Key Criteria

High Distinction     100–85%

Distinction             84.9–75%

Credit                     74.9–65%

Pass                        64.9–50%

Fail                    <49.9%

TOTAL

Slide presentation (10%)

(10–8.5)

A total of 8 slides used that are extremely aesthetically pleasing and holds the audience’s attention. The slides are free of unnecessary detail, succinct and readable. The slides contain an extremely appealing array of appropriate script and graphics. Adheres to time.

(8.4–7.5)

A total of 8 slides used that are aesthetically pleasing and holds the audience’s attention. The slides are free of unnecessary detail, succinct and readable. The slides contain an appealing array of appropriate script and graphics. Adheres to time.

(7.4–6.5)

A total of 8 slides used that are mostly aesthetically pleasing and holds the audience’s attention. The slides are mostly free of unnecessary detail, succinct and readable. The slides contain appropriate script and graphics. Adheres to time but a rushed presentation (one minute or less over time).

(6.4–5)

A total of 8 slides used that contain some unnecessary detail but are readable. The slides contain somewhat appropriate script and graphics. Mostly adheres to time (two minutes or less over time).

(4.9–0)

Eight slides have not been used. The slides are not aesthetically pleasing and do not hold the audience’s attention. The slides contain unnecessary detail, are cluttered and are not readable. The slides do not contain appropriate script and graphics.

Oral presentation (10%)

(10–8.5)

The presenter consistently engages the audience. The presenter speaks very clearly, demonstrating enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is comprehensively articulated and justified. Topic is very clearly presented. The presenter comprehensively addresses audience questions.

(8.4–7.5)

The presenter readily engages the audience. The presenter speaks clearly, demonstrating enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is clearly articulated and justified. Topic is clearly presented. The presenter clearly addresses audience questions.

(7.4–6.5)

The presenter engages the audience. The presenter speaks well and demonstrates some enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is articulated and justified. Topic is presented. The presenter effectively addresses audience questions.

(6.4–5)

The presenter occasionally engages the audience. The presenter speaks well at times and attempts to demonstrate enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is discussed and somewhat justified. Topic is presented but lacks clarity. The presenter mostly addresses the audience questions.

(4.9–0)

The presenter minimally or does not engage the audience in the presentation. The presenter does not speak clearly nor demonstrate enthusiasm for the topic. Each slide is either not discussed or is poorly discussed, or poorly or not justified. Topic is not clearly presented. Audience questions are not adequately addressed.

Introduction (5%)

Slide 1

(5–4.25)

Student name and title of presentation clearly and succinctly presented.

(4.2–3.8)

Student name and title of presentation clearly presented.

(3.75–3.55)

Student name and title of presentation presented.

(3.50–2.5)

Student name and title of presentation presented but some content is omitted.

(2.45–0)

Introduction slide omitted or student name and title of presentation presented but some content is incomplete or incorrect.

Nursing-related topic (10%)

Slide 2

(10-8.5)

Concise and comprehensive explanation of why the nursing-related topic is relevant and important to the context of chosen nursing practice is coherently discussed. Comprehensive rationale for nursing-related problem to focus the research question on is succinctly and clearly discussed. The problem should be able to be addressed through research and has practical implications for nursing practice.

(8.4-7.5)

Comprehensive explanation of why the nursing-related topic is relevant and important to the context of chosen nursing practice is coherently discussed. Comprehensive rationale for the chosen nursing-related problem to focus the research question on is succinctly discussed. The problem should be able to be addressed through research and has practical implications for nursing practice.

(7.4-6.5)

Clear explanation of why the nursing-related topic is relevant and important to the context of chosen nursing practice is coherently discussed. The discussion mostly justifies the rationale for the chosen nursing-related problem to focus the research question on is succinctly discussed. The problem should be able to be addressed through research and has practical implications for nursing practice.

(6.4-5)

Mostly correct discussion of explanation of why the nursing-related topic is relevant and important to the context of chosen nursing practice is provided, but there is some detailed of explanation omitted. The discussion mostly justifies the rationale for the chosen nursing-related problem to focus the research question on is discussed, but there is some detail omitted. The problem should be able to be addressed through research and has practical implications for nursing practice.

