CQUniversity Unit Profile
NURS20167 Literature Review in Nursing
Literature Review in Nursing
All details in this unit profile for NURS20167 have been officially approved by CQUniversity and represent a learning partnership between the University and you (our student).
The information will not be changed unless absolutely necessary and any change will be clearly indicated by an approved correction included in the profile.
General Information

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

Career Level: Postgraduate
Unit Level: Level 9
Credit Points: 6
Student Contribution Band: 7
Fraction of Full-Time Student Load: 0.125

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 1 - 2020

Online

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).

Class and Assessment Overview

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

Bundaberg, Cairns, Emerald, Gladstone, Mackay, Rockhampton, Townsville
Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney

Assessment Overview

1. Practical Assessment
Weighting: 20%
2. Practical Assessment
Weighting: 40%
3. Report
Weighting: 40%

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.

Unit Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of this unit, you will be able to:
  1. Construct a research statement that defines the area of interest or problem from your practice in nursing
  2. Evaluate various approaches to undertaking literature reviews
  3. Formulate a comprehensive information retrieval process for reviewing literature
  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.

NA

Alignment of Learning Outcomes, Assessment and Graduate Attributes
N/A Level
Introductory Level
Intermediate Level
Graduate Level
Professional Level
Advanced Level

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

Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Graduate Attributes

Assessment Tasks Graduate Attributes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 - Practical Assessment - 20%
2 - Practical Assessment - 40%
3 - Report - 40%
Textbooks and Resources

Textbooks

There are no required textbooks.

Additional Textbook Information

NA

IT Resources

You will need access to the following 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)
Referencing Style

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.

Teaching Contacts
Joyce Hendricks Unit Coordinator
j.hendricks@cqu.edu.au
Schedule
Week 1 Begin Date: 09 Mar 2020

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

Week 2 Begin Date: 16 Mar 2020

Module/Topic

The Literature review: why to do it

Chapter

Types of literature review

Events and Submissions/Topic


Week 3 Begin Date: 23 Mar 2020

Module/Topic

Referencing management - Endnote

Chapter

Complete Endnote training    Endnote (bibliographic 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 use this software. It is easy to use and very helpful.

Events and Submissions/Topic


Week 4 Begin Date: 30 Mar 2020

Module/Topic

A structured approach to reviewing the literature

Chapter


Events and Submissions/Topic

Posing the question

Assessment 1: Practical Assessment

Constructing a research statement.

Due:1st April, 2020


Practical Assessment One Due: Week 4 Wednesday (1 Apr 2020) 6:00 pm AEST
Week 5 Begin Date: 06 Apr 2020

Module/Topic

Searching the literature

Chapter


Events and Submissions/Topic

Activity- inclusion and exclusion criteria; use of search engines; Boolean terms

Vacation Week Begin Date: 13 Apr 2020

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

Week 6 Begin Date: 20 Apr 2020

Module/Topic

Retrieving the relevant results

Chapter


Events and Submissions/Topic

Document a summary table

-Retrieve articles


Week 7 Begin Date: 27 Apr 2020

Module/Topic

How to annotate literature

Chapter


Events and Submissions/Topic

Activity Sheet

Week 8 Begin Date: 04 May 2020

Module/Topic

Conduct quality appraisal of retrieved literature

Chapter


Events and Submissions/Topic

-Document a summary table

- Evaluation of papers



Week 9 Begin Date: 11 May 2020

Module/Topic

Conduct quality appraisal of retrieved literature

Chapter


Events and Submissions/Topic

- Document a summary table

- Annotate relevant papers

- Evaluation of papers

Assessment 2: Practical Assessment.

Approaches to literature reviews, retrieving and reviewing literature

Due:13th May, 2020


Practical Assessment Two Due: Week 9 Wednesday (13 May 2020) 5:00 pm AEST
Week 10 Begin Date: 18 May 2020

Module/Topic

Documenting the search strategy

Chapter


Events and Submissions/Topic

Zoom session - Discussion of issues/questions related to final assessment.


