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 3 - 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.

IT Resources

You will need access to the following IT resources:
  • CQUniversity Student Email
  • Internet
  • Unit Website (Moodle)
  • Academic Learning Centre services
  • CQUniveristy Library Resources
Referencing Style

All submissions for this unit must use the referencing style: American Psychological Association 7th Edition (APA 7th edition)

For further information, see the Assessment Tasks.

Teaching Contacts
Lorraine Thompson Unit Coordinator
l.m.thompson@cqu.edu.au
Kristen Graham Unit Coordinator
k.p.graham@cqu.edu.au
Sue Hunt Unit Coordinator
s.hunt@cqu.edu.au
Julie Shaw Unit Coordinator
j.m.shaw@cqu.edu.au
Schedule
Week 1 Begin Date: 09 Nov 2020

Module/Topic

Literature Reviews: An introduction 

Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

ZOOM  Introductory session - see Moodle for day/time

  • Introduction
  • Moodle Site
  • Assessment
Week 2 Begin Date: 16 Nov 2020

Module/Topic

Identifying the Literature Review statement/question. 

Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

Weekly ZOOM Tutorial 

Week 3 Begin Date: 23 Nov 2020

Module/Topic

Developing a Literature Review Plan 

Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

Weekly ZOOM Tutorial 

Discussing literature review plan

Week 4 Begin Date: 30 Nov 2020

Module/Topic

Reference Management Programs 

Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

Weekly ZOOM Tutorial 

Assessment 1 due: Presentation

Online submission of presentation slides: 5pm (AEST), Wednesday 2nd December 2020

Online Presentation to peers: 4-6pm (AEST) Thursday 3rd December OR 9-11am (AEST) Friday 4th December 2020


Assessment 1 – Constructing a research statement for a literature review Due: Week 4 Wednesday (2 Dec 2020) 5:00 pm AEST
Week 5 Begin Date: 07 Dec 2020

Module/Topic

The Evidence Hierarchy - what is best evidence?

Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

Weekly ZOOM Tutorial 

Week 6 Begin Date: 14 Dec 2020

Module/Topic

Searching data bases 


Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

Weekly ZOOM Tutorial 

Vacation Week Begin Date: 21 Dec 2020

Module/Topic

Break week

Chapter

Events and Submissions/Topic

Vacation Week Begin Date: 28 Dec 2020

Module/Topic

Break week

Chapter

Events and Submissions/Topic

Week 7 Begin Date: 04 Jan 2021

Module/Topic

Data retrieval, documentation and management

Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

Weekly ZOOM Tutorial

Week 8 Begin Date: 11 Jan 2021

Module/Topic

Critical appraisal and analysis of literature 

Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

Assessment 2 due - Report

5:00pm (AEST), Wednesday 20th January 2021

Week 9 Begin Date: 18 Jan 2021

Module/Topic

Synthesising the literature findings


Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

Weekly ZOOM Tutorial


Assessment 2 – Formulating a search strategy and retrieving literature Due: Week 9 Wednesday (20 Jan 2021) 5:00 pm AEST
Week 10 Begin Date: 25 Jan 2021

Module/Topic

Structures for presenting the literature review  

Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

Weekly ZOOM Tutorial 

Week 11 Begin Date: 01 Feb 2021

Module/Topic

Writing a literature review for publication 

Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

Weekly ZOOM Tutorial 

Week 12 Begin Date: 08 Feb 2021

Module/Topic

Common problems with Literature reviews

Academic writing 

Chapter

Selected readings, please refer to Moodle site.

Events and Submissions/Topic

Weekly ZOOM Tutorial 

Exam Week Begin Date: 15 Feb 2021

Module/Topic

Exam week

Chapter

Events and Submissions/Topic

Weekly ZOOM Tutorial 

Assessment 2 due - Report

5:00pm (AEST), Wednesday 17th February 2021


Assessment 3 – Critiquing and assimilating the literature Due: Exam Week Wednesday (17 Feb 2021) 5:00 pm AEST
Assessment Tasks

1 Practical Assessment

Assessment Title
Assessment 1 – Constructing a research statement for a literature review

Task Description

Type: Practical assessment

Due date: Submission: 5pm (AEST) Wednesday 2nd December (Week 4)

Presentation: 4-6pm (AEST) Thursday 3rd December (Week 4) OR  9-11am (AEST) Friday 4th December (Week 4)

Weighting: 20%

Length: 10-minute presentation (equivalent to 1000 words)

Unit Coordinator: Lorraine Thompson

Learning Outcomes Assessed

1. Construct a research statement that defines the area of interest or problem from your practice in nursing.

4. Undertake a literature review using appropriate methods and search engines.

Aim

The aim of this assessment is to enhance your understanding of the processes for constructing a literature review research question that defines an area of interest or need you have identified in your practice setting.

