Overview
This unit will provide you with the theoretical and practical knowledge required to complete a literature review. You will identify an area of interest from your professional environment and develop a researchable literature review question that will facilitate a related quality improvement research project. Using this question, you will learn how to systematically conduct and document a review of the literature. This process will include the development of a search strategy followed by the retrieval, evaluation, cataloguing and synthesis of the selected literature.
Details
Pre-requisites or Co-requisites
There are no requisites for this unit.
Important note: Students enrolled in a subsequent unit who failed their pre-requisite unit, should drop the subsequent unit before the census date or within 10 working days of Fail grade notification. Students who do not drop the unit in this timeframe cannot later drop the unit without academic and financial liability. See details in the Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework).
Offerings For Term 1 - 2021
Attendance Requirements
All on-campus students are expected to attend scheduled classes – in some units, these classes are identified as a mandatory (pass/fail) component and attendance is compulsory. International students, on a student visa, must maintain a full time study load and meet both attendance and academic progress requirements in each study period (satisfactory attendance for International students is defined as maintaining at least an 80% attendance record).
Recommended Student Time Commitment
Each 6-credit Postgraduate unit at CQUniversity requires an overall time commitment of an average of 12.5 hours of study per week, making a total of 150 hours for the unit.
Class Timetable
Assessment Overview
Assessment Grading
This is a graded unit: your overall grade will be calculated from the marks or grades for each assessment task, based on the relative weightings shown in the table above. You must obtain an overall mark for the unit of at least 50%, or an overall grade of ‘pass’ in order to pass the unit. If any ‘pass/fail’ tasks are shown in the table above they must also be completed successfully (‘pass’ grade). You must also meet any minimum mark requirements specified for a particular assessment task, as detailed in the ‘assessment task’ section (note that in some instances, the minimum mark for a task may be greater than 50%). Consult the University’s Grades and Results Policy for more details of interim results and final grades.
All University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
You may wish to view these policies:
- Grades and Results Policy
- Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework)
- Review of Grade Procedure
- Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – Domestic Students
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure – International Students
- Student Refund and Credit Balance Policy and Procedure
- Student Feedback – Compliments and Complaints Policy and Procedure
- Information and Communications Technology Acceptable Use Policy and Procedure
This list is not an exhaustive list of all University policies. The full list of University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
- Construct a clear and focused literature review research question that allows you to explore an area of interest from your professional context
- Create a literature review strategy appropriate to your literature review research question
- Undertake a literature search using appropriate methods, databases and search engines
- Critique and synthesise the literature to address the literature review research question.
NA
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Learning Outcomes
| Assessment Tasks | Learning Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1 - Presentation - 25% | ||||
| 2 - Presentation - 25% | ||||
| 3 - Report - 50% | ||||
Alignment of Graduate Attributes to Learning Outcomes
| Graduate Attributes | Learning Outcomes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1 - Knowledge | ||||
| 2 - Communication | ||||
| 3 - Cognitive, technical and creative skills | ||||
| 4 - Research | ||||
| 5 - Self-management | ||||
| 6 - Ethical and Professional Responsibility | ||||
| 7 - Leadership | ||||
| 8 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultures | ||||
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Graduate Attributes
| Assessment Tasks | Graduate Attributes | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
| 1 - Presentation - 25% | ||||||||
| 2 - Presentation - 25% | ||||||||
| 3 - Report - 50% | ||||||||
Textbooks
There are no required textbooks.
IT Resources
- CQUniversity Student Email
- Internet
- Unit Website (Moodle)
- Academic Learning Centre services
- CQUniveristy Library Resources
- Zoom (both microphone and webcam capability)
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.
l.m.thompson@cqu.edu.au
j.m.shaw@cqu.edu.au
k.p.graham@cqu.edu.au
Module/Topic
Literature Reviews: An introduction
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
ZOOM Introductory session - see Moodle for day/time
- Introduction
- Moodle Site
- Assessment
Module/Topic
Identifying the Literature Review question.
