Overview
This unit provides you with the theoretical underpinnings required to undertake a literature review to inform a research project. You will take an area of interest or problem from the nursing environment and develop a researchable question that will enable you to investigate an area of interest in your nursing practice. Using this problem, you will learn how to search the literature using a structured approach, evaluate the information retrieved using appropriate evaluation tools, and develop a table of papers that meet the requirement of good research in preparation to undertake a research project in your area of nursing practice.
Details
Pre-requisites or Co-requisites
There are no requisites for this unit.
Important note: Students enrolled in a subsequent unit who failed their pre-requisite unit, should drop the subsequent unit before the census date or within 10 working days of Fail grade notification. Students who do not drop the unit in this timeframe cannot later drop the unit without academic and financial liability. See details in the Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework).
Offerings For Term 2 - 2019
Attendance Requirements
All on-campus students are expected to attend scheduled classes – in some units, these classes are identified as a mandatory (pass/fail) component and attendance is compulsory. International students, on a student visa, must maintain a full time study load and meet both attendance and academic progress requirements in each study period (satisfactory attendance for International students is defined as maintaining at least an 80% attendance record).
Recommended Student Time Commitment
Each 6-credit Postgraduate unit at CQUniversity requires an overall time commitment of an average of 12.5 hours of study per week, making a total of 150 hours for the unit.
Class Timetable
Assessment Overview
Assessment Grading
This is a graded unit: your overall grade will be calculated from the marks or grades for each assessment task, based on the relative weightings shown in the table above. You must obtain an overall mark for the unit of at least 50%, or an overall grade of ‘pass’ in order to pass the unit. If any ‘pass/fail’ tasks are shown in the table above they must also be completed successfully (‘pass’ grade). You must also meet any minimum mark requirements specified for a particular assessment task, as detailed in the ‘assessment task’ section (note that in some instances, the minimum mark for a task may be greater than 50%). Consult the University’s Grades and Results Policy for more details of interim results and final grades.
All University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
You may wish to view these policies:
- Grades and Results Policy
- Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework)
- Review of Grade Procedure
- Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – Domestic Students
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – International Students
- Student Refund and Credit Balance Policy and Procedure
- Student Feedback – Compliments and Complaints Policy and Procedure
- Information and Communications Technology Acceptable Use Policy and Procedure
This list is not an exhaustive list of all University policies. The full list of University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
Feedback, Recommendations and Responses
Every unit is reviewed for enhancement each year. At the most recent review, the following staff and student feedback items were identified and recommendations were made.
Feedback from "Have your say"
In term 3, 2018 students commented on assessment tasks and time to return.
Assessments reviewed and more detail provided. Zoom sessions used to discuss assessments. Feedback on assessments provided in a timely way to reflect CQUniversity policy.
- Construct a research statement that defines the area of interest or problem from your practice in nursing
- Evaluate various approaches to undertaking literature reviews
- Formulate a comprehensive information retrieval process for reviewing literature
- Undertake a literature review using appropriate methods and search engines
- Critique and assimilate retrieved information and argue its relevance to the problem statement.
NA
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Learning Outcomes
Assessment Tasks | Learning Outcomes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
1 - Practical Assessment - 20% | |||||
2 - Practical Assessment - 40% | |||||
3 - Report - 40% |
Alignment of Graduate Attributes to Learning Outcomes
Graduate Attributes | Learning Outcomes | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
1 - Knowledge | |||||
2 - Communication | |||||
3 - Cognitive, technical and creative skills | |||||
4 - Research | |||||
5 - Self-management | |||||
6 - Ethical and Professional Responsibility | |||||
7 - Leadership | |||||
8 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultures |
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Graduate Attributes
Assessment Tasks | Graduate Attributes | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
1 - Practical Assessment - 20% | ||||||||
2 - Practical Assessment - 40% | ||||||||
3 - Report - 40% |
Textbooks
There are no required textbooks.
Additional Textbook Information
No
IT Resources
- CQUniversity Student Email
- Internet
- Unit Website (Moodle)
- CQUniversity Library
- CQUniversity library literature search tools
- CQUniversity Library Website (e-Journals)
- Endnote (available through Library - see Moodle link)
All submissions for this unit must use the referencing style: American Psychological Association 6th Edition (APA 6th edition)
For further information, see the Assessment Tasks.
j.m.shaw@cqu.edu.au
j.hendricks@cqu.edu.au
Module/Topic
Introduction to the Unit.