Instructions

You will give a 10-minute online presentation to your peers outlining the background context and processes used to construct your literature review research question. Your presentation will outline your first 6 stages of a structured search strategy approach outlined by Kable, Pich and Maslin-Prothero (2012) [journal article available in the eReading list on the Moodle site] to formulate your statement.

Whilst undertaking this assessment, please refer to the CQUniversity Library Literature Review resources to help you construct your literature review research question: https://libguides.library.cqu.edu.au/c.php?g=842872&p=6024215.

Your presentation will include Microsoft PowerPoint slides to summarise your main concepts. Use no more than 7 slides: a title slide and 1 slide to present each of the 6 steps outlined below. Please note that in-text citations are required.

Whilst undertaking this assessment, consider how you would present the information in a journal article for publication. Examples of such publications are provided in the eReading list on the Moodle site.

Please follow the steps below to complete your assessment task and direct your presentation structure and flow.

Step 1: INTRODUCE TOPIC OF INTEREST OR PROBLEM

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 2: BACKGROUND

Provide a background to the research topic or problem. Include supporting references.

Step 3: AIMS, SIGNIFICANCE, INNOVATION & KNOWLEDGE

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

Step 4: RELEVANCE TO FUTURE PRACTICE

Describe the relevance of this research to future practice. Include supporting references.

Step 5: RESEARCH QUESTION

Present the research question you have constructed to address in your ensuing literature search. Briefly outline the processes you have followed to construct the question or statement.

Step 6: REFERENCES

List your references used in your presentation. Ensure you include in-text citations as appropriate throughout your Microsoft PowerPoint presentation slides, using a 14-point font size.

Literature and references

In this assessment use at least 10 contemporary references (<5 years) to support your discussion. You may also use seminal scholarly literature where relevant. Suitable references include peer-reviewed journal articles as well as textbooks and credible websites. When sourcing information, consider the 5 elements of a quality reference: currency, authority, relevance, objectivity, and coverage. Grey literature sourced from the internet must be from reputable websites such as from government, university, or peak national bodies: for example, the Australian College of Nursing.

Requirements

For your presentation,
  • use the CQUniversity Microsoft PowerPoint template available on Moodle.
  • Include a title page slide and 1 slide for each of the 6 steps.
  • Keep the design simple and use dot point form to present your text (the slides should provide a brief summary of concepts, not be used as a script for your presentation).
  • Use a font size of no less than 30 point for titles, 20 point for text and 14 point for in-text citations. Text font should be Arial.
  • Label figures and tables.
  • Do not use animations or clip art.
  • Any images used must be available for free commercial use and the source cited appropriately.
  • Write in the third-person perspective, however you may use the first-person perspective for the verbal components of your presentation.
  • Use formal academic language.
  • Use the seventh edition American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style. The CQUniversity Academic Learning Centre has an online APA Referencing Style Guide.
  • An equivalent word count is used for this assessment which equates to a 10- minute presentation.

Resources

Submission

Submit your Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation via the unit Moodle site in PDF format only.

IMPORTANT: Your Microsoft PowerPoint presentation must be uploaded as a PDF file to Moodle by the submission due date and cannot be amended prior to your online presentation to your peers.

Marking Criteria

Refer to the marking rubric on the Moodle site for more detail on how marks will be assigned.