Week 11 Begin Date: 25 May 2020

Module/Topic

This week you will have time to write your literature review

Chapter


Events and Submissions/Topic

Zoom - developing your report

Week 12 Begin Date: 01 Jun 2020

Module/Topic

This week you will have time to write your literature review

Chapter


Events and Submissions/Topic

Writing your literature review

Review/Exam Week Begin Date: 08 Jun 2020

Module/Topic

This week you will have time to write your literature review

Chapter

Events and Submissions/Topic

Assessment 3: Report

Due: Wednesday 10th June, 2020


Report Due: Review/Exam Week Wednesday (10 June 2020) 5:00 pm AEST
Term Specific Information

You are encouraged select a topic to undertake a literature review which will also form the basis of work in NURS20173 and NURS20174.

Assessment Tasks

1 Practical Assessment

Assessment Title
Practical Assessment One

Task Description

Assessment 1: Practical Assessment                 Assessment Type: Essay

Due Date: Wednesday 1st April (Week 4) 6pm

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 explain a topic of interest or a problem (knowledge gap) from your work setting and to create a research statement that is, ‘pose the question to be researched’.

You will need 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 include:

Step one

Introduce the topic of interest or problem you have identified in your practice. Describe the topic or problem and explain why it is an appropriate research topic.

Step two

Provide a background to the research topic/problem and describe how you identified the topic/problem as a suitable area of research.

Step three

Explain the aims, significance, innovation and new knowledge that may emerge from the research of this topic/problem.

Step four

Describe the relevance of this research to future practice.

Format

When you begin writing follow the guidelines and required format:

  • The assessment should be written in essay form and have a clear introduction, body and conclusion.
  • You should use the APA Formatting Checklist (Academic Learning Centre, 2019)
  • Your essay should be page numbered and include a title page.
  • Font size is Calibri 11 or Times New Roman 12 and double spaced.· Your essay should include steps 2-4 in the main body of your essay.
  • 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 3 2019 referencing style.
  • Refer to the marking rubric prior to writing your essay.

Return Date to Students: Wednesday, 22nd April, 2020


Assessment Due Date

Week 4 Wednesday (1 Apr 2020) 6:00 pm AEST

Submit assignment via Moodle


Return Date to Students

Week 6 Wednesday (22 Apr 2020)

Online


Weighting
20%

Assessment Criteria

High Distinction 84.50-100% Distinction 74.50-84.49% Credit 64.50-74.49% Pass 49.50-64.49% Fail Below 49.50%
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


Referencing Style

Submission
Online

Submission Instructions
To be submitted via Moodle portal

Learning Outcomes Assessed
  • 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


Graduate Attributes
  • Knowledge
  • Cognitive, technical and creative skills
  • Research

2 Practical Assessment

Assessment Title
Practical Assessment Two

Task Description

Assessment 2: Practical Assessment         Assessment Type: Report

Due Date: Wednesday 13th May (Week 9) 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 in documenting and explaining your literature retrieval process by 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 the documenting of the literature research. Examples of such publications are provided on the Moodle site.

This assessment task has six steps.

Step One

This step relates to NURS20167 Assessment one. You are required to provide the question posed in NURS20167 Assessment 1. This will be the question to be addressed in the literature search. Justify the question posed. This assists in converting the question posed into language that is search engine friendly.

Step Two

This step requires you to source the databases, or search engines, relevant to your question including the sources of 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 Three

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 Four

In this step 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 Five

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 question posed and identify the search terms of interest. They should be tested several times to make sure that they are effectively locating literature on the topic to be search. It may be helpful to discuss 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 Six

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

  • The assignment should be written in report form.
  • You should use the APA Formatting Checklist (Academic Learning Centre, 2019)
  • Your report should have a title page, contents page, the search report, a reference list and be page numbered.
  • Font size is Calibri 11 or Times New Roman 12 and double spaced.
  • Your search report should have a clear introduction, body and conclusion.
  • Your search report should be substantiated with reference to the contemporary literature (last 10 years), with no less than 10 peer reviewed journals cited.
  • You should use the American Psychological Association (APA) abridged guide Term 3 2019 referencing style.
  • Refer to the marking rubric prior to writing your report.