(4.9-0)

Minimal or no discussion of why the nursing-related problem is relevant to the chosen context of nursing practice is discussed. The rationale justifying the chosen nursing-related problem to focus the research question on is inaccurate or missing significant justification or is omitted. The problem has limited capacity to be addressed through research and has limited or no practical implications for nursing practice.

Nurse leader consultation (5%)

Slide 3

(5–4.25)

Appropriate nurse leader/s consulted about research topic. Comprehensive rationale for choice of nurse leader/s consulted is provided. Confidentiality of peers is thoroughly maintained.

(4.2–3.8)

Appropriate nurse leader/s consulted about research topic. The rationale for choice of nurse leader/s consulted is succinctly provided. Confidentiality of peers is clearly maintained.

(3.75–3.55)

Appropriate nurse leader/s consulted about research topic. The rationale for choice of nurse leader/s consulted is clearly provided Confidentiality of peers is mostly maintained.

(3.50–2.5)

An appropriate nurse leader consulted about research topic, but further clarification is required. The rationale for choice of nurse leader/s consulted is mostly justified. Confidentiality of peers is somewhat maintained.

(2.45–0)

Appropriate nurse leader/s not consulted about research topic. The rationale for choice of nurse leader/s consulted lacks clarity or is omitted. Confidentiality of peers is not maintained.

Literature review (20%)

Slides 4 and 5

(20–17)

Concise and comprehensive summary of the literature search that identifies the gap in nursing knowledge about the chosen topic is discussed. This discussion includes two or three health databases searched through the CQU library for the literature search.

(16.9–15)

Comprehensive summary of the literature search that identifies the gap in nursing knowledge about the chosen topic. This discussion includes two or three health databases searched through the CQU library for your literature search.

(14.9–13)

Good summary of the literature search that identifies the gap in nursing knowledge about the chosen topic. This discussion includes two or three health databases searched through the CQU library for your literature search.

(12.9–10)

Identified gap in nursing knowledge about the chosen topic with two to three databases for the literature search is provided but requires depth of content and discussion.

(9.9–0)

The discussion is irrelevant and/or does not meet/address the task. Identified gap in nursing knowledge about the chosen topic with two to three data bases for the literature search has inaccuracies or is limited in scope.

PICO framework and research question (30%)

Slides 6 and 7

(30–25.5)

Concise and comprehensive presentation of a well-structured research question using the PICO framework that identifies and discusses the population/patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome.

(25.4–22.4

Comprehensive presentation of a well-structured research question using the PICO framework that identifies and discusses the population/patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome.

(22.3–19.4)

Good presentation of a well-structured research question using the PICO framework that identifies and discusses the population/patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome.

(19.3–15.0)

A well-structured research question using the PICO framework that identifies and discusses the population/patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome is provided but requires depth of content and discussion.

(14.5–0)

The discussion is irrelevant and/or does not meet/address the task. A well-structured research question using the PICO framework that identifies and discusses the population/patient, intervention, comparison and outcome has inaccuracies or does not include elements of the PICO framework.

Referencing (5%)

Slide 8

(5–4.25)

Acknowledges all sources of literature. References sourced from the CQUniversity library. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with no errors in-text and the reference list.

(4.2–3.8)

Acknowledges the majority of sources of literature. References sourced from the CQUniversity library. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with 1 error in-text and the reference list.

(3.75–3.55)

Acknowledges most sources of literature. References sourced from the CQUniversity library. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with 2 errors in-text and the reference list.

(3.50–2.5)

Acknowledges some sources of literature. References sourced from the CQUniversity library. Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with 3 errors in-text and the reference list.

(2.45–0)

Acknowledges minimal or no appropriate sources of literature. References are not sourced from the CQUniversity library. APA 7^th Edition referencing standards have ≥4 errors in-text and the reference list.

Use of evidence (5%)

(5–4.25)

Expertly integrates quality references to support and reflect all ideas, factual information, and quotations.

(4.2–3.8)

Consistently integrates quality references to support and reflect ideas, factual information, and quotations with 1 exception.

(3.75–3.55)

Frequently integrates quality references to support and reflect ideas, factual information, and quotations with 2 exceptions.

(3.50–2.5)

Occasionally integrates references to support and reflect ideas, factual information, and quotations with 3 exceptions.