References

Kable, A. K., Pich, J., & Maslin-Prothero, S. E. (2012). A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12   step guideline for authors. Nurse Education Today, 32(8), 878–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.02.022


Assessment Due Date

Week 4 Wednesday (2 Dec 2020) 5:00 pm AEST

on-line PowerPoint PDF; and presentation in-person


Return Date to Students

Week 6 Wednesday (23 Dec 2020)

on-line


Weighting
20%

Assessment Criteria

Key Criteria High Distinction 84.5 – 100% Distinction 74.50 – 84.49% Credit 64.50 – 74.49% Pass 49.50 – 64.49% Fail <49.5% Fail (content absent) 0%
STRUCTURE 30%
Efficiency & Organisation (10%) An expertly structured presentation. Elements are very well connected and flow very smoothly. There is a succinct and compelling introduction which introduces the presentation and outlines its direction. The presentation is convincing and is brought to a compelling conclusion. A very well-structured presentation. Elements are well connected and flow smoothly. There is a clear and appropriate introduction which introduces the presentation and outlines its direction. The presentation proceeds logically and is brought to a sensible conclusion. A well-structured presentation. Elements are mostly well connected and flow relatively smoothly. There is a clear and appropriate introduction which mostly introduces the presentation and its direction well. The presentation mostly proceeds logically and is brought to an appropriate conclusion. An adequately structured presentation. Elements are loosely connected and may not flow evenly. An introduction is apparent, and the presentation has been somewhat introduced. There is an attempt made to outline the direction of the presentation. The presentation is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion. An adequate conclusion is evident. A poorly structured presentation. Elements are not well connected and do not flow evenly. The introduction is not apparent or does not attempt to introduce or outline the direction of the presentation. The presentation does not flow logically, is poorly written and is not brought to an adequate close. Presentation has no structure and is ill flowing. Missing an introduction and a conclusion.
Ability to speak and present effectively (10%) Highly professional and exceptionally engaging presentation. Excellent articulation, proper volume, steady rate, with enthusiasm and confidence. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation is visually very engaging, follows formatting requirements and is free from errors. Professional and engaging presentation. Clear articulation, proper volume, steady rate. Speaker is mostly enthusiastic and confident. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation is visually engaging, follows formatting requirements and is mostly free from errors. Mostly professional and somewhat engaging presentation. Mostly clear articulation, adequate volume, and rate. Speaker is somewhat enthusiastic and confident. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation is somewhat engaging, and mostly follows formatting requirements. Contains some errors which do not impact the presentation. Adequate presentation which is engaging only in parts. Mostly clear articulation, but variation in volume, and rate. Speaker is occasionally enthusiastic but lacking in confidence at times. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation is very basic and minimally engaging. Mostly follows formatting requirements but some obvious inattention to detail. Contains errors which minimally impact the presentation. Inadequate presentation which is not engaging. Inarticulate, inaudible or too loud; rate too slow/fast. Speaker appears unenthusiastic lacks confidence and speaks in monotone. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation is poorly presented. Does not follow formatting requirements. Contains errors which significantly impacts the presentation. Presentation cannot be adequately understood. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation is not used.
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 8 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. A minimum of 7 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 5 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. No substantiation of discussion. No contemporary* peer reviewed journal articles have been cited.
Referencing 5% Accurate APA referencing. No in-text referencing or reference list errors. Mostly accurate APA referencing. 1-2 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times). Somewhat accurate APA referencing. 3 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times). Occasionally accurate APA referencing. 4 consistent in-text or reference list errors (made multiple times). APA referencing not used, or more than 5 consistent in-text or reference list errors. No references included.
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 time limit. 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 time limit. 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 The presentation exceeds the time limit by 1-2 minutes. The content addresses the topic/problem, is mostly relevant and the background is partly described. The discussion is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion. The presentation exceeds the time limit by 2-4 minutes. The content is irrelevant and/or does not address the topic/problem and the background is not described. The discussion lacks cohesion. The presentation exceeds the time limit by more than 4-6 minutes. The content does not address the task. The discussion is almost impossible to follow. The presentation is incomplete as has had to be stopped due to exceeding time limit > 6 minutes.
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 incoherent or not stated. No critical analysis in the construction and description of the research aims, significance, and innovation. No discussion around the emergence of new knowledge. The research question is not stated.
TOTAL MARKS: /100                             Marker:                                               Late penalty (if applicable): % 


Referencing Style

Submission
Online

Submission Instructions
Ensure that you save your presentation in PDF before submission

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
Assessment 2 – Formulating a search strategy and retrieving literature

Task Description

Type: Practical assessment: report

Due date: 5pm (AEST) Wednesday 20th January 2021 (Week 9)

Weighting: 40%

Length: 2000 words

Unit Coordinator: Lorraine Thompson

Learning Outcomes Assessed

3. Formulate a comprehensive information retrieval process for reviewing literature.

4. Undertake a literature review using appropriate methods and search engines.

Aim

The aim of this assessment is to demonstrate your ability to formulate a comprehensive search strategy to retrieve literature appropriate to your literature review research question, and to document and present your process and outcomes.