Developing a Literature Review Plan
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Module/Topic
Searching Databases
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Assessment 1 due: Presentation
Online submission of presentation slides and 500 word written summary: 5pm AEST, Wednesday 24th March 2021
Online Presentation to peers: 5-8pm AEST Thursday 25th March 2021 OR 9-12noon AEST Friday 26th March 2021 OR as negotiated with Unit Coordinator.
Assessment 1: Presentation Due: Week 3 Wednesday (24 Mar 2021) 5:00 pm AEST
Module/Topic
Data retrieval, documentation and management
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Module/Topic
Quality and critical appraisal and analysis of literature.
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Module/Topic
Break week
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Synthesising the literature findings
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Module/Topic
Reference Management Programs
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Module/Topic
Structures for presenting the literature review
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Assessment 2 due: Presentation
Online submission of presentation slides, summary table 2 and articles: 5pm AEST, Wednesday 5th May 2021
Online Presentation to peers: 5-8pm AEST Thursday 6th May 2021 OR 9-12noon AEST Friday 7th May 2021 OR as negotiated with Unit Coordinator.
Assessment 2: Presentation Due: Week 8 Wednesday (5 May 2021) 5:00 pm AEST
Module/Topic
Writing a literature review for publication
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Module/Topic
Common problems with literature reviews.
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Module/Topic
Literature review writing.
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Module/Topic
Literature review writing.
Chapter
Selected eReadings. Please refer to Moodle site.
Events and Submissions/Topic
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Weekly ZOOM Tutorial
Assessment 3 due - Report
5:00pm AEST, Wednesday 2nd June 2021
Assessment 3: Report: Literature review for publication Due: Week 12 Wednesday (2 June 2021) 5:00 pm AEST
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Exam week
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
1 Presentation
NURS20167 Literature Review in Health, Safety and Wellbeing
Assessment 1: Presentation
Type: Presentation
Due date: PowerPoint presentation and 500-word submission due 5 pm (AEST) Wednesday 24th March 2021 (Week 3).
Presentation: 5-8 pm AEST Thursday 25th March 2021 OR 9-12 noon AEST Friday 26th March 2021 OR as negotiated with the Unit Coordinator.
Weighting: 25%
Length: 10–15-minute online presentation AND maximum of 6 slides
500 word written summary +/- 10% (excluding reference list) (equivalent to 1500 words).
Unit Coordinator: Dr Lorraine Thompson
Learning Outcome Assessed
-
1. Construct a clear and focused literature review search question that allows you to explore an area of interest from your professional context.
-
2. Create a literature review strategy appropriate to your search question.
-
3. Undertake a literature search using appropriate methods, databases, and search engines.
Aim
The aim of this assessment is to construct and justify a literature review search question and approach that will guide your search of the literature on your chosen topic.
Instructions
You will give a 10–15-minute online presentation to your peers describing your area of interest and to justify your literature search question, approach, and search strategy. You are required to present the information for steps 3-6 using Microsoft PowerPoint slides. Use no more than six slides in your presentation, including Title and Reference list slides. Please note that in-text citations and a reference list are required. You will also provide a written summary covering steps 1-6 below.
Before your presentation, you will submit your Microsoft PowerPoint presentation in PDF format and additional information and documentation as required for Step 6.
Step 1 – Explore your potential quality improvement project topics for NURS20173 and NURS20174 with your workplace manager. Your final choice will inform the development of your literature search question.
Step 2 – Identify, document, and read at least six primary research articles on your topic which you have found from searching 2-3 databases. If you cannot identify six primary research articles, please contact your Unit Coordinator.
Step 3 – Present a table identifying the keywords used, databases searched, and literature retrieved for Step 2.
Step 4 – Construct and justify your literature review search question and aim from the articles found in Step 2.
Step 5 – Justify a literature review approach to apply to your research question.
Step 6 – Include in-text citations and a slide with your reference list.
Step 7 – In addition to your PowerPoint presentation, provide a more in-depth justification for your search question, aim, and literature review approach in a separate 500-word essay. Include your reference list of at least 8-10 references.
Literature and references
In this assessment use at least 8-10 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. Keep the design simple and use dot point form and tables 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 12-14 point for tables and in-text citations. Text font should be Arial or Calibri. 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.