(2.45–0)

Infrequent or fails to attempt with ≥3 errors to integrate references to support and reflect ideas, factual information, and quotations.

Grade:

Marker:

Date:

Marker's Feedback:

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%

TOTAL

Introduction and conclusion (10%)

(10–8.5)

The assessment has a clear and succinct introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides excellent background information and outlines the direction of the assessment, and the conclusion succinctly summarises the key points. 

(8.4–7.5)

The assessment has a clear introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides good background information and outlines the direction of the assessment, and the conclusion summarises most key points.

(7.4–6.5)

The assessment has an adequate introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides some background information and outlines the direction of the assessment, and the conclusion summarises some key points.

(6.4–5)

An introduction and conclusion have been attempted. The introduction provides limited background information and outline of the assessment’s direction, and the conclusion has a few key points.

(4.9–0)

The introduction has significant errors or omissions of aims and direction of content or the introduction is not provided. Logical direction of the assessment is unclear. The conclusion does not summarise the assessment or is omitted.

Evidence of 6 credible peer reviewed journal articles (10%)

(10–8.5)

The assessment identifies the most appropriate, credible peer reviewed journal articles to address the research question. A sufficient, wide variety of sources of evidence is presented.

(8.4–7.5)

The assessment identifies sufficient, credible peer reviewed journal articles to address the research question. A variety of sources of evidence is presented.

(7.4–6.5)

The assessment mostly identifies sources of evidence that relate to the research question, but some sources are insufficient and/or lack credibility. A wider variety of sources of evidence is required.

(6.4–5)

The assessment identifies some sources of evidence that relate to the research question, but sources are insufficient and/or lack credibility.

(4.9–0)

The assessment does not identify sources of evidence that relate to the research question, and/or the sources of evidence lack credibility. a few sources of evidence have been presented.

Summary of each annotation (30%)

(30–25.5)

The assessment presents six accurate, clear, and concise annotations of the sources of evidence. Each annotation comprehensively addresses the research question and provides key supporting detail including main idea/findings, comparison with other authors, sample size, population, methodology, appropriateness of methodology, key findings, credibility of evidence, and should the evidence be used to further develop the research question.

(25.4–22.4)

The assessment presents five accurate annotations of the sources of evidence. Each annotation consistently addresses the research question and provides key supporting detail including main idea/findings, comparison with other authors, sample size, population, methodology, appropriateness of methodology, key findings, credibility of evidence, and should the evidence be used to further develop the research question.

(22.3–19.4)

The assessment presents four mostly accurate annotations of the sources of evidence. Some annotations address the research question but missing some key information or supporting details, such as idea/findings, comparison with other authors, sample size, population, methodology, appropriateness of methodology, key findings, credibility of evidence, and should the evidence be used to further develop the research question.

(19.3–15)

The assessment presents three annotations of the sources of evidence. Annotations attempt to address the research question but missing key information or supporting details, such as idea/findings, comparison with other authors, sample size, population, methodology, appropriateness of methodology, key findings, credibility of evidence, and should the evidence be used to further develop the research question.

(14.9–0)

The assessment presents ≤3 annotations of the sources of evidence. Annotations insufficiently address the research question and has missing and/or omitted key information or supporting details, such as idea/findings, comparison with other authors, sample size, population, methodology, appropriateness of methodology, key findings, credibility of evidence, and should the evidence be used to further develop the research question.

Analysis of 6 peer reviewed journal articles (30%)

(30–25.5)

Comprehensively demonstrates an insightful critical analysis and discussion of the peer reviewed journal articles using the five components of academic credibility – Authority, Relevance, Coverage, Objectivity and Currency (ARCOC). A thorough examination explaining why/how the peer reviewed journal articles relate to the research question is provided. Accurate conclusions are drawn between the peer reviewed journal articles and the research question.

(25.4–22.4)

Demonstrates a critical analysis and discussion of the peer reviewed journal using the five components of academic credibility – Authority, Relevance, Coverage, Objectivity and Currency (ARCOC). A consistent examination identifying why/how the peer reviewed journal articles relate to the research question is provided. Many conclusions are drawn between the peer reviewed journal articles and the research question.