Discussion of assessment
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Zoom Lecture
How to commence a literature search:-Posing the question
Module/Topic
The Literature review: why to do it
Chapter
Types of literature review
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Referencing management - Endnote
Chapter
Complete Endnote training
EndNote (bibliographical software). You MUST use EndNote bibliographic software to format your references for
the main assessment item. This software is available to both on-campus and flex students and is available for
Windows and Mac users. Consult ITD for instructions on how to download this software. It is easy to use
and very helpful.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Practical Assessment 1. Constructing a research statement. Due: Week 3 Friday 2nd August
Practical Assessment One Due: Week 3 Friday (2 Aug 2019) 5:00 pm AEST
Module/Topic
A structured approach to reviewing the literature
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Posing the question
Module/Topic
Searching the literature
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Activity- inclusion and exclusion criteria; use of search engines; Boolean terms
Module/Topic
Searching the literature
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Students work individually to search the literature within the parameters of the question posed.
- Create search results table
Module/Topic
Retrieving the relevant results
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Document a summary table
-Retrieve articles
Practical Assessment 2. Approaches to literature reviews, retrieving and reviewing literature Due Friday 30th August (Week Six)
Practical Assessment Two Due: Week 6 Friday (30 Aug 2019) 5:00 pm AEST
Module/Topic
How to annotate literature
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Activity Sheet
Module/Topic
Conduct quality appraisal of retrieved literature
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
-Document a summary table
- Evaluation of papers
Module/Topic
Conduct quality appraisal of retrieved literature
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
- Document a summary table
- Annotate relevant papers
- Evaluation of papers
Module/Topic
Documenting the search strategy
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Zoom session - Discussion of issues/questions related to final assessment.
Module/Topic
This week you will have time to write your literature review
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Zoom - developing your report
Module/Topic
This week you will have time to write your literature review
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
This week you will have time to write your literature review
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Zoom - developing your report
Report Due: Review/Exam Week Friday (18 Oct 2019) 5:00 pm AEST
Module/Topic
This week you will have time to write your literature review
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Assessment 3 Report due on the 18th October
1 Practical Assessment
Assessment 1: Practical Assessment
Assessment Type: Essay
Due Date: Friday 2nd August (Week
3)
Word
Count: 1,500 (+/- 10%)
Weighting: 20% Scored: /100
This assessment addresses the following Unit learning outcomes:
1. Construct
a research statement that defines the area of interest or problem from your
practice in nursing.
Assessment
In this essay you are required to identify a
topic of interest or a problem (knowledge gap) from your clinical setting and
create a research statement that is, ‘pose
the question to be researched’.
This assignment requires you to complete the
following four steps. You should consider these steps as you develop your essay
however, your essay should not include headings to introduce each step. The
steps are:
Introduce
the topic of interest or problem you have identified in your clinical practice.
Describe the topic or problem and explain why it is an appropriate research
topic.
Step 2
Provide
a background to the research topic/problem and describe why you identified the
topic/problem as a suitable area of research.
Step 3
Identify
and discuss the aims, significance, innovation and new knowledge that may
emerge from the research of this topic/problem.
Step 4
Explain
the relevance of this research to future practice.
Follow the guidelines and required format:
·
The assessment should be
written in essay form and have a clear introduction, body and conclusion.
·
Your essay should be
page numbered and include a title page.
·
Font size is Calibri 11
or Times New Roman 12 and double spaced.
·
The discussion should be
substantiated with reference to the contemporary literature (last 10 years),
with no less than 10 peer reviewed journals cited to support the discussion.
·
You should use the American Psychological Association (APA) abridged guide
Term 1 2019 referencing style.
·
Refer to the marking
rubric prior to writing your essay.
Week 3 Friday (2 Aug 2019) 5:00 pm AEST
Submit assignment via Moodle
Week 5 Friday (16 Aug 2019)
Online
High Distinction 85-100% |
Distinction 75-85% |
Credit 65-75% |
Pass 50-65% |
Fail Below 50% |
STRUCTURE |
||||
Efficiency & organisation 10% |
||||
An articulate essay. There
is a succinct and compelling
introduction which introduces the topic/ problem and outlines the direction
of the paper. The essay is cogent and
is brought to a compelling conclusion.
|
A well written essay. There
is a clear and appropriate introduction which introduces the topic/ problem
and outlines the direction of the paper.