Week 3 Wednesday (24 Mar 2021) 5:00 pm AEST
PowerPoint presentation and 500-word submission due 5 pm (AEST) Wednesday 24th March 2021 (Week 3). Presentation: 5-8pm AEST Thursday 25th March 2021 OR 9-12 noon AEST Friday 26th March 2021 OR as negotiated with the Unit Coordinator.
Week 5 Wednesday (7 Apr 2021)
Online grade and feedback via Moodle
NURS20167 LITERATURE REVIEW IN HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELLBEING
ASSESSMENT 1 – Presentation
|
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% |
|
PRESENTATION |
||||||
|
Presentation- (10%) |
The PowerPoint slide aesthetics thoroughly engaged the audience. The slide presentation format and structure professionally and expertly presented the required content. 5-6 slides presented. Adheres to time. |
The PowerPoint slide aesthetics very effectively engaged the audience. The slide presentation format and structure very effectively presented the required content. 5-6 slides presented. Adheres to time. |
The PowerPoint slide aesthetics effectively engaged the audience. The slide presentation format and structure effectively presented the required content. 4 slides presented. Adheres to time but a rushed presentation. |
The PowerPoint slide aesthetics mostly engaged the audience. The slide presentation format and structure satisfactorily presented. 4 slides presented. Almost adheres to time (two minutes or less over time) |
The PowerPoint slide aesthetics did not engage the audience. The slide presentation format and structure was unsatisfactory. ≤ 3 slides presented. Does not adhere to time (more than two minutes overtime). |
PowerPoint is not presented. |
|
Content (35%) |
Expert and seamless presentation of the assessment steps: Title and Author, Search summary table, Literature Review search questions and aim and review approach. Expertly constructed review search question and aim. Comprehensive substantiation and justification of search question, aim and approach. |
Very effective presentation of the assessment steps: Title and Author, Search summary table, Literature Review search questions and aim and review approach. Clearly constructed review search question and aim. Detailed substantiation and justification of search question, aim and approach. |
Effective presentation of the assessment steps: Title and Author, Search summary table, Literature Review search questions and aim and review approach. An appropriately constructed review search question and aim. Appropriate substantiation and justification of search question, aim and approach. |
Satisfactory presentation of the assessment steps: Title and Author, Search summary table, Literature Review search questions and aim and review approach. A mostly appropriately constructed review search question and aim. Mostly appropriate substantiation and justification of search question, aim and approach. |
An unsatisfactory presentation of the assessment steps: Title and Author, Search summary table, Literature Review search questions and aim and review approach. An inappropriately constructed review search question and aim. No or inappropriate substantiation and justification of search question, aim and approach. |
There was no content |
|
Professional communication (10%) |
The presenter professionally and comprehensively presented the required content. The presenter engaged the audience expertly using a variety of communication techniques – including infrequent use of notes, plus effective use of voice and body language to maintain audience engagement. |
The presenter comprehensively presented the required content. The presenter engaged the audience effectively using a number of known communication techniques - including effective use of voice and body language to maintain audience engagement. |
The presenter thoroughly presented the required content. The presenter engaged the audience satisfactorily using communication techniques - including effective use of voice and body language to maintain audience engagement. |
The presenter satisfactorily presented the required content. The presenter engaged the audience using some communication techniques – such effective use of voice and body language to maintain audience engagement. |
The presenter attempts unsuccessfully to present the required content professionally and comprehensively. The presentation of the required content by the presenter is unsatisfactory. The presenter did not engage the audience. Minimal use of communication techniques. |
The presenter did not present. |
|
Questions (5%) |
The presenter comprehensively addressed audience questions. |
The presenter clearly addressed audience questions. |
The presenter effectively addressed audience questions. |
The presenter mostly addressed the audience questions. |
The presenter did not adequately address the audience questions. |
The presenter did not address the audience questions. |
|
Written Justification |
||||||
|
Written Justification (25%) |
Excellent justification of the search question, aim and literature review approach. The discussion of the supporting literature cogently and comprehensively justifies the question, aim and approach. |
Proficient justification of the search question, aim and literature review approach. The discussion of the supporting literature cogently justifies the question, aim and approach. |
