Part 2 – Literature Review (40 %)
Scenario
You are a graduate scientist working in an interdisciplinary research team within a not-for-profit research and development organisation. Your team leader has requested you prepare a review of the current scientific literature in one of three potential research areas. The company is considering taking their research in a new direction and the leadership team requires background information on the potential research areas before making a decision. You should ensure your literature review synthesises recent literature to give a picture of the current state of the science in that area. You are not required to critique the literature or to take a position, however you should try to identify knowledge gaps.
Task
Write an evidence-based scientific literature review on an aspect of the topic (nanotechnology, plastic pollution or smart devices and personal privacy) you have researched. A literature review synthesises the current literature, is evidence-based, compares different sources of information and perspectives, and identifies gaps in current research. A literature review can contain a mixture of sources (e.g. scholarly books, high quality reports, etc.), however; the focus must be peer-reviewed journal articles.
Use tutor feedback on your draft to improve your final version. Write a response to the tutor feedback.
Instructions
1. Search the scientific literature for appropriate and relevant sources of information, with a focus on peer-reviewed journal articles.
2. Actively read and take notes on these sources.
3. Write down any questions that arise for you while you are reading
3. Write a clear and concise review of approximately 1500-2000 (excluding references) words, synthesising the literature.
4. Use the following formatting/style for your Literature Review
• Write in a series of paragraphs with a short introduction and conclusion. For details and examples of the expected structure of a scientific literature review, refer to weekly tasks and assignment resources.
• Typed, 12 pt Times New Roman font
• Double spaced with 2 cm margins
• Appropriate academic writing style and mechanics – refer to grading rubric for this assignment
• Cite all of your sources, using in-text citations and an end-text reference list
5. Submit a complete draft of your literature review via the Turnitin link (in the Assignments page) for tutor feedback (Week 10). To receive the marks for submitting a 'complete draft', your draft must:
• be within 20% of the final word limit
• be relatively well paraphrased
• have a clear structure (introduction, body and conclusion)

• be set out in a series of paragraphs
• include references
• be submitted on time
If your draft doesn't meet these criteria, your tutor will still give you feedback on how to improve the final review, but you will not receive marks. In week 12, your draft will be returned with feedback from your tutor. The feedback will include specific comments and edits on the text itself and an overall comment.
6. Make edits and improvements based on the feedback.
7. Submit a final version of your literature review via the Turnitin link (Week 13).
8. Submit a written response to feedback via the Turnitin link (Week 13).
Your response should outline how you have edited the final version of your review after reading this feedback and should follow a similar format to the Reflection on your Summary that you completed earlier in the semester (however it will be submitted through Turnitin not PebblePad). Write a word document of at least half a page (and no more than one page) outlining what feedback you received on your draft, how you can improve it, and then what changes you made in your final version as a result of the feedback. It may help to use these questions either as headings or as a guide:
• What feedback did I obtain on my draft review? This can include very specific feedback and more general feedback. Were you surprised by the feedback you got?
• How did I use this feedback to improve my final review? Here you can detail not just what changes you made but also how you made them, e.g. by seeking help from a Learning Adviser or using the library resources to check my referencing etc.
• What things will I focus on next time I have to produce written communication?
If you did NOT submit a draft literature review, you may still complete this exercise by reflecting on the feedback you were given on your Summary assignment. Please make it clear in your response that this is what you are doing.
See Weekly Schedule or Weekly Tasks for submission dates. Note that there are separate Turnitin submission links for the draft, final version, and response to feedback.
Resources
Completing Part 1 (Summary of a Journal Article) develops foundational skills which will help you in completing the Literature Review. The Weekly Tasks in weeks 6 – 13 provide resources and activities that build your skills and guide you through completing the Literature Review. It is essential that you work through and complete the weekly tasks.
Discussion activities in the tutorials (on-campus students) or online discussion groups (off-campus students) contribute to your skill base for this assignment. Additional resources are found in the supporting resources for the Literature Review (Assignment page).
Assessment
There are three assessment components in Part 2:
• Draft literature review submitted for tutor feedback (5%)
• Final version of your literature review (30%)
• Response to tutor feedback on the draft (5%)

GRADING RUBRIC – Literature Review Note: scoring “not demonstrated” is equivalent to low or developing English language proficiency
Key outcomes/criteria 50 %
Not demonstrated 50-64 %
Competent 65-79%
Very good 80% +
Excellent
Content (30 %) No clear knowledge of the topic was demonstrated. The content was inaccurate and most ideas were vague or incorrect.
There was little evidence of integration of ideas from the literature. There was over reliance on one or two reference. An overall general understanding of the topic was demonstrated. However, some aspects of the content were inaccurate or contained some vague ideas.
There was evidence of integration of ideas from the literature; however, at times there was over reliance on one or two references. A good understanding of the topic was demonstrated and supported by generally accurate content and well- formed ideas.
The ideas presented were, for the most part, supported by relevant sources of information. A comprehensive understanding of the topic was demonstrated and supported by very accurate content, thorough exploration of concepts, and well-formed ideas.
The ideas presented were strongly supported by a range of relevant sources of information.
Organisation & style Overall structure, structured paragraphs, academic writing (third person, formal tone, objective.
(25 %) No clear introduction, body and conclusion. Key ideas were not structured in logical paragraphs. The guidelines specified for this writing activity were not followed.
The style was not consistent with a scientific academic writing. Expression was unclear and difficult to follow. Identifiable overall structure and some organisation of ideas into paragraphs. The guidelines specified for this writing activity were partly followed.
The style showed some elements consistent with scientific academic writing. Expression was acceptable but needed clarity. Ideas could have been sequenced more logically. There was good overall structure and the ideas were organised into coherent and logically linked paragraphs. The guidelines specified for this writing activity were all followed to a satisfactory degree.
The style was consistent with scientific academic writing. Ideas were well developed and expressed in a logical sequence. The overall structure of the writing was clearly defined and the ideas were very well organised into coherent and logically linked paragraphs making for a very cohesive piece of academic writing. The guidelines specified for this writing activity were carefully followed, with attention to detail.
The style was entirely consistent with scientific academic writing. Ideas were very well developed and expressed clearly and concisely in a manner that showed excellent mastery of academic style.
Referencing, paraphrasing and sources of information Demonstrate academic integrity with respect to referencing APA style; use of scholarly and peer reviewed sources of information.
(25 %) Paraphrasing was not evident. There was a clear lack of understanding of referencing conventions for both for in-text and end-text referencing.
Many sources of information were not scholarly or peer reviewed. Paraphrasing was evident but needed improving.
There was a basic understanding of APA style referencing conventions. Some sources of information were scholarly or peer reviewed. There was appropriate use of paraphrasing.
Referencing was generally complete and correct with only a few minor errors.
Most sources of information were peer-reviewed or scholarly. Excellent use of paraphrasing showing a deep understanding of the ideas presented.
Cited all resources correctly using APA style
All sources of information were of high quality and peer reviewed
Mechanics/Grammar Sentence structure, Grammar, Punctuation, Spelling, Subject/verb agreement, Tense.
(20 %) Grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors were present throughout. The sentence structure was very poor, making it difficult to determine meaning. Some grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors were present and required attention. Sentence structure was acceptable but required improvement. Careful attention paid to correct grammar, spelling and punctuation was evident. Sentence structure was of a high standard. Grammar, spelling and punctuation were virtually error free. Sophisticated and effective use of all sentence and paragraph writing conventions was clearly demonstrated.