The essay proceeds logically and is brought to a logical conclusion.
|
Appropriately written
essay. There is an appropriate introduction which mostly introduces the topic/problem
and outlines the direction of the paper.
The essay mostly proceeds logically and is brought to an appropriate
conclusion. |
Adequately articulated
essay. An introduction is apparent and the topic/ problem is somewhat
introduced. There is an attempt made
to outline the direction of the paper.
The essay is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion. A conclusion is evident.
|
The introduction is not apparent or does not attempt to introduce the
topic/problem and outline the direction of the paper. The essay does not flow logically and is
not brought to a close.
|
Presentation 10% |
||||
Excellent presentation of assignment. The
submitted written material is very well-presented, follows the formatting
requirements and is free from errors.
|
A very good presentation of assignment. The additional submitted written material
is well-presented and mostly follows the formatting requirements. There
are minor errors (e.g. 1 or 2 errors in spelling, grammar and paragraph
structure).
|
A good presentation of assignment that follows the formatting
requirements. There are some errors (e.g. 3 or 4 consistent errors
with spelling, grammar and paragraph structure).
|
An adequate presentation that sometimes follows the formatting
requirements. There
are 3 or 4 inconsistent errors (spelling, grammar and paragraph structure).
|
Poorly presented assignment. There are many inaccuracies in formatting spelling,
grammar and paragraph structure. (> 5 errors). |
Substantiation of discussion 5% |
||||
Discussion is substantiated consistently with logic, examples, and
with reference to the current literature. A minimum of 10 contemporary* peer
reviewed journal articles have been cited. |
Discussion is generally substantiated with logic,
examples, and with reference to the current peer reviewed literature, with
1 or 2 exceptions. A minimum of 10 contemporary* peer reviewed journal
articles have been cited. |
Discussion is partly substantiated with logic,
examples, and with reference to the current peer reviewed literature,
with 3 or 4 exceptions. Between 8- 10 contemporary* peer reviewed journal
articles have been cited.
|
Discussion is occasionally substantiated with logic,
examples, and with reference to the current peer reviewed literature,
with 5 or 6 exceptions. Between 5-8 contemporary* journal articles have been
cited. |
Discussion is not or infrequently attempts to (>7 errors) to substantiate
discussion with logic, examples, and with reference to the current peer
reviewed literature. Less than 5
contemporary* peer reviewed journal articles have been cited.
|
Referencing 5% |
||||
Accurate APA
referencing. No errors. |
Mostly accurate APA
referencing. 1-2 consistent errors (may be made multiple
times). |
Somewhat accurate APA
referencing. 3 consistent errors (may be made multiple
times). |
Occasionally accurate APA
referencing. 4 consistent errors (made multiple times).
|
APA referencing not used, or more than 5 inaccuracies. |
ARGUMENT AND APPROACH 70% |
||||
Relevancy & depth 35% |
||||
The content including the
topic/problem is entirely relevant and is comprehensively described. The
approach comprehensively addresses the task and the discussion proceeds
logically and is within the set word count. |
The content, including the
topic/problem, is very relevant and the background is well described. The
approach clearly addresses the task and the discussion proceeds logically and
is within the set word count.
|
The content, including the
topic/problem, is relevant and the background is adequately described. The
approach mostly addresses the task and the discussion proceeds logically and
is within the set word count. |
The content addresses the topic/problem, is mostly relevant and the background
is partly described. The discussion is at times repetitive or lacks
cohesion and is within the set word count with a 10% allowance. |
The content is irrelevant
and/or does not address the topic/problem and
the background is not described. The discussion lacks cohesion. The
word count is not within the 10% allowance. |
Critical analysis 35% |
||||
There is
excellent critical analysis in the construction and description of the
research aims, significance, innovation and the emergence of new knowledge.