Effective justification of the search question, aim and literature review approach. The discussion of the supporting literature appropriately justifies the question, aim and approach. |
Satisfactory justification of the search question, aim and literature review approach. The discussion of the supporting literature somewhat justifies the question, aim and approach. |
Unsatisfactory justification of the search question, aim and literature review approach. The discussion of the supporting literature does not justify the question, aim and approach. |
No written justification present. |
|
Academic Writing Skills (10%) |
Exemplary writing standard. Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. Organisation and structure exceptionally clear and easy to follow. |
Quality of writing is of a high standard with only very minor grammar, spelling, punctuation mistakes evident. Organisation and structure very clear and easy to follow. |
Quality of writing is above standard with a few grammar, spelling, punctuation mistakes evident. Organisation and structure appropriate and reasonable to follow. |
Quality of writing of a satisfactory standard with quite a few grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes evident. Organisation and structure apparent although not easy to follow. |
Quality of writing is of poor standard with numerous grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes evident. Organisation and structure lacks clarity and is difficult to follow. |
Little to no meaningful writing. |
|
Substantiation and Referencing (5%) |
The information in the PowerPoint and written justification was expertly substantiated using logic and evidence with a minimum of 10 contemporary* references. References were correctly cited using APA 7 edition style. |
The information in the PowerPoint and written justification was very effectively substantiated using logic and evidence with a minimum of 10 contemporary* references. References were correctly cited using APA 7 edition style. |
The information in the PowerPoint and written justification was effectively substantiated using logic and evidence with a minimum of 9 contemporary* references. References were mostly correctly cited, with 1-2 consistent error, using APA 7 edition style. |
The information in the PowerPoint and written justification was satisfactorily substantiated using logic and evidence with a minimum of 8 contemporary* references. References were mostly correctly cited, with 3-4 consistent errors, using APA 7 edition style. |
The information in the PowerPoint and written justification is unsatisfactorily substantiated. ≤7 contemporary* references. APA referencing not used, or ≥ 5 consistent in-text or reference list errors. |
The information in the PowerPoint and written justification was not substantiated |
Note: *Contemporary literature – published within the last 5 years.
- Construct a clear and focused literature review research question that allows you to explore an area of interest from your professional context
- Create a literature review strategy appropriate to your literature review research question
- Undertake a literature search using appropriate methods, databases and search engines
- Knowledge
- Communication
- Cognitive, technical and creative skills
- Research
- Ethical and Professional Responsibility
2 Presentation
NURS20167 Literature Review in Health, Safety and Wellbeing
Assessment 2: Presentation
Type: Presentation
Due date: PowerPoint presentation slides and document submission due 5 pm AEST Wednesday 5th May 2021 (Week 8).
Presentation: 5-8pm AEST Thursday 6th May 2021 OR 9-12 noon AEST Friday 7th May 2021 OR as negotiated with Unit Coordinator.
Weighting: 25%
Length: 15-minute presentation AND 500-word summary table +/- 10% (equivalent to 1500 words).
Unit Coordinator: Dr Lorraine Thompson
Learning Outcome Assessed
3. Undertake a literature search using appropriate methods, databases and search engines.
4. Critique and synthesise the literature to address the research question.
Aim
This assessment builds on Assessment 1. The aim of this assessment is to demonstrate your ability to formulate, document and present a comprehensive search strategy, results and initial critique and synthesis of the retrieved literature.
Instructions
You will give a 15-minute online presentation to your peers describing your literature search plan, results, emerging themes and gaps in the literature.
You are required to present this information using Microsoft PowerPoint slides.
Use no more than eight slides as outlined below. Please note that in-text citations and a reference list are required.
Before your presentation, you will submit your Microsoft PowerPoint presentation in PDF format and additional information and documentation as required for Step 2.
Step 1: You will need to present six-eight slides with the following information.
Slide 1: Title slide which includes your literature review search question.
Slide 2: An outline of your search strategy (can be two slides)
Slide 3: Your summary table (1) – significant points only as per Moodle template (can be two slides)
Slide 4: Your emerging themes
Slide 5: Any identified gaps in the literature
Slide 6: Reference List
Step 2. Submit full summary table (2) as per Moodle template and attach the PDF of articles reviewed with summary information highlighted.
