GUIDELINES FOR RANKING OF LITERATURE REVIEWS AND METHODOLOGY TABLE 1: Guidelines for ranking Literature Review

Requirement
No significant literature. Nothing much. Collection of important literature, not quantity but diversity with little direct relevance to research project Collection of important literature, not quantity but diversity. Reasons why literature is considered important for research project. Synopsis of literature. Reasons why synopsis is important in the context of research project. Categorization of concepts and ideas in literature in the context of your research problem Evidence of their own in-depth discussion and analysis of concepts and ideas that have been categorised. Some original Some original approach in approach in discussion discussion or or categorisation or categorisation or analysis or plan. analysis or plan. Evidence that this may lead to a new approach or solution to the research.

Col. # Grade

(1) F < 30
Methodology shows little understandin g of the problem. Serious deficiencies in research methodology .

(2) F 30-39
Methodology shows major lack of understanding, and has major omissions. Little grasp of the problem and research methodology.

(3) F 40-49
Methodology shows minor lack of understanding One or two omissions, reflecting limited understanding of research methodology.

(4) P 50-64

(5) C65-74

(6) D75-84

(7) HD85-90

(8) HD91-95

TABLE 2: Guidelines for ranking Methodology.

Requirement
Straightforward methodology. Developed according to the book. Methodology follows traditional, and welltested research procedures. Basic methodology. Evidence of development of their own basic methodology in the context of what is needed to find solution to the research problem(s). Gives reasons and indepth explanations why approach is chosen throughout and relates explicitly to review. Comprehensive methodology. As (5) but also exhibiting a depth of understanding that suggests a comprehensive grasp of the research problem and in particular the expected outcomes. Proof that it will work from basic formulation or calculations is needed. Original methodology. As (5) and (6) but some original approach in methodology that may, for example, have emanated from (4) and may alter existing approaches. In depth explanation, with reasons that demonstrate originality. Proof that it will work from basic formulation or calculations is needed. Outstanding original methodology. Outstanding originality in methodology that has the potential to fundamentally alter existing research approaches. In depth explanation with reasons that establish originality. Proof that it will work from developed formulations or calculations is needed.

Col. # Grade

(1) F <40

(2) F 40-49

(3) P 50-64

(4) C65-69

(5) C70-74

(6) D75-84

(7) HD85-90

(8) HD91-95

Note:
1. 2. 3. 4. The literature review must also review previous research in the School, if any, which you will be applying In-depth reasoning required not shallow reasoning throughout. All components need to be satisfied to achieve upper mark. For example, if you have satisfied the column (5) but not column (3) then you cannot achieve the grade for column (5) Presentation and timetable for methodology will determine whereabouts in the range you are. Starting with mark attained above. For a good presentation that is reasonably easy to follow leave mark as it is. For a presentation that is difficult to follow reduce mark by up to 2 points. For a beautifully presented report that is easy to follow raise mark by up to 2 points. Note that the adjusted mark cannot go beyond the range of the grade. Literature review is worth 14% and methodology is worth 8% Supervisor to allocate work to date score out of 3%. Very weak effort score of 0. Students not self motivated but made some progress score of 1. Students show a reasonable amount of self-motivation score of 2. Students are driving the project score of 3.

5.

6.