Literature Review (Final)
- Due No Due Date
- Points 0
- Submitting an external tool
Literature review
Prepare a 2000-word essay based on one of the topics discussed in class.
Think carefully about the words ‘diaspora’ and ‘migration’ in the context of the historical period you choose to write about. How do these terms apply to the period under investigation? Once you have clearly defined these terms, you should explore the questions of why Chinese migration happened during this period, and how this period differs from other periods up to this point in Chinese diasporic history. Further, you should explore relevant historical events that were occurring contemporaneously with this migration, and how these events impacted migration. Finally, investigate the effects of these events on Chinese diasporic identity formation during this period; i.e. how did Chinese see themselves in relation to the local people they encountered outside of China, and how were they in turn perceived by these people?
|
Literature Review Rubric |
|||||
|
Category/Grade |
High Distinction (80+) |
Distinction (70-79) |
Credit (60-69) |
Pass (50-59) |
Fail (<50) |
|
Marks/5 |
Excellent |
Strong |
Sound |
Satisfactory |
Unsatisfactory |
|
(5 marks) |
(4 marks) |
(3 marks) |
(2.5 marks) |
(1-2 marks) |
|
|
Search & Selection |
Evidence of a broad search and selection of material; Consistent use of databases, experts, handbooks and web resources; Selection of high quality material, like peer-reviewed articles |
Evidence of ability in search and selection of material; Frequent use of databases, experts, handbooks and web resources; Selection of quality material |
Evidence of a basic search of some databases and resources; Some use of databases, experts, handbooks, and web resources; Some use of high- quality materials |
Evidence of a limited search; Limited use of databases, experts, handbooks and web resources; A few well-selected materials, but mostly non-scholarly resources |
No evidence of systematic or sufficient research; No use of databases, experts, handbooks, and web resources; Poor selection of materials |
|
Marks/4 |
Excellent |
Strong |
Sound |
Satisfactory |
Unsatisfactory |
|
(4 marks) |
(3.5 marks) |
( 3 marks) |
(2 marks) |
(0-1 marks) |
|
|
Synthesis |
The research is situated in broader scholarly literature or in a historical context; Effective examination leads to statement of new direction for research; Ambiguities are acknowledged but perhaps only partially resolved |
Demonstrates ability in evaluating historical context, emerging new directions in the literature, critical analysis and review of key terms and ambiguities |
Shows promise in engagement with historical context, emerging new direction in the literature, critical analysis and review of key terms and ambiguities |
Evidences engagement with historical context, analysis and review of key terms and ambiguities |
No historical context given Poor analysis of topic; Key ambiguities and definitions missing |
|
Marks/4 |
Excellent |
Strong |
Sound |
Satisfactory |
Unsatisfactory |
|
(4 marks) |
(3.5 marks) |
( 3 marks) |
(2 marks) |
(0-1 marks) |
|
|
Breadth & Scope |
Explains why specific topics and materials are used; Gives some criteria for inclusion and exclusion of sources |
Demonstrates ability in discussing some of the reasons for included and excluded literature |
Shows promise in discussing some of the reasons for included and excluded literature |
Evidences discussion of the reasons for included and excluded literature |
Does not discuss the criteria for inclusion or exclusion |
|
Marks/4 |
Excellent |
Strong |
Sound |
Satisfactory |
Unsatisfactory |
|
(4 marks) |
(3.5 marks) |
( 3 marks) |
(2 marks) |
(0-1 marks) |
|
|
Justification/ Significance |
Both the practical and scholarly significance of prior research are reviewed and critiqued |
Both the practical and scholarly significance of prior research are reviewed |
Some of the practical and scholarly significance of prior research are reviewed |
Either practical or scholarly significance are reviewed, but not both |
No comments made about the practical or scholarly significance of prior research |
|
Marks/3 |
Excellent |
Strong |
Sound |
Satisfactory |
Unsatisfactory |
|
(3 marks) |
(2.5 marks) |
( 2 marks) |
(1.5 marks) |
(0-1 marks) |
|
|
Uses APA conventions for headings and referencing (both in-text and for the final page) |
Uses correct APA headings and referencing (in-text & final page) 80% or more of the time |
Uses correct APA headings and referencing (in-text & final page) 70-79% of the time |
Uses correct APA headings and referencing (in-text & final page) 60-69% of the time |
Uses correct APA headings and referencing (in-text & final page) 50-59% of the time |
Uses correct APA headings and referencing (in-text & final page) less than 50% of the time |
*Adapted from a rubric developed by faculty at Andrews University resources – www.andrews.edu, which was in turn adapted from Boote, D.N. & P. Belle. 2005. Scholars before Researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher. 24:6. 3-15.
Find Rubric