Literature and references
In this assessment use at least 10 contemporary references (<5 years) to support your search strategy and analysis and cite the retrieved literature. 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. Keep the design simple and use dot point form and tables 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 12 point for tables and in-text citations. Text font should be Arial or Calibri. 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.
Week 8 Wednesday (5 May 2021) 5:00 pm AEST
PowerPoint presentation and document submission due 5 pm AEST Wednesday 5th May 2021 (Week 8). Presentation: 5-8pm AEST Thursday 6th May 2021 OR 9-12 noon AEST Friday 7th May 2021 OR as negotiated with Unit Coordinator.
Week 10 Wednesday (19 May 2021)
Online grade and feedback via Moodle
NURS20167
LITERATURE REVIEW IN HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELLBEING
ASSESSMENT 2 – Presentation
|
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% |
|
PRESENTATION |
||||||
|
PowerPoint Presentation- (10%) |
The PowerPoint slide aesthetics thoroughly engaged the audience. The slide presentation format and structure professionally and expertly presented the required content. 6-8 slides presented. Adheres to time. |
The PowerPoint slide aesthetics very effectively engaged the audience. The slide presentation format and structure very effectively presented the required content. 6-8 slides presented. Adheres to time. |
The PowerPoint slide aesthetics effectively engaged the audience. The slide presentation format and structure effectively presented the required content. 6-8 slides presented. Adheres to time but a rushed presentation. |
The PowerPoint slide aesthetics mostly engaged the audience. The slide presentation format and structure satisfactorily presented. 6-8 slides presented. Almost adheres to time (two minutes or less over time) |
The PowerPoint slide aesthetics did not engage the audience. The slide presentation format and structure were unsatisfactory. Less than 6 slides presented. Does not adhere to time (more than two minutes overtime). |
PowerPoint is not presented. |
|
Content (40%) |
Expert and seamless presentation of the assessment steps: Title and Author, Search strategy outline, Summary Table (1), Emerging Themes, and Gaps in the literature. A comprehensive overview of the search, retrieval, critique and synthesise processes undertaken. |
Very effective presentation of the assessment steps: Title and Author, Search strategy outline, Summary Table (1), Emerging Themes, and Gaps in the literature. A very effective overview of the processes used to identify, retrieve, critique and synthesise research literature. |
Effective presentation of the assessment steps: Title and Author, Search strategy outline, Summary Table (1), Emerging Themes, and Gaps in the literature. An effective overview of the processes used to identify, retrieve, critique and synthesise research literature. |
Satisfactory presentation of the assessment steps: Title and Author, Search strategy outline, Summary Table (1), Emerging Themes, and Gaps in the literature. A satisfactory overview of the processes used to identify, retrieve, critique and synthesise research literature. |
An unsatisfactory presentation of the assessment steps: Title and Author, Search strategy outline, Summary Table (1), Emerging Themes, and Gaps in the literature. The overview of the processes used to identify, retrieve, critique and synthesise research literature project is poorly explained. |
There was no content |
|
Professional communication (10%) |
The presenter professionally and comprehensively presented the required content. The presenter engaged the audience expertly using a variety of communication techniques – including infrequent use of notes, plus effective use of voice and body language to maintain audience engagement. |
The presenter comprehensively presented the required content. The presenter engaged the audience effectively using a number of known communication techniques - including effective use of voice and body language to maintain audience engagement. |
The presenter thoroughly presented the required content. The presenter engaged the audience satisfactorily using communication techniques - including effective use of voice and body language to maintain audience engagement. |
The presenter satisfactorily presented the required content. The presenter engaged the audience using some communication techniques – such effective use of voice and body language to maintain audience engagement. |
The presenter attempts unsuccessfully to present the required content professionally and comprehensively. The presentation of the required content by the presenter is unsatisfactory. The presenter did not engage the audience. Minimal use of communication techniques. |
The presenter did not present. |
|
Questions (5%) |
The presenter comprehensively addressed audience questions. |
The presenter clearly addressed audience questions. |
The presenter effectively addressed audience questions. |
The presenter mostly addressed the audience questions. |
The presenter did not adequately address the audience questions |
The presenter did not address the audience questions |
