MGMT7003 Financial Management of Projects

Technical Approach of Literature Review

Literature Appraisal

Formatting

Structure and Development of Argument

Grammar & Spelling

Hypothesis or Paradigm

WEIGHTING:

10% of 30 marks

35% of 30 marks

10% of 30 marks

25% of 30 marks

10% of 30 marks

10% of 30 marks

100%

Could be submitted to target journal without further editing

80-99

Outstanding evidence of systematic review using multiple searches, multiple databases

Outstanding evidence of appraisal and evaluation of most or all papers cited, clear critical thinking

Meets formatting criteria, very few errors, referencing near perfect

The writing is well organised, developing a clear argument and rooting this in evidence, shows balance breadth and consideration for reader

Excellent, few or consistent grammatical or spelling

Develops new hypothesis from review of existing literature or questions or rejects a major paradigm.

70-79

Very careful reviewing, systematic combinations of search terms

Evidence of critical appraisal of most or all papers cited.

Meets formatting criteria, a few addressable errors

The writing is well organised, developing an argument and rooting this in evidence.

Clear, some grammatical or spelling errors

Develops or enriches hypothesis under direction, or questions or rejects a major paradigm.

60-69

Evidence of reviewing, possibly incomplete but using appropriate approaches

Some evidence of critical appraisal or partial critical appraisal

Generally meets formatting criteria, some errors throughout. An obvious attempt to strive for the formatting guidelines.

There is a clear organisation to the writing, but may not always be logical or flowing

Generally good, a few errors, inconsistent spellings

Some evidence of questioning validity of paradigm or moving towards a new model or hypothesis

50-59

Incomplete and not systematic, but adequate to identify part of the literature

Very little evidence of critical evaluation of papers cited.

Evidence of organisation of the argument, but only adequately structured

Little or no originality, accepts literature, whether appropriate or not.

40-49

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

Poor, grammar sometimes makes meaning difficult to interpret, Inconsistent spelling or grammar

No evidence of original thought or critical appraisal of the field of study.

10-39

Little or no evidence of a systematic approach, incomplete review

Little or no evidence of having read completely papers cited.

Little or no evidence of having read the formatting criteria

Little or no evidence of organisation, no logical development

Falls far below the standard for submission and is frequently difficult to follow.

Little or no evidence of understanding the literature, nor reporting or appraisal.

0-9

No evidence of literature review

Unintelligible

MARKS

GENERAL COMMENTS