Instructions

Please follow the steps below to complete your assessment tasks:

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 steps 5 and 6 of the structured search strategy approach outlined by Kable, Pich and Maslin-Prothero (2012) [available in the eReading list on the Moodle site]. Use these steps to structure the main body of your paper as outlined below. Include an introduction, conclusion and reference list also as outlined below and in the marking rubric.

Whilst undertaking this assessment, consider how you would present the information in a journal article for publication. Examples of such publications are provided in the eReading list on the Moodle site.

Please follow the steps below to complete your assessment task and direct your presentation structure and flow.

Step 1: INTRODUCTION

Clearly inform the reader of the papers focus and content. Briefly outline the search strategy processes undertaken in Assessment 1 to provide context for your introduction of the processes you will present in this paper.

Step 2: RESEARCH QUESTION/PURPOSE STATEMENT

Introduce the research question posed in NURS20167 Assessment 1 – you may refine this based on feedback you received in the marking process. This is the question to be addressed in the literature search. Briefly justify the question posed.

Step 3: DOCUMENT THE DATABASES or SEARCH ENGINES

Identify the databases, or search engines you will use in your search. These should be relevant to your discipline and literature review research question. Go the CQULibrary (https://libguides.library.cqu.edu.au/c.php?g=760913&p=5456484) for information on finding suitable databases for discipline. Identify sources of any other relevant literature (grey literature, information gateways). Document and explain your search sources and justify their selection. Include why and how you may have undertaken any manual search of the literature (for instance, in the reference lists of retrieved articles).

Step 4: SPECIFY THE LIMITS APPLIED

Specify the limits you applied to your literature search (e.g. years of publication included, English language, human studies) and justify each so that the reader may understand the search.

Step 5: LIST THE INCLUSION & EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Identify, document and justify the inclusion and exclusion criteria to undertake the search. This helps you refine your search further and identify primary research papers relevant to your research question. Criteria may include research relevant to nursing or social sciences, studies conducted in certain countries, population characteristics and studies using certain research design. Restrict your search to primary research articles only, excluding literature or systematic reviews and grey literature and provide a brief rationale for why this is appropriate.

Step 6: LIST THE SEARCH TERMS USED

Identify and document the search terms used to focus your search. Explain and justify your choice of terms and how they were tested. These terms should relate to your research question and the specific topic of interest. Test your search terms to ensure they are effectively locating literature which is relevant to your topic and research question. Refer to the CQUniversity Library Search Strategy guide to help you identify your search terms, and determine your use of truncations, wildcards, plural terms and Boolean operators.

You may also book a session with a CQUniversity Librarian to help you with this process.

Step 7: DOCUMENT THE SEARCH PROCESS

Search each of your identified databases using the same search terms identified above. Summarize the search you have undertaken in table format. Information included in the search summary table 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 identified.

Step 8: CONCLUSION

Summarise the key points of the paper. Provide a concluding statement which highlights the importance of the stages covered in the literature review process.

Step 9: REFERENCES

List your references used in your report. Ensure your in-text citations and reference list adhere to seventh edition American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style. Double checked that you have accurately referenced publications by the same the author.

Literature and references

In this assessment use at least 10 contemporary references (<5 years) to support your discussion. You may also use seminal scholarly literature where relevant. Suitable references include peer-reviewed journal articles as well as textbooks and credible websites. When sourcing information, consider the five elements of a quality reference: currency, authority, relevance, objectivity, and coverage. Grey literature sourced from the internet must be from reputable websites such as from government, university, or peak national bodies: for example, the Australian College of Nursing.

