1ST PART
=The Literature Review – Annotated Bibliography Assignment
This assignment builds on material you should be familiar with from your prerequisite English course. Your assignment is to prepare an annotated bibliography using APA style on one of the following topics or another topic of interest to you from a business perspective:
Pick a topic that interests you and develop a good annotated bibliography following the instructions below. You will use the resources you find for this assignment in the Literature Review assignment in Module 2 and the Research Methodology assignment in Module 8. As you look for references in this assignment, keep in mind that the Literature Review and Research Methodology assignments will involve formulating a research question and designing a methodology to answer that question, so be thinking of interesting questions related to the topic you select—questions that you might want to explore further.
From the text A Pocket Style Manual, APA Version, read the following:
Note that you will probably need to refer to Chapter 14 of A Pocket Style Manual, APA Version, for formatting of different types of references. It is important that you pay close attention to formatting requirements.
The assignment has two parts: 1) The list of sources, and 2) The annotation for each source. In the assignment you submit, the annotation for each source should immediately follow the listing of the source as shown in Chapter 12e of A Pocket Style Manual, APA Version.
The list of sources must contain the following:
Special note: Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for scholarly work. Do not use Wikipedia as a source for this or any academic assignment. All sources must be correctly documented in APA style, and the entire references list must be correctly formatted in APA style.
The annotation for each source has two parts:
2nd PART
2=Literature Review Draft
The Literature Review Assignment was introduced in Activity 2.6. Take advantage of this opportunity! The purpose of the draft is to give you an opportunity to get feedback from your instructor prior to writing your final proposal – the draft isn’t expected to be perfect. It will be graded, but will count only 2% of your final course grade. A good grade on the draft means that you submitted it on time; your instructor feels that you put good effort into it, and that it addresses the required topics. The literature review that is due in Module 5 will be subject to much more stringent grading criteria. That means it is possible that you could receive a higher grade on a draft than on the corresponding portion of the final complete proposal.
3rd PART
3=Assignment: Final Literature Review
You should have turned in a draft in Module 3, received feedback from your instructor, and revised the draft based on the feedback you received. In this activity, you will turn in your final literature review assignment.
In an effort to curb plagiarism, provides instructors with TurnitIn, an anti-plagiarism tool. When you submit this assignment, it will be automatically screened by TurnitIn. TurnitIn will compare your writing with a database of millions of other written works and checks for originality versus plagiarized papers. You will be able to view your originality report.
Rubric for Grading the Literature Review Assignment
Rubric for Grading the Literature Review Assignment
CriteriaRatingsPts
Introduction
|
Clearly states a specific problem, gives a brief, succinct background, and indicates why solving it is important. 5 pts |
Identifies a problem and gives some background and indication of importance 4 pts |
Identifies a problem, but the statement is too broad. Little indication of the background or importance of the problem. 3 pts |
Statement of the problem is weak, omitted, or inappropriate. No background given and no indication of its importance is given. 2 pts |
5 pts
Literature Review – Organization
|
Structure is intuitive and sufficiently grounded to each of the key constructs and variables of the proposed study. The review was organized using subheadings. The review was suitably organized considering the contents of the selected articles. 20 pts |
A workable structure has been presented for presenting relevant literature related to the constructs and variables of the proposed study. The review was suitably organized considering the contents of the selected articles. 16 pts |
The structure of the literature review is weak; it does not identify important ideas, constructs or variables related to the research purpose, questions, or context. Organization made the review difficult to follow at times. 14 pts |
The structure of the literature review is incomprehensible, irrelevant, or confusing. The review was minimally organized and writing was difficult to follow throughout. 13 pts |
20 pts
Literature Review – Content
|
Narrative integrates critical and logical details from appropriate literature. Key constructs and variables were connected. Attention is given to different perspectives and opinion vs. evidence. The findings and results of articles were thoughtfully compared, contrasted and/or connected to each other. The review concluded with a summary of the knowledge found from this review and related the knowledge gain to the inquiry question. 20 pts |