The research question is very clearly stated. |
There is clear
critical analysis in the construction and description of the research aims,
significance, innovation and the emergence of new knowledge. The research
question is clearly stated. |
There is critical
analysis in the construction and description of the research aims,
significance, innovation and the emergence of new knowledge. The research
question is stated. |
There is some
attempt at critical analysis in the construction and description of the
research aims, significance, innovation and the discussion of the emergence
of new knowledge. There has been an attempt to state the research question although
it is not clear. |
There is very
little, or no evidence of critical analysis in the construction and
description of the research aims, significance, innovation and the discussion
around the emergence of new knowledge. The research question is not stated. |
TOTAL MARKS
/100
Late penalty (if applicable)
%
Final Grade |
*Contemporary = less than 10 years old
- Construct a research statement that defines the area of interest or problem from your practice in nursing
- Undertake a literature review using appropriate methods and search engines
- Knowledge
- Cognitive, technical and creative skills
- Research
2 Practical Assessment
Assessment 2: Practical
Assessment
Assessment Type: Report
Due Date: Friday 30th August (Week
6)
Word Count: 2,000 (+/- 10%)
Weighting: 40% Scored:
/100
This assessment addresses the following Unit
learning outcomes:
2. Evaluate various approaches to undertaking
literature reviews.
3. Formulate a comprehensive information
retrieval process for retrieving and reviewing literature.
Assessment
This assessment builds on NURS20167 Assessment
1. You are required to use a structured approach to document and explain your
literature retrieval process following the steps outlined by Kable, Pich and
Maslin Prothero (2012) [available on the Moodle site].
Whilst writing this assessment consider the ways
in which you would write a journal article for publication, in particular the
background of a literature review and documenting the literature research.
Examples of such publications are provided on the Moodle site.
This assessment task has 6 steps.
Step 1
This step relates to NURS20167 Assessment one.
You are required to provide a purpose statement to describe the question to be
addressed in the literature search. Justify this purpose statement. This
assists in converting the research question into language that is ‘search
engine friendly’.
Step 2
This step requires you to source the databases,
or search engines, relevant to your purpose statement including sourcing any
other relevant literature (grey literature, information gateways). You will
need to document and explain your search sources (searched/accessed) and
justify their selection. Include why and how you may have undertaken any manual
search of the literature (if applicable).
Step 3
In this step you need to specify the limits
applied to your literature search (e.g. years included, language, human
studies, original papers) and justify them so that the reader may understand
the search.
Step 4
You need to document the inclusion and exclusion
criteria used to undertake the search. This is another way of
funneling your search to include only papers that are relevant to your
purpose statement. Criteria may include population characteristics, diagnoses,
types of interventions, outcome measures, types of studies and may be
restricted to primary research only or specific methodologies. The selection of
the inclusion and exclusion criteria will need to be justified. Exclude
specific literature reviews and systematic reviews and provide a rationale for
doing so.
Step 5
Document the search terms used to focus the
search. Explain and justify your choice of terms and how they were tested.
These terms should be derived from the purpose
statement and identify the concepts of interest. They should be tested several
times to make sure that they are effectively locating literature on the topic
described in the purpose. It may be helpful to do this in consultation with a
librarian.
You may choose to use text search terms or
subject index terms e.g. MeSH, or a combination of these for the search. You
should include information such as exploding or focusing search terms, and the
use of Boolean operators e.g. OR/AND to indicate whether the terms used were
truncated and if various ways of spelling the terms, plurals and synonyms were
included.
Each database should be searched using the same
terms and Boolean operations. Duplicates of papers should be noted.
Step 6
This step requires you to summarise the search
you have undertaken by presenting it in a table format. Information included in
the search should include: the databases and search engines accessed, terms
used to search for the literature, the number of retrievals for each database,
and the number of duplicate papers.
Format
Follow the guidelines and required format:
The assessment should be written in essay form
and have a clear introduction, body and conclusion.
Your essay should be page numbered and include a
title page.
Font size is Calibri 11 or Times New Roman 12
and double spaced.
The discussion should be substantiated with
reference to the contemporary literature (last 10 years), with no less than 10
peer reviewed journals cited to support the discussion.
You should use the American Psychological
Association (APA) abridged guide Term 1 2019 referencing style.
Refer to the marking rubric prior to writing
your essay.
Reference
Kable, Pich, & Maslin-Prothero.
(2012). A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication:
A 12 step guideline for authors. Nurse Education Today, 32(8), 878-886.
doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2012.02.022
Week 6 Friday (30 Aug 2019) 5:00 pm AEST
via TURNITIN on Unit Moodle site
Week 8 Friday (13 Sept 2019)
Online
High Distinction 85-100% |
Distinction 75-85% |
Credit 65-75% |
Pass 50-65% |
Fail Below 50% |
STRUCTURE |
||||
Efficiency & organisation 10% |
||||
An articulate report. There
is a succinct and compelling
introduction which introduces your paper and outlines its direction. The report is cogent and is brought to a
compelling conclusion.
|
A well written report. There
is a clear and appropriate introduction which introduces your paper and
outlines its direction. The report
proceeds logically and is brought to a logical conclusion.
|
Appropriately written report.