Requirements

  • Use a conventional and legible size 12 font, such as Times New Roman or Arial, with 1.5 line spacing and 2.54cm page margins (standard pre-set margin in Microsoft Word).
  • Include page numbers on each page in a footer.
  • Write in the third-person perspective.
  • Use formal academic language.
  • Use the seventh edition American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style. The CQUniversity Academic Learning Centre has an online APA Referencing Style Guide.
  • The word count is considered from the first word of the introduction to the last word of the conclusion. The word count excludes the reference list but includes in-text references and direct quotations.
Resources

Submission

Submit your assessment via the unit Moodle site in Microsoft Word format only.

Marking Criteria

Refer to the marking rubric on the Moodle site for more detail on how marks will be assigned.

References

Kable, A. K., Pich, J., & Maslin-Prothero, S. E. (2012). A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12-     step guideline for authors. Nurse Education Today, 32(8), 878–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.02.022


Assessment Due Date

Week 9 Wednesday (20 Jan 2021) 5:00 pm AEST

online


Return Date to Students

Week 9 Wednesday (20 Jan 2021)

on-line


Weighting
40%

Assessment Criteria

Key Criteria High Distinction 84.5 – 100% Distinction 74.50 – 84.49% Credit 64.50 – 74.49% Pass 49.50 – 64.49% Fail <49.5% Fail (content absent) 0%
STRUCTURE 30%
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 the paper and outlines its direction very well. The report proceeds logically and is brought to a sensible conclusion. Appropriately written report. There is an appropriate introduction which mostly introduces the paper and its direction well. The report mostly proceeds logically and is brought to an appropriate conclusion. Adequately articulated report. An introduction is apparent, and the papers 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. An adequate 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, is poorly written and is not brought to an adequate close. An inarticulate report. Missing an introduction and a conclusion.
Ability to write and present effectively (10%) Exemplary writing standard and style. Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. The report is exceptionally well-presented, follows the formatting requirements and is free from errors. Quality of writing is of a high standard with only minor grammar, spelling, punctuation and referencing mistakes evident. The report is very well presented and follows the formatting requirements. Quality of writing is of a good standard with a few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes evident. The report is well presented and mostly follows the formatting requirements. Quality of writing and presentation is of a satisfactory standard with quite a few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes evident. The report is satisfactorily presented and sometimes follows the formatting requirements. Quality of writing and presentation is at a poor standard with many inaccuracies in grammar, spelling and punctuation evident. The report is poorly presented and does not follow formatting requirements. Little to no meaningful writing. Quality of the writing, presentation of the report and/or formatting results in a report which is almost unreadable.
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 9 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 7-8 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 6 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 6 contemporary* peer reviewed journal articles have been cited. No substantiation of discussion. No contemporary* peer reviewed journal articles have been cited.
Referencing 5% Accurate APA referencing. No in-text referencing or reference list errors. Mostly accurate APA referencing. 1-2 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times). Somewhat accurate APA referencing. 3 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times). Occasionally accurate APA referencing. 4 consistent in-text or reference list errors (made multiple times). APA referencing not used, or more than 5 consistent in-text or reference list errors. No references included.
ARGUMENT AND APPROACH 70%
Relevancy & Depth 40% The content is entirely relevant and comprehensively addresses the task. The report demonstrates an advanced ability to design and follow a structured approach to retrieving research literature. The retrieval process is expertly and accurately documented and discussed logically. The report is within the set word count. The content is very relevant and clearly addresses the task. The report demonstrates a proficient ability to design and follow a structured approach to retrieving research literature. The retrieval process is accurately documented and discussed logically. The report is within the set word count. The content is relevant, and the approach addresses the task. The report demonstrates a good ability to design and follow a structured approach to retrieving research literature. The retrieval process documentation is mostly accurate and satisfactorily discussed. The report is within the set word count. The content is mostly relevant and mostly addresses the task. The report lacks some content and cohesiveness in demonstrating an ability to design and follow a structured approach to retrieving research literature. The retrieval process is documented but contains numerous errors and 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 report does not demonstrate an ability to design and follow a structured approach to retrieving research literature. The retrieval process is poorly and inappropriately documented and contains significant and careless errors. The discussion lacks clarity and cohesion. The word count is +/- 11-50% within the set amount. The content does not address the task. The discussion is almost impossible to follow. The word count is >50% +/- the set amount.
Critical Analysis 30% 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. No critical analysis or synthesis of the literature presented in the report. Themes from the critical analysis are not identified. The summary table is missing.
TOTAL MARKS:       /100                                    Marker:                                              Late penalty (if applicable): % 


