Task 3a – Literature Review
Based on your research on a contemporary project management issue/concept, create a literature review paper covering theoretical and applied perspectives. The review should:
- Cover both the theoretical and applied aspects of the topic
- Critically analyse the recent literature (year 2000 )
- Identify the themes, trends, and perspectives and/or controversies
- Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the literature
- Identify, where possible, any gaps in knowledge
- Provide a well written conclusion which addresses the major implications of the findings in relation to Project Management and the chosen topic
In terms of the written presentation:
- It must be academically well written
- Meet the presentation standards of an academic literature review, having the following structure:
o Title page, abstract, introduction, discussion, conclusion and a list of references - Use the correct discipline terminology
- Adhere to the word count: 1,500 words
- Use Times New Roman, size 12pt, with double spacing.
- Use a minimum 10 academic and 5 non-academic references (in Harvard style – see the library for guidance)
Please see the criteria sheet below for guidance:
Levels of Achievement
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Criteria 1: 85 to 100 % 75 to 84 % 65 to 74 % 50 to 64 % 0 to 49 %
Knowledge of Demonstrates Demonstrates mostly Demonstrates some Basic knowledge of the Little or no chosen topic comprehensive and comprehensive and knowledge of the topic topic area is knowledge of the and analysis of insightful knowledge of insightful knowledge area, with an element of demonstrated. Articles topic area is its component the topic area through of the topic area. insight. Articles selected selected for the review demonstrated and parts to identify analysis of the Appropriate and for the review are are somewhat appropriate the articles selected issues or claims relationships among relevant articles are somewhat appropriate and relevant with some for review lack statements, questions selected for review. and relevant. lapses in judgement. relevance and
Weight 45.00% concepts or appropriateness. descriptions/models with the intention to express belief or judgment or experience or opinion. Highly appropriate and relevant articles used in review.
85 to 100 %
A high level of evaluation in assessing the credibility of statements or other representations in the literature to determine the logical strength or weakness of the claims and their practicality. Along with a high level 75 to 84 %
There is a level of evaluation and synthesis of the
literature and its components including its strengths, weaknesses and limitations and where disagreement exists. Logical conclusions 65 to 74 %
There is a level evaluation and synthesis of the literature and its components including its strengths, weaknesses and limitations and where disagreement exists, although this could have been further explored.
Somewhat logical 50 to 64 %
A beginning attempt has been made to evaluate and synthesise the literature and its components including its strengths, weaknesses and limitations and where disagreement exists although there are a number of omissions or 0 to 49 %
There is little or no evaluation and synthesis of the literature and its components
including its strengths, weaknesses and limitations and where disagreement
Criteria 2: Evaluation of literature and synthesis of own view or argument with an application to Project
Management
Weight 45.00%
Levels of Achievement
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
of synthesis of the secure elements into an argument enabling the drawing of reasonable and logical conclusions and the inference of reasonable consequences coming from the application of the theory to contemporary Project Management.
are drawn and their application to contemporary Management/HR practice is given in some detail. Perhaps limited inference on consequences or limit links between all components. conclusions are drawn and their application to Project Management is generally stated. Inference of consequences available but links not strong. lapses in judgement. Conclusions are drawn but they may not be logical and their application to Project Management practice is given only minor consideration. No inference of consequences or limited links throughout the document.
exists. No conclusions are drawn or they are illogical and/or not applied to practice. No inferences of consequences. No cohesion in the document.
85 to 100 % The meaning is consistently clear. Use of discipline terminology is confident and assured. The level of presentation meets professional standards of the discipline, and there is a high level of attention to detail including grammar, syntax and spelling. Referencing and citations are appropriate. 75 to 84 %
The meaning is clear. Use of discipline terminology is extensive and largely correct. The level of presentation meets professional standards of the discipline, and there is attention to detail including grammar, syntax and spelling. Referencing and citations are appropriate. 65 to 74 %
Overall meaning is clear though there are minor instances of awkward/ambiguous expression. Use of discipline terminology is adequate. The level of presentation mostly meets professional standards of the discipline, with some lapses in detail in e.g. grammar, syntax and spelling. Referencing and/or citation errors. 50 to 64 %
The intended meaning can be discerned but lacks clarity and/or examples of awkward/ambiguous expression. Limited discipline terminology with minor inaccuracies. Some professionalism but significant lapses in grammar syntax and spelling. Referencing and/or citation errors. 0 to 49 % Use of language fails to make meaning clear; many errors of grammar, syntax and spelling, range of mistakes indicating lack of editing and proofreading. Limited or incorrect use of discipline terminology. Poor referencing and citation errors
Criteria 3:
Professional
Communication
Weight 10.00%
GET ANSWERS / LIVE CHAT