Return Date to Students: Wednesday 27th May (Week 11)

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


Assessment Due Date

Week 9 Wednesday (13 May 2020) 5:00 pm AEST

via TURNITIN on Unit Moodle site


Return Date to Students

Week 11 Monday (25 May 2020)

Online


Weighting
40%

Assessment Criteria

High Distinction 84.50-100% Distinction 74.50-84.49% Credit 64.50-74.49% Pass 49.50-64.49% Fail Below 49.50%
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 indicates a review of types of literature review by ithe identification of the type of review to be undertaken. It very clearly demonstrates an awareness of a structured approach to undertaking a literature review It clearly outlines 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 indicates a review of types of literature review by the identification of the type of review to be undertaken. It 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. The report indicates a review of the types of literature review and the identification of the type of review to be undertaken. It 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 some content that indicates a review of types of literature and the type of literature review undertaken is identified. It 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 Marker___________________________________                            Signature_________________________________                          Date __________________


Referencing Style

Submission
Online

Submission Instructions
To be submitted via the Moodle Portal

Learning Outcomes Assessed
  • Formulate a comprehensive information retrieval process for reviewing literature
  • Undertake a literature review using appropriate methods and search engines


Graduate Attributes
  • Knowledge
  • Cognitive, technical and creative skills
  • Research
  • Self-management

3 Report

Assessment Title
Report

Task Description

A structured approach to undertaking a literature review, retrieving and appraising the literature

Assessment 3: Practical Assessment Assessment      Type: Report

Due Date: Wednesday 10th June, 2020 (Exam Week) 5pm

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 Unit 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 Unit Moodle site.

The assessment is divided into the following five sections:

Section One

This section requires you to consult your papers, retrieved from Assessment 2, for 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 Two

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 Three

You will need to 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 inadequately described studies, 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)

International Centre for Allied Health Evidence (ICAHE)

The Centre for Evidence Based Medicine

National Health & Medical Research Council

Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)

The Cochrane Review Tools

Note that papers that use qualitative, qualitative and mixed methods 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 Four

This section involves a critical review of relevant literature which has met the criteria of a ‘good’ paper after appraisal in Section three. The literature review should not summarise the literature. The review should be a critical synthesis of the literature and identification of the main themes/issues arising from the literature that are pertinent to the question posed in Assessment 1.

Section Five

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.
  • · You should use the APA Formatting Checklist (Academic Learning Centre, 2019)
  •         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 3 2019 referencing style
  • · Refer to the marking rubric prior to writing the essay.

Return Date to Students: Wednesday 24th June 2020.


Assessment Due Date

Review/Exam Week Wednesday (10 June 2020) 5:00 pm AEST

To be submitted via Turnitin on the Moodle portal


Return Date to Students

Exam Week Monday (15 June 2020)

Online


Weighting
40%

Assessment Criteria

High Distinction 84.50 -100% Distinction 74.50-84.49% Credit 64.50-74.49% Pass 49.50-64.49% Fail Below 49.50%
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 an awareness 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 an awareness 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 relating to understanding 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 in order to demonstrate 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 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.
Critical analysis 35%
The critical analysis and syntheses of the literature is presented at a very high standard. The themes in the critical analysis are 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 is presented at a high standard. The themes in the critical analysis are 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 is presented at an acceptable standard. The themes in the critical analysis are 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 is mostly presented at an acceptable standard. The themes in the critical analysis are 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 are not identified. The summary table is incomplete or missing.

TOTAL MARKS /100                                                                            Late penalty (if applicable) %                                                              Final Grade

Marker___________________________________                            Signature_________________________________                           Date __________________


Referencing Style

Submission
Online

Submission Instructions
To be submitted by the Moodle portal

Learning Outcomes Assessed
  • 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.


Graduate Attributes
  • Knowledge
  • Communication
  • Cognitive, technical and creative skills
  • Research
  • Self-management
  • Ethical and Professional Responsibility
  • Leadership

Academic Integrity Statement

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.

What can you do to act with integrity?