Referencing Style

Submission
Online

Submission Instructions
via Moodle

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
Assessment 3 – Critiquing and assimilating the literature

Task Description

Type: Report

Due date: 5pm (AEST) Wednesday 17th February 2021 (Exam week)

Weighting: 40%

Length: 3,000 words

Unit Coordinator: Lorraine Taylor

Learning Outcomes Assessed

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 review

5. Critique and assimilate retrieved information and argue its relevance to the problem statement.

Aim

The aim of this assessment is to develop your capacity to apply an appropriate literature review approach to critique, assimilate and justify the literature retrieved relevant to the research statement.

Instructions

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 are required to use a structured approach to document and describe your literature review process by following and presenting steps 7-12 of the structured search strategy approach outlined by Kable, Pich and Maslin-Prothero (2012) [available on the Moodle site].

Whilst undertaking this assessment, consider how you would present the information in a journal article for publication. Examples of such publications are provided on the Moodle site.

Use steps 7-12 of a structured search strategy approach outlined by Kable, Pich and Maslin-Prothero to complete your assessment task and structure your report. These steps will form our reports main body, conclusion and reference list, however ensure you also include an introduction to your report as outlined below.

INTRODUCTION

Clearly inform the reader of the papers focus and content. Briefly outline the search strategy processes undertaken in Assessment 1 and 2 to introduce the processes to be presented in this paper. Ensure you include your research question in your introduction to provide context.

MAIN BODY

Step 7: ASSESS RETRIEVED ARTICLES FOR RELEVANCE

Using your inclusion and exclusion criteria, review the papers you retrieved for Assessment 2 for relevance to your research question and summarize your process and results in your paper.

Step 8: DOCUMENT A SUMMARY TABLE OF INCLUDED ARTICLES

Complete and document a summary table of papers that meet your inclusion criteria. Use the following headings in your table: author/publication year/ country, study design, aim/purpose, sample size/sites, data collection method and key findings. Include this table in your paper; ensure you appropriately outline your process for this step in a preceding paragraph and label your summary table appropriately.

Step 9: SPECIFY THE NUMBER OF RETRIEVED ARTICLES

Include a statement in your paper which specifies the number of articles you have retrieved throughout the search and inclusion/exclusion criteria review process. Include the number of articles retrieved from the initial database search and review and handsearching of these papers for additional relevant papers for inclusion.

Step Ten: CONDUCT QUALITY APPRAISAL OF THE LITERATURE

Carry out a quality appraisal using an appropriate quality appraisal tool on the retrieved papers that met your inclusion criteria. ‘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’ (Kable et al, 2012, p. 879).

Review and choose an appropriate tool(s) to appraise the retrieved papers for quality and determine the final articles for inclusion in the review. The following websites link you to quality appraisal tools commonly used to appraise quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research publications:

The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP)

International Centre for Allied Health Evidence (ICAHE)

National Health & Medical Research Council

Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)

The Cochrane Review Tools

Once you have decided on tool you will use, appraise each paper for quality. You will need to appraise each article using the tool/checklist appropriate for the study design, by using appraisal tools from within the same appraisal set (i.e. CASP Quantitative checklist and Qualitative Checklist).

Briefly outline your quality appraisal process and present your quality appraisal in an appropriately labelled summary table (or summary tables if multiple appraisal tools are required). Describe your quality appraisal results, including brief justifications for your decision to exclude articles, or to include articles which have identified quality deficits.

Summarize your literature search process and final outcomes in a Flow diagram. A template can be download from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

Step Eleven: CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Critically review the literature which has met the criteria of a quality paper. Undertake a critical synthesis of the literature, rather than just summarising the content. Compare and contrast findings, explain interpretations of ideas and concepts and identify different themes arising from the literature to argue its relevance to your research question.

Step Twelve: CONCLUSION and CHECK THE REFERENCE LIST FOR ACCURACY

Summarise the key points of the paper and provide recommendations for future research and policy, if relevant. Provide a concluding statement which highlights the importance of the literature review process and findings relevant to the literature review research question.