Key constructs and variables were usually connected to appropriate literature. The findings of articles were usually compared, contrasted and/or connected to each other. The review concluded with an adequate summary. 16 pts |
A key construct or variable was not connected to the research literature. Selected literature was from unreliable sources. Literary supports were vague or ambiguous. The findings of references were mentioned with little and/or no comparison or connection to each other. An inadequate attempt was made to summarize the findings of the review. 14 pts |
The review of literature was missing or consisted of nonresearch based articles. Propositions were irrelevant, inaccurate, or inappropriate. No attempt was made to connect references. No attempt to summarize the findings of the review was made. 13 pts |
20 pts
Research Question
|
Articulates a clear, reasonable, and succinct research question or questions. Connection with the literature review is clear and obvious. 10 pts |
Research questions are stated, connected to the research issue, and supported by the literature. 8 pts |
Attempt is made to state a research question or questions, but question(s) is/are unclear and doesn’t/don’t’ follow logically from the literature review 7 pts |
Research question(s) omitted or poorly stated. No attempt to connect the question(s) to the literature review. 6 pts |
10 pts
Theoretical Framework
|
Framework is solidly grounded in the literature review. Connections are clear and accurate. Relationships among variables are clearly and accurately explained. Theory underlying the relations is clearly explained. 20 pts |
Framework is largely grounded in the literature review. Connections are largely clear and accurate. Good attempt is made to explain the relationships among variables and the theory underlying the relations. 16 pts |
Attempt is made to ground the framework in the literature review. Connections are sometimes unclear. Attempt is made to explain the relationships among variables, but it is often unclearly or inaccurate. Attempt is made to explain the theory underlying the relations. 14 pts |
No attempt to explain the theoretical framework is made or no attempt is made to ground the framework in the literature review. 13 pts |
20 pts
Hypothesis
|
Hypotheses are clearly stated using appropriate language and/or symbols. Relationship between hypotheses and theoretical framework is clear. Hypotheses are expressed in the form of testable statements. 5 pts |
Hypotheses are stated using in appropriate language and/or symbols, but statement is somewhat inaccurate. Relationship between hypotheses and theoretical framework is established, but could be clearer. Hypotheses are expressed in the form of testable statements. 4 pts |
Attempt is made to state the hypotheses in appropriate language and/or symbols but statement is largely inaccurate. Relationship between hypotheses and theoretical framework is vague. Hypotheses are sometimes not expressed in the form of testable statements. 3 pts |
Little attempt is made to state the hypotheses in appropriate language and/or symbols. Relationship between hypotheses and theoretical framework is not stated or is inaccurate. Hypotheses are not expressed in the form of testable statements. 2 pts |
5 pts
References
|
At least 7 appropriate references were used and each specifically related to the question. Standards of APA formatting were followed with very few errors. 10 pts |
At least 5 appropriate references were used that were related to the question. Standards of APA formatting were followed but with some errors. 8 pts |
Fewer than 5 references were used and were marginally related to the question. Attempt was made to follow standards of APA formatting but there were frequent errors. 7 pts |
Inappropriate references not related to the question were used. No attempt was made to follow standards of APA formatting or marginal attempt was made but there were numerous errors. 6 pts |
10 pts
Writing and Timeliness
|
Consistently applied standards of English composition. There were no grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors and transitional phrases were used to guide the reader throughout the text. Assignment submitted on time. 5 pts |
Paper conformed to most standards of English composition. There was an occasional grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation error. Timeliness of delivery was acceptable. 4 pts |
Weak, incomplete, ambiguous, or inconsistent application of rules of English composition. There were frequent grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. Delivery was delinquent. 3 pts |
Failure to apply standard rules for English composition. There were many grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors that distracted the reader from the content of the writing. Delivery was delinquent. 2 pts |
5 pts
Formatting
|
Consistently applied APA guidelines in regards to citations, references, headings, table of contents, page numbers, and running headers. 5 pts |
Manuscript conformed to most APA guidelines. 4 pts |
Weak, incomplete, ambiguous, or inconsistent application of APA formatting. 3 pts |
Failure to apply APA rules for manuscript presentation. 2 pts |
5 pts
threshold: 1 pts
|
Does Not Meet Expectations 0 pts |
—
Total Points: 100