|
Summary Table and Articles |
||||||
|
Summary Table (2) and annotated Articles (25%) |
Summary table (2) provides an expertly presented and comprehensive overview and analysis of the review papers. The presented information expertly and accurately reflects the information in the attached research articles. Excellent highlighting of article content relevant to the summary table. |
Summary table (2) provides a very well presented, very clear detailed overview and analysis of the review papers. The presented information accurately reflects the information in the attached research articles. Very good highlighting of article content relevant to the summary table. |
Summary table (2) provides a well presented, clear and reasonably detailed overview and analysis of the review papers. The presented information is mostly accurate in summarising the information in the attached research articles. Appropriate highlighting of article content relevant to the summary table. |
Summary table (2) provides a mostly well presented, and acceptable overview and analysis of the review papers. The presented information is somewhat accurate in summarising the information in the attached research articles. Some minor mistakes evident. Mostly appropriate highlighting of article content relevant to the summary table. |
Summary table (2) is poorly presented, and unsatisfactory overview and analysis of the review papers. The presented information is inaccurate in summarising the information in the attached research articles. Significant mistakes evident. Highlighting of article content relevant to the summary able is incomplete or inaccurate. |
No summary table present. No highlighted articles present. |
|
Academic Writing and Referencing |
||||||
|
Academic writing (5%) |
Exemplary writing standard. Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. Organisation and structure exceptionally clear and easy to follow. |
Quality of writing is of a high standard with only very minor grammar, spelling, punctuation mistakes evident. Organisation and structure very clear and easy to follow. |
Quality of writing is above standard with a few grammar, spelling, punctuation mistakes evident. Organisation and structure clear appropriate and can be followed. |
Quality of writing of a satisfactory standard with quite a few grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes evident. Organisation and structure apparent although not easy to follow. |
Quality of writing is of poor standard with numerous grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes evident. Organisation and structure lacks clarity and is difficult to follow. |
Little to no meaningful writing. |
|
Substantiation and Referencing (5%) |
The information in the PowerPoint is expertly substantiated using logic and evidence with a minimum of 10 contemporary* references. References were correctly cited using APA 7 edition style. |
The information in the PowerPoint is effectively substantiated using logic and evidence with a minimum of 10 contemporary* references. References were correctly cited using APA 7 edition style. |
The information in the PowerPoint is appropriately substantiated using logic and evidence with a minimum of 8 contemporary* references. References were mostly correctly cited, with 1 consistent error, using APA 7 edition style. |
The information in the PowerPoint is mostly substantiated using logic and evidence with a minimum of 8 contemporary* references. References were mostly correctly cited, with 2 consistent errors, using APA 7 edition style. |
The information in the PowerPoint is inaccurately or not substantiated using logic and evidence with less than 8 contemporary* references. APA referencing not used, or more than 5 consistent in-text or reference list errors. |
The information in the PowerPoint is not substantiated. |
Notes: *Contemporary literature – published within the last 5 years.
- Undertake a literature search using appropriate methods, databases and search engines
- Critique and synthesise the literature to address the literature review research question.
- Knowledge
- Communication
- Cognitive, technical and creative skills
- Research
- Ethical and Professional Responsibility
3 Report
NURS20167Literature Review in Health, Safety and Wellbeing
Assessment 3: Report
Type: Written Assessment
Due date: 5 pm AEST, Wednesday 2nd June 2021 (Week 12)
Weighting: 50%
Length: 4000 – 5000 words +/- 10% (excluding reference list)
Unit Coordinator: Dr Lorraine Thompson
Learning Outcome Assessed
-
1. Construct a clear and focused literature review research question that allows you to explore an area of interest from your professional context.
-
2. Create a literature review strategy appropriate to your research question.
-
3. Undertake a literature search using appropriate methods, databases and search engines.
-
4. Critique and synthesise the literature to address the research question.
Aim
The aim of this assessment is to write a publishable literature review report which identifies a general research topic, describes the search strategies you employed to identify literature based on your topic and critically analyses and synthesizes the selected literature.
