Rationale: This assessment involves an in-depth exploration of the relevant literature for your research project. The literature review task will serve as a foundation for Assessment 3. “Importantly, a literature review sets the context for your study and provides the framework for interpreting your findings and results” (SCU, 2020).
Task: Demonstrate engagement with, and critical review of, literature in the field relevant to your research area.
The literature review should;
• investigate previous research and find out what’s been done before
• consider theoretical frameworks
• identify ‘gaps’ in existing knowledge to find out how your study fits within current knowledge and understanding
• determine/clarify/justify your research question/problem
• select the most appropriate methodology (if applicable) for your research
(SCU, Writing a literature review quick guide, 2020)
The literature review will include:
• Restate aim and research question/s (include any updates from assessment 1)
• Introduction – a brief overview of the chosen research area
• Review of literature in the field relevant to your research (minimum 8 academic journal articles)
• Discussion of methodologies used in the field/s
• Theoretical framework / conceptual map
• Conclusion
• Reference list using SCU Harvard referencing
• All data including, copies of literature and/or links to reading, etc. must be save to your SCU OneDrive and an accessible link included in the submission text with literature review – grades will not be released without OneDrive access.
HOTL6005 Applied Hotel Research – Assessment 2 – Literature Review 20%
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Restated aim and research question/s
2 marks Original aim and questions provided – feedback from assessment 1 has been comprehensively addressed and any amendments have been expertly revised and contextualised to the research problem. No revisions required. Original aim and questions provided – feedback from assessment 1 has been addressed and any amendments have been well developed – only minor revisions required from this point forward. Original aim and questions provided – feedback from assessment 1 has been addressed. The revisions are well-developed and feasible for the student to progress, however some revisions may still be required. Original aim and questions may not have been provided however there is evidence that an attempt has been made to revise the aim and questions based on assessment 1 feedback. Revisions are still necessary for the research to progress Original aim and questions NOT provided – feedback from assessment 1 has NOT been addressed
Relevance and quality
• Indicative of research problem
4 marks
Relevance and quality of literature is excellent.
Uses a minimum 8 academic journal articles that are relevant, timely and comprehensively interpret the research topic
Relevance and quality of literature is very good.
Uses minimum 8 academic journal articles
Relevance and quality of literature is good.
Uses minimum 8 academic journal articles
Relevance and quality of literature is adequate
Uses minimum 8 journal articles Relevance and quality of literature is poor
Less than 8 journal articles
Critical argument
8 marks Expertly developed, informs the specific research problem
Demonstrates highly developed critical analysis of the strengths/weaknesses of the literature reviewed in the context of the research problem Comprehensively developed, informs the specific research problem
Demonstrates very well developed critical analysis of the strengths/weaknesses of the literature reviewed Well developed, informs the specific research problem
Demonstrates well developed critical analysis of the strengths/weaknesses of the literature reviewed Satisfactorily developed, informs the specific research problem
Demonstrates satisfactory critical analysis of the strengths/weaknesses of the literature reviewed Poorly developed, and does not inform the specific research problem
Does not demonstrate critical analysis of the strength/weaknesses of the literature reviewed
Conceptual map
• Key constructs identified
2 marks Conceptual map has been informed by the literature and excellently developed in a manner that reflects the purpose of the research Conceptual map has been informed by the literature and very well developed Conceptual map has been informed by the literature and well developed Conceptual map has been informed by the literature and adequately developed Conceptual map has not been informed by the literature
Structure and writing
2 marks Clear, crisp and coherent style. Free of grammar and spelling errors.
Demonstrates excellent synthesis of the literature through a thorough integration into the research problem Clear, coherent style. Mostly free of grammatical and spelling errors.
Demonstrates very good synthesis of the literature
Good style. Competently written. A few grammatical errors.
Demonstrates adequate synthesis of the literature
Writing is adequate. Some grammatical errors.
Literature is not well synthesised although demonstrates some effort
Poor style with little attention to spelling and punctuation. Poorly structured. Not written well.
Does not synthesise the literature.
Referencing
2 marks In text referencing and reference list use SCU Harvard format with no errors Only a very few errors. In text referencing and reference list use SCU Harvard format with few errors In text referencing and reference list use SCU Harvard format with minor errors. In text referencing and reference list use SCU Harvard format and are adequately presented but lack attention to detail Errors in referencing. In text referencing and reference list are incomplete/contain errors.
Note: When submitting to Turnitin the Assignment cover sheet MUST be used and clearly indicates student name, address, course, assignment, and date of submission (with any extensions noted on the assignment cover sheet in the relevant section).