There is an appropriate introduction which mostly introduces the paper
and its direction. The report mostly
proceeds logically and is brought to an appropriate conclusion.
|
Adequately articulated report.
An introduction is apparent and your paper has been somewhat
introduced. There is an attempt made
to outline the direction of the paper.
The report is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion. A conclusion is evident.
|
The introduction is not apparent or does not attempt to introduce your
paper or outline the direction of the paper.
The report does not flow logically and is not brought to a close.
|
Presentation 10% |
||||
Excellent presentation of assignment. The
submitted written material is very well-presented, follows the formatting
requirements and is free from errors.
|
A very good presentation of assignment. The submitted written material is
well-presented and mostly follows the formatting requirements. There
are minor errors (e.g. 1 or 2 errors in spelling, grammar and paragraph
structure).
|
A good presentation of assignment that follows the formatting
requirements. There are some errors (e.g. 3 or 4 consistent errors
with spelling, grammar and paragraph structure).
|
An adequate presentation of assignment that sometimes follows the
formatting requirements. There
are 3 or 4 inconsistent errors (spelling, grammar and paragraph structure).
|
Poorly presented assignment. There are many inaccuracies in formatting spelling,
grammar and paragraph structure. (> 5 errors).
|
Substantiation of discussion 5% |
||||
Discussion is substantiated consistently with logic, examples, and
with reference to the current literature. A minimum of 10 contemporary* peer
reviewed journal articles have been cited.
|
Discussion is generally substantiated with logic,
examples, and with reference to the current peer reviewed literature,
with 1 or 2 exceptions. A minimum of 10 contemporary* peer reviewed journal
articles have been cited.
|
Discussion is partly substantiated with logic,
examples, and with reference to the current peer reviewed literature,
with 3 or 4 exceptions. Between 8 - 10 contemporary* peer reviewed journal
articles have been cited.
|
Discussion is occasionally substantiated with logic,
examples, and with reference to the current peer reviewed literature,
with 5 or 6 exceptions. Between 5-8 contemporary*
peer reviewed journal articles have been cited.
|
Discussion is not or infrequently attempts to (>7 errors) to substantiate
discussion with logic, examples, and with reference to the current peer
reviewed literature. Less than 5
contemporary* peer reviewed journal articles have been cited.
|
Referencing 5% |
||||
Accurate APA
referencing. No errors.
|
Mostly accurate APA
referencing. 1-2 consistent errors (may be made multiple
times).
|
Somewhat accurate APA
referencing. 3 consistent errors (may be made multiple
times).
|
Occasionally accurate APA
referencing. 4 consistent errors (made multiple times).
|
APA referencing not used, or more than 5 inaccuracies.
|
ARGUMENT AND APPROACH 70% |
||||
Relevancy & depth 35% |
||||
The content is entirely
relevant and comprehensively addresses the task. The report very clearly
demonstrates an awareness of a structured approach to undertaking a
literature review. It clearly outlies the steps of the process; demonstrates
an excellent understanding of information retrieval and the review process.
Logically discussed and is
within the set word count.
|
The content is very relevant
and clearly addresses the task. The
report clearly demonstrates an awareness of undertaking a structured approach
to a literature review. It demonstrates a sound understanding of information retrieval
and the review process. The
discussion proceeds logically and is within the set word count.
|
The content is relevant, and the approach mostly addresses
the task. There is a lack of some content
that demonstrates an understanding of how to undertake a structured
literature review and in documenting information retrieval and the review
process. The
discussion proceeds logically and is within the set word count.
|
The content is mostly relevant and partly addresses the task. The report lacks content that demonstrates
an understanding of how to undertake a literature review using a structured approach
to information retrieval/review processes. The discussion
is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion and is within the set word count.
|
The content is irrelevant
and/or does not address the task. The discussion
lacks cohesion. The word count is not within the set amount.
|
Explanation & justification of literature
retrieval and review processes 35% |
||||
The steps in the retrieving and reviewing of literature are very
clearly explained and/or justified. This includes the purpose statement, selected
sources of literature, limits of the search, inclusion and exclusion criteria,
and search terms. The table very clearly supports the explanation of the retrieval
and review of literature.
