar and spelling mainly accurate. Needs more consideration given to the needs of the reader. Meets many report presentation guidelines. Language fluent, few errors in grammar, spelling and syntax. Mainly considerate of the reader. Meets most report presentation guidelines. Robust and academic writing style appropriate to sound report writing. Grammar and spelling accurate. Very considerate to the reader. Meets all report presentation guidelines.