Finally check the reference list for accuracy. Adhere to the seventh edition American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style and ensure that you have accurately referenced publications by the same the author.

Literature and references

In this assessment use at least 10 contemporary references (<5 years) to support your discussion. You may also use seminal scholarly literature where relevant. Suitable references include peer-reviewed journal articles as well as textbooks and credible websites. When sourcing information, consider the five elements of a quality reference: currency, authority, relevance, objectivity, and coverage. Grey literature sourced from the internet must be from reputable websites such as from government, university, or peak national bodies: for example, the Australian College of Nursing.

Requirements

  • Use a conventional and legible size 12 font, such as Times New Roman or Arial, with 1.5 line spacing and 2.54cm page margins (standard pre-set margin in Microsoft Word).
  • Include page numbers on each page in a footer.
  • Write in the third-person perspective.
  • Use formal academic language.
  • Use the seventh edition American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style. The CQUniversity Academic Learning Centre has an online APA Referencing Style Guide.
  • The word count is considered from the first word of the introduction to the last word of the conclusion. The word count excludes the reference list but includes in-text references and direct quotations.

Resources

Submission

Submit your assessment via the unit Moodle site in Microsoft Word format only.

Marking Criteria

Refer to the marking rubric on the Moodle site for more detail on how marks will be assigned.

References

Kable, A. K., Pich, J., & Maslin-Prothero, S. E. (2012). A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12-   step guideline for authors. Nurse Education Today, 32(8), 878–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.02.022


Assessment Due Date

Exam Week Wednesday (17 Feb 2021) 5:00 pm AEST

on-line via Moodle


Return Date to Students

on-line


Weighting
40%

Assessment Criteria

Key Criteria High Distinction 84.5 – 100% Distinction 74.50 – 84.49% Credit 64.50 – 74.49% Pass 49.50 – 64.49% Fail <49.5% Fail (content absent) 0%
STRUCTURE 30%
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 the paper and outlines its direction very well. The report proceeds logically and is brought to a sensible conclusion. Appropriately written report. There is an appropriate introduction which mostly introduces the paper and its direction well. The report mostly proceeds logically and is brought to an appropriate conclusion. Adequately articulated report. An introduction is apparent, and the papers 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. An adequate 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, is poorly written and is not brought to an adequate close. An inarticulate report. Missing an introduction and a conclusion.
Ability to write and present effectively (10%) Exemplary writing standard and style. Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. The report is exceptionally well-presented, follows the formatting requirements and is free from errors. Quality of writing is of a high standard with only minor grammar, spelling, punctuation and referencing mistakes evident. The report is very well presented and follows the formatting requirements. Quality of writing is of a good standard with a few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes evident. The report is well presented and mostly follows the formatting requirements. Quality of writing and presentation is of a satisfactory standard with quite a few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes evident. The report is satisfactorily presented and sometimes follows the formatting requirements. Quality of writing and presentation is at a poor standard with many inaccuracies in grammar, spelling and punctuation evident. The report is poorly presented and does not follow formatting requirements. Little to no meaningful writing. Quality of the writing, presentation of the report and/or formatting results in a report which is almost unreadable.
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 9 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 7-8 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 5 contemporary* peer reviewed journal articles have been cited. No substantiation of discussion. No contemporary* peer reviewed journal articles have been cited.
Referencing 5% Accurate APA referencing. No in-text referencing or reference list errors. Mostly accurate APA referencing. 1-2 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times). Somewhat accurate APA referencing. 3 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times). Occasionally accurate APA referencing. 4 consistent in-text or reference list errors (made multiple times). APA referencing not used, or more than 5 consistent in-text or reference list errors. No references included.
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. The content does not address the task. The discussion is almost impossible to follow. The word count is >50% +/- 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 analysis 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 analysis of the review 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 a clear analysis of the review 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 satisfactory overview of the review 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. No critical analysis or synthesis of the literature presented in the report. Themes from the critical analysis are not identified. The summary table is missing.
TOTAL MARKS:       /100                 Marker:                                                                           Late penalty (if applicable): % 


Referencing Style

Submission
Online

Submission Instructions
via Moodle

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?