|
The steps in the retrieving and reviewing of literature are clearly
explained and/or justified. This includes the purpose statement, selected
sources of literature, limits of the search, inclusion and exclusion
criteria, and search terms. The table clearly supports the explanation of the
retrieval and review of literature.
|
The steps in the retrieving and reviewing of literature are mostly
explained and/or justified. This includes the purpose statement, selected
sources of literature, limits of the search, inclusion and exclusion
criteria, and search terms. The table supports the explanation of the
retrieval and review of literature.
|
The steps in the retrieving and reviewing of literature are mostly
explained and/or justified with 1 or 2 omissions of the following: the
purpose statement, selected sources of literature, limits of the search,
inclusion and exclusion criteria, and search terms. The table mostly supports
the explanation of the retrieval and review of literature.
|
There is very little, or no evidence of explanation and/or justification
of the steps in the retrieval and review processes. More than 2 of the
following are not explained and/or justified: the purpose statement, selected
sources of literature, limits of the search, inclusion and exclusion
criteria, and search terms. There is no table, or the table is very limited in
supporting the explanation of the retrieval and review of literature.
|
TOTAL MARKS
/100
Late penalty (if applicable)
%
Final Grade |
- Formulate a comprehensive information retrieval process for reviewing literature
- Undertake a literature review using appropriate methods and search engines
- Knowledge
- Cognitive, technical and creative skills
- Research
- Self-management
3 Report
Assessment 3: Practical
Assessment
Assessment Type: Report
Due Date: Friday
18th October (Exam Week)
Word Count: 3,000
(+/- 10%)
Weighting: 40%
Scored:
/100
This assessment addresses
the following Unit learning outcomes:
4. Undertake a literature
review using appropriate methods and search engines
5. Critique and assimilate
retrieved information and argue its relevance to the problem statement.
Assessment
This assessment builds on
NURS20167 Assessments 1 and 2 and requires you to retrieve the relevant
literature from your search, appraise the quality of the papers, select those
relevant to your purpose statement, and develop a summary table. You are also required
to critically review the selected literature and its relevance to your problem
statement.
You should continue to use
Kable, Pich and Maslin Prothero (2012) [available on the Moodle site] as it
will guide you through a structured approach to documenting your literature
retrieval and appraisal process. Whilst writing this assessment consider the
ways in which you would write a journal article for publication. Examples of
such publications are provided on the Moodle site.
The assessment is divided
into the following 5 sections:
Section 1
This section requires you
to assess your papers, retrieved from Assessment 2, for their relevance to your
posed question using your inclusion and exclusion criteria. This section should
also include a statement specifying the number of retrieved articles at the end
of the search process i.e. search results.
Section 2
Complete and document a
summary table (see Kable, Pich & Maslin-Prothero, 2012) of included papers
that meet your inclusion/exclusion criteria with headings such as: author, type
of study, purpose, sample, design, data collection and key findings.
Section 3
In this section you will
carry out a quality appraisal using an appropriate quality appraisal tool on
the retrieved papers that met your inclusion criteria. A quality appraisal will
assist to exclude papers that are poorly designed/executed or are inadequate in
their description of the study, or where results are biased or affected by
study limitations.
There are many tools
available for conducting quality appraisal of the literature. Some examples of
quality appraisal checklists for appraising quantitative and qualitative
articles are available from the following websites:
The Critical Appraisal
Skills Program (CASP) http://www.casp-uk.net/ Accessed 14 June
2019.
International Centre for
Allied Health Evidence (ICAHE) http://www.unisa.edu.au/cahe/Resources/CAT/default.asp Accessed
14 June 2019.
The Centre for Evidence
Based Medicine http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 Accessed14 June 2019.
The National Health and
Medical Research Council of Australia http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/evidence_statement_form.pdf
accessed14 June 2019.
Joanna Briggs Institute
(JBI) http://jbiconnect.org/services/qari/ and http://jbiconnect.org/services/mastari/ Accessed14
June 2019.
The Cochrane Review Tools http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/ accessed14 June 2019.
Note that papers that use
qualitative, qualitative and mixed method research design will need a quality
appraisal tool appropriate to the design.
