Section

Mark

1. Title page

1

2. Introduction

6

3. Literature Review

15

4. Overarching aim, Research question, Hypothesis

6

5. Significance and Impact

6

6. References

3

7. Academic standards of writing and formatting

3

TOTAL

40

MARK

1 (Meets expectations)

0 (Does not meet expectations)

CRITERIA

Clear and concise; Reflects the research aim/question; Includes author,

affiliation, date.

Too short, too long, grammatically weak, vague; Does not accurately reflect the

research aim/question; Incorrect or missing author information.

MARK

5?6 (Meets expectations)

3?4 (Partly meets expectations)

0?2 (Does not meet expectations)

CRITERIA

The topic is identified clearly and succinctly at the beginning of the paper. All key concepts are defined with clear, simple explanations suitable for an interdisciplinary audience. Current state of knowledge clearly linked to research problem and need for further research. The importance of the topic is explained with a logical argument supported by evidence where required. A succinct, specific,

and accurate overview of the paper is provided.

An explicit statement about the topic is provided. Key concepts are defined, although definitions may be superficial or simplistic. An attempt at identifying the research problem provided and some attempt at linking to how it might be addressed. An explicit statement about the importance of the topic is included, although justification may be limited. The structure of the paper is described but is vague.

The topic of the paper is not immediately clear. Key concepts are omitted from the introduction or definitions may be inaccurate or unclear. No mention of research problem. An argument about the importance of the topic is missing or illogical. The structure of the paper is not described or is inaccurate.

MARK

11?15 (Meets expectations)

6?10 (Partly meets expectations)

0?5 (Does not meet expectations)

CRITERIA

Literature is organised with reference to a coherent theoretical or conceptual framework. Thoughtful critique of studies demonstrates sophisticated understanding of research methods. An accurate assessment of the overall state of knowledge is provided and supported with evidence. A clear and succinct description of a critical gap in knowledge is provided. The review represents a strong argument that there is an important gap in knowledge.

Organisation of literature makes sense, but overarching structure could be improved. A theoretical or conceptual framework may be mentioned but not clearly explained or integrated. A good attempt to critique empirical studies demonstrates a developing understanding of research methods. There is a good attempt to assess the overall state of knowledge. A gap in knowledge is identified, although the review may focus more on existing knowledge than on arguing

that there is a gap in knowledge.

The literature is disorganised or organised as a chronology or list of studies. A theoretical or conceptual framework is not mentioned. Studies are only described; attempts to critique are absent, illogical, or demonstrate a lack of knowledge about research methods. There is no attempt to assess the overall state of knowledge. The gap in knowledge is missing or is contradicted by the material presented in the review.

MARK

5?6 (Meets expectations)

3?4 (Partly meets expectations)

0?2 (Does not meet expectations)

CRITERIA

The research aim is clearly articulated, logically follows from the literature review, and establishes the studys purpose effectively. The research question is precise, answerable, and explicitly linked to the identified gap in knowledge. The hypothesis is testable, falsifiable, and clearly stated, demonstrating an understanding of how variables interact. The formulation of the research aim, question, and hypothesis aligns with appropriate

research methodologies.

The research aim is stated but lacks clarity or is not well-aligned with the literature review. The research question is relevant but may be too broad, vague, or not fully answerable. The hypothesis is present but lacks testability or is not clearly linked to the research question. Some understanding of research design is demonstrated, but logical connections between the aim, question, and hypothesis need improvement.

The research aim is missing, unclear, or does not relate to the literature review. The research question is absent, highly vague, or unanswerable. The hypothesis is missing, illogical, or not testable. There is little to no understanding of how the research aim, question, and hypothesis should align with research methodology.

MARK

5?6 (Meets expectations)

3?4 (Partly meets expectations)

0?2 (Does not meet expectations)

CRITERIA

The studys significance is clearly justified, demonstrating a strong contribution to knowledge, policy, and/or applied practice. A compelling case is made for how the research builds on existing literature and addresses a meaningful gap. The discussion explicitly outlines who benefits from the study (e.g., policymakers, practitioners, communities) and how the findings could be applied. The broader impact of the research is well- articulated, including potential implications for future research, societal outcomes, or policy

changes.

The studys significance is acknowledged but not fully justified. Some connection to existing literature is made, but the research gap and contributions are not well-developed. The studys impact is mentioned but lacks specificity (e.g., does not clearly identify who benefits or how findings will be applied). Implications are stated but not explored in depth, leaving some questions about the studys practical or theoretical contributions.

The studys significance is unclear, weak, or missing. There is no clear justification for how the study contributes to knowledge or practice. The impact is not discussed, vague, or lacks connection to real- world applications. No mention of potential policy, academic, or societal contributions, making the research seem disconnected from broader implications.

MARK

3 (Meets expectations)

1?2 (Partly meets expectations)

0 (Does not meet expectations)

CRITERIA

Between 15-35 items of scholarly literature have been cited. Evidence of innovative conceptual and lateral thinking to create connections between different bodies of literature. All material included is relevant to the argument that there is a gap in knowledge that needs to be addressed. Comprehensive coverage of latest empirical

literature.

At least fifteen items of scholarly literature cited. A good attempt to connect different bodies of literature. Material is mostly relevant, although there may be some tendency to include extraneous material that is not crucial to the argument that there is a gap in knowledge. Sufficient coverage of latest empirical literature to justify the research

question.

Insufficient literature included in the review. Material is largely out of date, not relevant to the topic, or not scholarly. Important literature excluded. There is insufficient material to support a research question.

MARK

3 (Meets expectations)

1?2 (Partly meets expectations)

0 (Does not meet expectations)

CRITERIA

Writing style and paragraph structure are excellent and free of errors. The author communicates in simple terms so that complex ideas can be understood easily by educated non-experts. Citations provided where required throughout the paper. Conforms to APA 7 style with virtually no

errors in the text or the reference list.

Writing style and paragraph structure is generally good with only minor errors in spelling and grammar. Phrasing may be cumbersome or awkward in places. More signposting required. Citations mostly provided where required in the paper. Mostly accurate use of APA 7 style with some

errors.

The authors intended meaning is obscured by poor structure and writing style including spelling, grammar, sentence structure, and paragraph structure. Significant portions of material are not referenced. Referencing style is incorrect.