Instructions
Please follow the steps below to complete your assessment task:
-
1. Choose an industry, peer-reviewed journal to target your literature review and access the author guidelines.
-
2. Check to see if your topic is relevant to the journal selected and the journal publishes literature reviews.
-
3. Check the quality of the journal.
-
4. Select three recent literature review articles from the selected journal to guide your writing in the journal style.
-
5. Write your literature review as per the author guidelines for your chosen journal, ensuring it broadly includes:
-
- Abstract
-
- Introduction with background/context
-
- Method
-
- Findings – PRISMA flow diagram, summary table with data extraction, themes/statistics
-
- Discussion, including limitations
-
- Conclusion
-
Attach the author guidelines as an appendix to your literature review.
-
Referencing, irrespective of the author guidelines MUST be APA 7 style.
Literature and references
In this assessment use at least 10-12 contemporary references (<5 years) to support your background, search strategy, analysis and cite the retrieved literature. 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 government, university, or peak national bodies: for example, the Australian College of Nursing.
Requirements
Follow the author guidelines for your chosen journal. Where specific instructions are not provided, please use the following:
-
- 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.
Week 12 Wednesday (2 June 2021) 5:00 pm AEST
Exam Week Wednesday (16 June 2021)
Online grade and feedback via Moodle
NURS20167
LITERATURE REVIEW IN HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELLBEING
ASSESSMENT 3 – Report
|
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% |
|
Abstract (10%) |
Concise and comprehensive summary of literature review for publication which is exceptionally structured and written. 5 key words are included using MeSH terms.
|
Concise and comprehensive summary of literature review for publication which is very well structured and written. 4 key words are included using MeSH terms. |
Largely concise and comprehensive summary of literature review for publication which is well structured and written. 4 key words are included. |
A satisfactory summary of literature review for publication. However, is not concise and/or not comprehensive. The structure and writing are satisfactory but somewhat confusing. 3 key words are included. |
The abstract does not satisfactorily summarise the literature review for publication. The content is verbose and/or difficult to comprehend. The structure and writing are unsatisfactory. Key words inappropriate or not included. |
No abstract present. |
|
Introduction (10%) |
Succinct and clear outline of the background and components of the literature review. Succinct and informative discussion of the importance and potential benefits of the exploring the issue. The search question and aim of the review is expertly defined using PICO/T or equivalent. |
Clear outline of the background and components of the literature review. Detailed discussion of the importance and potential benefits of the exploring the issue. The search question and aim of the review is clearly defined using PICO/T or equivalent. |
Mostly clear outline of the background and components of the literature review. Appropriate discussion of the importance and potential benefits of exploring the issue. The search question and aim of the literature review is appropriately defined, using PICO/T or equivalent. |
Satisfactory outline of the background and components of the literature review. Satisfactory discussion of the importance and potential benefits of exploring the issue. Further clarity required. The search question and aim of the literature review is defined. PICO/T or equivalent not used. |
Inadequate outline of the background and components of the literature review. Little or no discussion of the importance and potential benefits of exploring the issue. The search question and aim of the literature review is not clearly defined. PICO/T or equivalent not used. |
Introduction not present |
|
Search Strategy and results (20%) |
Evidence of an advanced ability to design and follow a structured approach to retrieving quality research literature to answer the search question. The retrieval process is expertly and accurately documented and discussed logically. The Summary Table and Prisma Flow Diagram are expertly presented and accurate. |
Evidence of a proficient ability to design and follow a structured approach to retrieving quality research literature. The retrieval process is accurately documented and discussed logically. The Summary Table and Prisma Flow Diagram are very well presented and accurate with minimal, minor errors. |
Evidence of a good ability to design and follow a structured approach to retrieving quality research literature. The retrieval process is mostly accurately documented and discussed appropriately. The Summary Table and Prisma Flow Diagram are well presented and accurate with minimal errors. |
The assessment lacks some content and cohesiveness in demonstrating an ability to design and follow a structured approach to retrieving quality research literature. The retrieval process documentation contains a number of errors, and the presented information is at times repetitive or lacks cohesion. The Summary Table and Prisma Flow Diagram are presented with a number of errors. |
The assessment does not demonstrate an ability to design and follow a structured approach to retrieving quality research literature. The retrieval process is poorly and inappropriately documented and contains significant and careless errors. The assessment lacks clarity and cohesion. The Summary Table and Prisma Flow Diagram are not included or contain significant and careless errors. |
No search strategy present. |
|
Analysis and Synthesis (30%) |
Evidence of an advanced ability to analyse and synthesise the research evidence. Themes are expertly presented, with a comprehensive and critical discussion that demonstrates an extensive understanding of the issue. Limitations of the review are expertly identified and discussed. |
Evidence of a proficient ability to analyse and synthesise the research evidence. Themes are very well presented, with a detailed and critical discussion that demonstrates a very good understanding of the issue. Limitations of the review are very well identified and discussed. |
Evidence of a good ability to analyse and synthesise the research evidence. Themes are well presented, with a somewhat detailed and critical discussion that demonstrates a good understanding of the issue. Limitations of the review are well identified and discussed. |
Evidence of a satisfactory ability to analyse and synthesise the research evidence. Themes are reasonably presented, with a discussion that demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the issue. Limitations of the review are identified and discussed. Further critique and clarity required. |
Little or no evidence of an ability to analyse and synthesise the research evidence. Themes are incomplete or inappropriate. reasonably presented, with little or no evidence of an understanding of the issue. Limitations of the review incomplete or not to discussed to a satisfactory level. |
No evidence of analysis or synthesis. |
|
Conclusion (5%) |
Conclusions are insightful, very well supported and flow logically from work presented. |
Conclusions are sound, well supported and flow logically from work presented. |
Conclusions are logical, mostly supported, and linked to the work presented. |
Conclusions are satisfactory. They are somewhat supported with limited links to the work presented. |
Conclusions are unsatisfactory. They are not supported or have weak links to the work presented. |
No conclusion present. |
|
Efficiency & Organisation (5%) |
An articulate literature review. There is a succinct and compelling introduction which introduces your paper and outlines its direction. The review 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 and paragraph structure. The literature review is exceptionally well-presented and is free from errors. Expertly follows the formatting requirements of the journal author guidelines which are attached. |
Quality of writing is of a high standard with only very minor grammar, spelling, punctuation and paragraph structure mistakes evident. The literature review is very well presented and follows the formatting requirements of the journal author guidelines which are attached. |
Quality of writing is of a good standard with a few grammatical, spelling, and paragraph structure mistakes evident. The literature review is well presented and mostly follows the formatting requirements of the journal author guidelines which are attached. |
Quality of writing and presentation is of a satisfactory standard with quite a few grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes evident. The literature review is satisfactorily presented and somewhat follows the formatting requirements of the journal author guidelines which are attached. |
Quality of writing and presentation is at a poor standard with many inaccuracies in grammar, spelling and punctuation evident. The literature review is poorly presented and does not follow the formatting requirements of the journal author guidelines. The journal author guidelines are not attached. |
Little to no meaningful writing. Quality of the writing, presentation of the report and/or formatting results in a literature review which is almost unreadable. No author guidelines attached. |
|
Substantiation of discussion (5%) |
Discussion is substantiated consistently with logic, examples, and with reference to the current literature. A minimum of 12 contemporary* references 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 12 contemporary* references 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 10 contemporary* references 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 10 contemporary* references have been cited. |
Discussion does not or infrequently attempts to (>7 errors) to substantiate discussion with logic, examples, and with reference to the current peer-reviewed literature. Less than 10 contemporary* references 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. |
Notes: *Contemporary literature – published within the last 5 years.
- Construct a clear and focused literature review research question that allows you to explore an area of interest from your professional context
- Create a literature review strategy appropriate to your literature review research question
- Undertake a literature search using appropriate methods, databases and search engines
- Critique and synthesise the literature to address the literature review research question.
- Knowledge
- Communication
- Cognitive, technical and creative skills
- Research
- Ethical and Professional Responsibility
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?