Once you have decided on a quality assessment tool
(recognised checklists/review instruments), provide a summary statement of your
quality appraisal results. The number of articles in this statement is likely
to be less than the number in the search results statement. The results of
articles retrieved and included subsequent to quality appraisal can also be
illustrated on a flow diagram if desired (Kable, Pich & Maslin-Prothero,
2012)
Section 4
This section requires you
to complete a critical review of relevant literature which has met the criteria
of a ‘good’ paper after appraisal in Section 3. The review should not summarise
the literature. Instead, the review should be a critical synthesis of the
literature and identify of the main themes/issues arising from the literature
that are pertinent to the question posed in Assessment 1.
Section 5
The review should conclude
with recommendations for future research, and policy, if relevant.
Finally check the reference
list for accuracy, particularly for correct referencing of the same author on
multiple publications
Format
The assessment should be
written in report form and include a title page, a content page, be set out
with appropriate headings, and be page numbered.
Font size is Calibri 11 or
Times New Roman 12 and double spaced
Your report should have a
title page, contents page, the search report, be set out with appropriate
headings.
The report should include
an introduction, body and conclusion, together with a literature summary table
Your report should be
substantiated with reference to the contemporary literature (last 10 years),
with no less than 15 peer reviewed journals cited.
You should use the the American
Psychological Association (APA) abridged guide Term 1 2019 referencing style
Refer to the marking rubric
prior to writing the essay.
Review/Exam Week Friday (18 Oct 2019) 5:00 pm AEST
To be submitted via Turnitin on the Moodle portal
Exam Week Friday (25 Oct 2019)
Online
High Distinction 85-100% |
Distinction 75-85% |
Credit 65-75% |
Pass 50-65% |
Fail Below 50% |
STRUCTURE |
||||
Efficiency & organisation 10% |
||||
An articulate report. There
is a succinct and compelling
introduction which introduces your paper and outlines its direction. The report is cogent and is brought to a
compelling conclusion.
|
A well written report. There
is a clear and appropriate introduction which introduces your paper and
outlines its direction. The report
proceeds logically and is brought to a logical conclusion.
|
Appropriately written report.
There is an appropriate introduction which mostly introduces paper and
its direction. The report mostly
proceeds logically and is brought to an appropriate conclusion.
|
Adequately articulated report.
An introduction is apparent, and your paper has been somewhat
introduced. There is an attempt made
to outline the direction of the paper.
The report is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion. A conclusion is evident.
|
The introduction is not apparent or does not attempt to introduce your
paper or outline the direction of the paper.
The report does not flow logically and is not brought to a close.
|
Presentation 10% |
||||
Excellent presentation of assignment. The
submitted written material is very well-presented, follows the formatting
requirements and is free from errors.
|
A very good presentation of assignment. The submitted written material is
well-presented and mostly follows the formatting requirements. There
are minor errors (e.g. 1 or 2 errors in spelling, grammar and paragraph
structure).
|
A good presentation of assignment that follows the formatting
requirements. There are some errors (e.g. 3 or 4 consistent errors
with spelling, grammar and paragraph structure).
|
An adequate presentation of assignment that sometimes follows the
formatting requirements. There
are 3 or 4 inconsistent errors (spelling, grammar and paragraph structure).
|
Poorly presented assignment. There are many inaccuracies in formatting spelling,
grammar and paragraph structure. (> 5 errors).
|
Substantiation of discussion 5% |
||||
Discussion is substantiated consistently with logic, examples, and
with reference to the current literature. A minimum of 15 contemporary* peer
reviewed journal articles have been cited.
|
Discussion is generally substantiated with logic,
examples, and with reference to the current peer reviewed literature,
with 1 or 2 exceptions. A minimum of 15 contemporary* peer reviewed journal
articles have been cited.
|
Discussion is partly substantiated with logic,
examples, and with reference to the current peer reviewed literature,
with 3 or 4 exceptions. Between 12-15 contemporary* peer reviewed journal
articles have been cited.
|
Discussion is occasionally substantiated with logic,
examples, and with reference to the current peer reviewed literature,
with 5 or 6 exceptions. A minimum of 8-11 contemporary* peer reviewed journal
articles have been cited.
|
Discussion is not or infrequently attempts to (>7 errors) to substantiate
discussion with logic, examples, and with reference to the current peer
reviewed literature. Less than 8
contemporary* peer reviewed journal articles have been cited.
|
Referencing 5% |
||||
Accurate APA
referencing. No errors.
|
Mostly accurate APA
referencing. 1-2 consistent errors (may be made multiple
times).
|
Somewhat accurate APA
referencing. 3 consistent errors (may be made multiple
times).
