litreture review of 1200 words and the instructions has been provided below. how much would it cost ?
Psychology 102/Semester 2, 2018 1 Psychology 102 Literature Review- Marking Criteria Abstract (2 marks) Criteria 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Effectively summarised the literature review (120 words maximum) The topic is clearly introduced. The purpose, underlying theoretical construct and scope of the literature review are clearly presented. The key findings and overall response to the literature review question (conclusion) are clear and concise. No new material is presented. The topic is clearly introduced. The purpose, underlying theoretical construct and scope of the literature review are present. The key findings and overall response to the literature review question (conclusion) are clear and concise. No new material is presented. The topic can be identified. The purpose, underlying construct and scope of the literature review are included but not clearly. Key findings and the overall response to the literature review question (conclusion) are included but may not be clear or accurate. No new material is presented. The abstract goes over the word length AND/OR the topic, conclusion is unclear. New material may be presented. No abstract is presented Content (25 marks) Criteria Answered all parts of the question (1 mark) 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 All aspects of the question were addressed, thoroughly analysed and discussed. Focus was on the argument, with no deviation from the question. All aspects of the question were addressed, thoroughly analysed and discussed. Focus was on the argument, with almost no deviation from the question. Most aspects of the question were addressed, adequately analysed and discussed but with slight deviation from the literature review. Not all parts of the question are addressed. Failed to answer/analyse some aspects of the literature review question, AND/OR had major deviations from the literature review question/topic. Failed to understand the literature review topic and deviated from the question asked Covered relevant psychological theories (4 marks) 4 3 2 1 0 Literature review draws on the relevant psychological theories for the topic. Demonstrated accurate and sound understanding of the theory Literature review draws on the relevant psychological theories for the topic. Demonstrated appropriate understanding of the theory Literature review draws on the relevant psychological theories for the topic although understanding of the theory is patchy. Literature review draws mostly on the relevant psychological theories for the topic. But demonstrated poor understanding of the theories. Literature review makes no or very few references to the relevant psychological theories. Poor understanding of theories. 5 3.75 2.5 1.25 0 Psychology 102/Semester 2, 2018 2 Linked theory and research to the topic (5 marks) Both theory and research are integrated in a clear and accurate manner in the literature review to support the argument being made. Both theory and research are integrated in the literature review in an adequate manner to support the argument being made. Attempt to integrate both research and theory in the literature review but not in a clear and accurate manner. References to research or theories not thorough. Theories and research not well integrated in the literature review, sparse referencing to the appropriate literature and research findings. Theories and research are not integrated. Argument may be absent. Provided comprehensive coverage of relevant research evidence supporting or contradicting the argument (5 marks) Exceptional understanding of the topic. Concise, clear and well-articulated argument that has comprehensively included relevant evidence to support or contradict the argument. Support is sound, valid and specific. Clear understanding of the topic is demonstrated. Relevant evidence for and against the assigned question is demonstrated. Support is valid and logical. Adequate understanding of the topic and an attempt to consider both sides of the argument, has been demonstrated. Little understanding of the topic has been demonstrated. May have failed to consider evidence both for and against the assigned question. Poor understanding of the topic and/or theoretical framework. Clear absence of support for main ideas. There is no discernible argument. Arguments made are supported by relevant, appropriate research evidence (5 marks) 5 3.75 2.5 1.25 0 Theoretical and research claims are well supported by in-text citations. A wide range of appropriate and relevant peer-reviewed sources were included. Inclusion of non-recent literature pertains to seminal article. Demonstrated extensive reading with an appropriate level of detail on key aspects of theory/research throughout the entire literature review Theoretical and research claims are supported by in- text citations. A good range of appropriate and relevant peer-reviewed sources were included. Inclusion of non- recent literature pertains mainly to seminal article. Demonstrated reading with an appropriate level of detail on key aspects of theory/research throughout most of the literature review Theoretical and research claims are generally supported by in-text citations. A limited number of sources, but some may not be as well matched to the literature review question. A satisfactory level of detail was included. Concern regarding some absent citations for included claims AND/OR a reliance inappropriate, non-specific and/or irrelevant sources (e.g. internet). Serious lack of in-text citations to support claims in the literature review AND/OR heavy reliance on inappropriate sources. Failed to identified the relevant research evidence for the question asked. Provided critical evaluation of theories and research evidence (5 marks) 5 3.75 2.5 1.25 0 Sound critical thought and analysis is demonstrated throughout the literature review. An exceptional understanding and mastery of included research. Sound critical thought and analysis is demonstrated through the literature review. Attempts at critical analysis is demonstrated but not in a clear manner. Tend to be descriptive. Missed opportunities for critical analysis. Mainly descriptive. No attempt at engaging with the literature and therefore no critical evaluation demonstrated. Psychology 102/Semester 2, 2018 3 Structure (5 marks) Criteria 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 An appropriate introduction outlining topic and significance (2 marks) Introduction well written. Clearly telling the reader what the general background to the topic is and what the central thesis (argument) of the literature review is, and how it will be presented and discussed in main body of the literature review Introduction appropriately written. Core component present: Tells the reader what the general background to the topic is and what the central thesis (argument) of the literature review is, and how it will be presented and discussed in main body of the literature review The literature review offers an introduction but fails to do one of the following: * Outline the significance of the topic/issues to be discussed * Outline the purpose of the literature review * Outline the main points to be discussed within the body of the literature review More than 1 of the core components are missing or are very unclear. Major revisions are required. The introduction is missing or indiscernible as the core components cannot be identified. Clear and logical progression of ideas (2 marks) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 All ideas are presented in a sequential and logical manner. Excellent flow of argument which makes the literature review easy to read and understand the argument All ideas are presented in a sequential and logical manner. Very good flow of argument which makes the literature review easy to read and understand the argument Most ideas are presented in a sequential and logical manner. Adequate flow of argument but could be better presented to ease reading for understanding. Ideas are poorly presented in a sequential and logical manner. The lack of flow of arguments makes the literature review difficult to read and understand. No logical presentation of material. Paragraphs are poorly structure, loosely connected and have no central argument to each paragraph. Difficult to make sense of the essay. Major re- structuring is needed Essay had a sound and concise conclusion (1 marks) 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 The conclusion was clear, concise, coherent, and presented: * A summation of research and theoretical evidence * A return to the main argument of the literature review * A clear statement responding to the literature review question The conclusion was mostly clear and coherent: * Summation of research and theoretical evidence * A return to the main argument of the literature review * A clear statement responding to the literature review question The conclusion was satisfactory but failed to provide one of the following: * Summation of research and theoretical evidence * A return to the main argument of the literature review * A clear statement responding to the literature review question More than one of the following is not discernible from the conclusion: * Summation of research and theoretical evidence * A return to the main argument of the literature review * A clear statement responding to the literature review question