(22.3–19.4)

Demonstrates an analysis and some discussion of the peer reviewed journal articles using the five components of academic credibility – Authority, Relevance, Coverage, Objectivity and Currency (ARCOC). An examination of why/how the peer reviewed journal articles relate to the research question is provided. Conclusions are drawn between the peer reviewed journal articles and the research question.

(19.3–15)

Some analysis and some discussion of the peer reviewed journal articles is provided using the five components of academic credibility – Authority, Relevance, Coverage, Objectivity and Currency (ARCOC). Attempts to describe why/how the peer reviewed journal articles relate to the research question is provided. Attempts to draw conclusions between the peer reviewed journal articles and the research question is provided, but some are incorrect.

(14.9–0)

Inaccurate, little or no analysis or discussion of the peer reviewed journal articles using the five components of academic credibility – Authority, Relevance, Coverage, Objectivity and Currency (ARCOC) is provided. Minimal or no description of why/how the peer reviewed journal articles relate to the research question is provided. Inaccurate or no attempts to draw conclusions between the peer reviewed journal articles and the research question is provided.

Professional writing and presentation (10%)

(10–8.5)

Content is clear, accurate and presented in a logical order and succinct manner demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 6 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied without error. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. Language of the discipline is frequently used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 5 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 1 error. Majority of literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is mostly clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. Language of the discipline is mostly used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 4 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 2 errors. Most literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(6.4–5)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. Language of the discipline is used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 3 contemporary peer reviewed mostly appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(4.9–0)

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. The assessment is substantiated with ≤2 contemporary peer reviewed, appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with ≥4 errors. Majority of literature cited is published ≥5 years.

Referencing (10%)

(10–8.5)

Acknowledges all sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 6, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. References for each peer-reviewed article were placed above each annotated bibliography using 7th edition American Psychology Association (APA) referencing style with no error.

Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with no errors in-text and the reference list.

(8.4–7.5)

Acknowledges the majority of sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 5, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Five references for the peer-reviewed articles were clearly placed above each annotated bibliography using 7th edition American Psychology Association (APA) referencing style.

Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with 1 error in-text and the reference list.

(7.4–6.5)

Acknowledges most sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 4, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Four references for the peer-reviewed articles are cited above each annotated bibliography using 7th edition American Psychology Association (APA) referencing style.

Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with 2 errors in-text and the reference list.

(6.4–5.0)

Acknowledges some sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 3, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Three references for the peer-reviewed articles are cited above each annotated bibliography using 7th edition American Psychology Association (APA) referencing style.

Meets APA 7^th Edition referencing standards with 3 errors in-text and the reference list.

(4.9–0)

Acknowledges minimal or no appropriate sources of literature. The assessment is substantiated with ≤2, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Two or less references for the peer-reviewed articles are not placed above each annotated bibliography using 7th edition American Psychology Association (APA) referencing style. APA 7^th Edition referencing standards have ≥4 errors in-text and the reference list.

TOTAL:

Marker:

Marker's Feedback:

Key Criteria

High Distinction            84.5–100%

Distinction             74.50–84.49%

Credit          64.5 74.49%

Pass                        49.50–64.49%

Fail                          49.5%

TOTAL

Introduction and conclusion (10%)

(10–8.5)

The literature review report has a clear and succinct introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides excellent background information and outlines the aim/s of the literature review report, and the conclusion succinctly summarises the key points.

(8.4–7.5)

The literature review report has a clear introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides good background information and outlines the aim/s of literature review report, and the conclusion summarises most key points.

(7.4–6.5)

The literature review report has an adequate introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides some background information and outlines the aim/s of the literature review report, and the conclusion summarises some key points.

(6.4–5)

An introduction and conclusion have been attempted. The introduction provides limited background information and outline of the literature review report’s aim/s, and the conclusion has a few key points.

(4.9–0)

The introduction has significant errors or omissions of background and aims of content or the not evident or provided. Logical direction of the literature review report is unclear. The conclusion does not summarise the literature review report or is omitted.

Literature review (35%)

(35–29.5)

Key studies and methodologies were examined through an extensive, comprehensive, and systematic search of relevant sources of high-quality peer reviewed literature. Trends and gaps in the evidence in relation to the research question have been comprehensively articulated. The findings of each study have been consistently and succinctly related to the research question.