|
Occasionally accurate APA
referencing. 4 consistent errors (made multiple times).
|
APA referencing not used, or more than 5 consistent inaccuracies.
|
ARGUMENT AND APPROACH 70% |
||||
Relevancy & depth 35% |
||||
The content is entirely
relevant and comprehensively addresses the task. The report very clearly
demonstrates the application of a structured approach to a review of the
literature. It very clearly demonstrates the use of literature appraisal
tools, a summary table and process documentation. The retrieval and appraisal
of the literature are clearly logically discussed, and the report is within the set word count.
|
The content is very relevant
and clearly addresses the task. The
report clearly demonstrates the application of undertaking a structured approach
to a literature review. It also demonstrates the use of literature appraisal
tools, a summary table and process documentation. The retrieval and appraisal
of the literature are logically discussed, and the report is within the set word count.
|
The content is relevant, and the approach mostly addresses
the task. There is lack of some content that
demonstrates an understanding of how to undertake a structured literature
review using literature appraisal tools, a summary table, and process
documentation. The retrieval and appraisal of the
literature are logically
discussed, and the report is within the set word count.
|
The content is mostly relevant and partly addresses the task. The report lacks content that demonstrates an understanding of how to
undertake a literature appraisal using appraisal tools, a summary table, and
process documentation. The discussion
is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion. The report is within the set word
count
|
The content is irrelevant
and/or does not address the task. The discussion
lacks cohesion. The word count is not within the set amount.
|
Critical analysis 35% |
||||
The critical
analysis and syntheses of the literature was presented at a very high
standard. The themes in the critical analysis were clearly identified and
explained with reference to the literature. The summary table provides a
comprehensive overview of the review papers.
|
The critical
analysis and syntheses of the literature was presented at a high standard.
The themes in the critical analysis were clearly identified and explained
with reference to the literature. The summary table provides a very clear overview
of the review of papers.
|
The critical
analysis and syntheses of the literature was presented at an acceptable
standard. The themes in the critical analysis were identified and explained
with reference to the literature. The summary table provides an overview of
the review of papers.
|
The critical
analysis and syntheses of the literature was mostly presented at an
acceptable standard. The themes in the critical analysis were mostly
identified and explained with reference to the literature. The summary table provides
a review of most of the papers.
|
There is little
or no critical analysis or synthesis of the literature presented in the
report. Themes from the critical analysis were not identified. The summary
table was incomplete or missing.
|
TOTAL MARKS
/100
Late penalty (if applicable)
%
Final Grade |
- Construct a research statement that defines the area of interest or problem from your practice in nursing
- Evaluate various approaches to undertaking literature reviews
- Critique and assimilate retrieved information and argue its relevance to the problem statement.
- Knowledge
- Communication
- Cognitive, technical and creative skills
- Research
- Self-management
- Ethical and Professional Responsibility
- Leadership
As a CQUniversity student you are expected to act honestly in all aspects of your academic work.
Any assessable work undertaken or submitted for review or assessment must be your own work. Assessable work is any type of work you do to meet the assessment requirements in the unit, including draft work submitted for review and feedback and final work to be assessed.
When you use the ideas, words or data of others in your assessment, you must thoroughly and clearly acknowledge the source of this information by using the correct referencing style for your unit. Using others’ work without proper acknowledgement may be considered a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Participating honestly, respectfully, responsibly, and fairly in your university study ensures the CQUniversity qualification you earn will be valued as a true indication of your individual academic achievement and will continue to receive the respect and recognition it deserves.
As a student, you are responsible for reading and following CQUniversity’s policies, including the Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure. This policy sets out CQUniversity’s expectations of you to act with integrity, examples of academic integrity breaches to avoid, the processes used to address alleged breaches of academic integrity, and potential penalties.
What is a breach of academic integrity?
A breach of academic integrity includes but is not limited to plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion, cheating, contract cheating, and academic misconduct. The Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure defines what these terms mean and gives examples.
Why is academic integrity important?
A breach of academic integrity may result in one or more penalties, including suspension or even expulsion from the University. It can also have negative implications for student visas and future enrolment at CQUniversity or elsewhere. Students who engage in contract cheating also risk being blackmailed by contract cheating services.
Where can I get assistance?
For academic advice and guidance, the Academic Learning Centre (ALC) can support you in becoming confident in completing assessments with integrity and of high standard.