(29.74–26.5)

The majority of key studies and methodologies were examined through a detailed examination of high-quality peer reviewed literature. Trends and gaps in the evidence in relation to the research question have been clearly and succinctly articulated. The findings of each study have been consistently related to the research question.

(26–22.75)

Many key studies and methodologies of mostly relevant sources of high-quality peer reviewed literature were discussed. Trends and gaps in the evidence in relation to the research question have been articulated. The findings of each study have been mostly related to the research question.

(22.74–17.5)

Some key studies and methodologies were of some sources of high-quality peer reviewed literature were discussed. Trends and gaps in the evidence in relation to the research question have articulated but lacks some clarity. The findings of some have been attempted to be related to the research question.

(17.4–0)

Key studies and methodologies were incorrectly or not examined, and/or relevant sources of high-quality peer reviewed literature were minimal or not cited. Trends and gaps in the evidence in relation to the research question were minimally articulated or omitted. The findings of each study have been incorrectly or not related to the research question.

Critical analysis and synthesis (35%)

(35–29.5)

Critically analysed and synthesised evidence drawing from an extensive range of relevant, seminal and/or current sources evidence related to the research question.

(29.74–26.5)

Analysed and synthesised evidence from a range of relevant, seminal and/or current sources related to the research question.

(26–22.75)

Analysed and synthesised evidence from relevant, seminal and/or current sources related to the research question.

(22.74–17.5)

Appraised evidence with some using some relevant, seminal and/or current sources related mostly to the research question.

(17.4–0)

Provided description of evidence or viewpoints with minimal or nor analysis, synthesis or questioning with minimal or no relationship to the research question.

Articulated a persuasive position through critical interrogation and evaluation of the credibility and rigour of the available evidence to develop a coherent analysis and identification of the evidence gaps in the literature in relation to the research question.

Assimilated a variety of perspectives to strongly argue a position through appraisal and synthesis of the majority literature to identify the majority of gaps in the literature in relation to the research question.

Argued a position demonstrating development of critical thinking through appraisal and synthesis of most of the literature and identified most gaps in the literature in relation to the research question.

Presented a position and provided some argument to draw defensible conclusions from some credible literature and provided some gaps in the literature in relation to the research question.

Presented a position that demonstrates minimal argument or defensible conclusions and identified minimal or no gaps in the literature in relation to the research question.

Professional writing and presentation (10%)

(10–8.5)

Content is clear, accurate and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Language of the discipline is comprehensively used. Formatting requirements applied without error. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. Language of the discipline is frequently used. Formatting requirements are applied with 1 error. Majority of literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is mostly clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. Language of the discipline is mostly used. Formatting requirements are applied with 2 errors. Most literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(6.4–5)

Content is frequently clear, correct and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. Language of the discipline is used. Formatting requirements are applied with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years.

(4.9–0)

Content is consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. Language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. Formatting requirements are applied with ≥4 errors. Majority of literature cited is published ≥5 years.

Referencing (10%)

(10–8.5)

Acknowledges all sources of peer reviewed literature. Has no APA 7^th ed referencing errors and all references have been cited. The literature review report is substantiated with a minimum of 25 appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th ed referencing standards with no errors in-text and the reference list.

(8.4–7.5)

Acknowledges majority sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 1 APA 7^th ed referencing errors or references not provided. The literature review report is substantiated with a minimum of 20–24, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th ed referencing standards with no more than 1 errors in-text and the reference list.

(7.4–6.5)

Acknowledges most sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 2 APA 7^th ed referencing errors or references not provided. The literature review report is substantiated with a minimum of 18–20, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th ed referencing standards with no more than 2 errors in-text and the reference list.

(6.4–5.0)

Acknowledges some sources of peer reviewed literature. Has 3 APA 7^th ed referencing errors or references not provided. The literature review report is substantiated with a minimum of 13–17, appropriate contemporary peer reviewed journal articles. Meets APA 7^th ed referencing standards with no more than 3 errors in-text and the reference list. 

(4.9–0)

Acknowledges some sources peer reviewed literature. Has ≥4 or more APA 7^th ed referencing errors or references not provided. The literature review report cites ≤12 sources of peer reviewed evidence and/or evidence is not appropriate. Has ≥4 or more APA 7^th ed referencing errors in-text and the reference list.

TOTAL:

MARKER:

Marker’s feedback: