1 Assessment Criteria Fail less than 50 Pass 50-64 Credit 65-74 Distinction 75-84 High Distinction 85 plus Introduction and Abstract 15% Abstract (5%) No abstract is presented. The abstract goes over...

I have to write 1500 wordliterature review on renewable energy. I should have 6 references or more.


1 Assessment Criteria Fail less than 50 Pass 50-64 Credit 65-74 Distinction 75-84 High Distinction 85 plus Introduction and Abstract 15% Abstract (5%) No abstract is presented. The abstract goes over the word length AND/OR the topic, conclusion is unclear. New material may be presented. The topic can be identified. The purpose, underlying construct and scope of the literature review are included, but could be improved. 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. Introduction evident and clear. Research problem and aim of the literature review were very clear. Research question(s) or insight(s) posed. Comprehensive explanation of the methodology and data sources used in the literature review. The topic is clearly introduced. The purpose, underlying theoretical construct and scope of the literature review are clear. The key findings and overall response to the literature review question (conclusion) are clear and concise. No new material is presented. Introduction (10%) Poor or no introduction. Little or no effort to clarify the research problem and aim of the literature review. Little or no explanation of the methodology and data sources used in the literature review. Introduction evident but lacked clarity. Research problem and the aim of the literature review evident but lacked clarity. Some explanation of the methodology and data sources used in the literature review. Introduction evident and clear. Research problem and aim of the literature review were clear. Solid explanation of the methodology and data sources used in the literature review. Have outlined the significance of the topic/issues to be discussed. Introduction evident and clear. Research problem and aim of the literature review were very clear. Research question(s) or insight(s) posed. Comprehensive explanation of the methodology and data sources used in the literature review. General background or significance of the topic was clearly established. Introduction evident and clear. Research problem and aim of the literature review were clearly explained and supported. Innovative research question(s) or insight(s) posed. Outstanding explanation of the methodology and data sources used in the literature review. Definitions and/or key words were clarified. General background/significance of the topic was clearly established. 2 Discussion, critical analysis and evaluation of the literature (55%) Claims made are supported by relevant, current and appropriately detailed research evidence. (15%) Discussion of literature was lacking and/or inappropriate. Relevance of literature to the research problem was unclear. Discussion of literature was adequate. Relevance of the literature to the research problem could have been clearer. Discussion of literature was good. Relevance of the literature to the research problem was clear. Discussion of literature was very good. Relevance of the literature to the research problem was very clear. Discussion of literature was superior. Relevance of the literature to the research problem was very clear. Provided critical evaluation of included theories and research evidence supporting or contradicting the argument. (40%) Critical evaluation and analysis of the literature in relation to the research problem was not evident or lacked depth. A poor grasp of the literature was presented. Some critical evaluation and analysis of the literature in relation to the research problem was evident but lacked depth. An adequate grasp of the literature was presented Critical evaluation and analysis of the literature in relation to the research problem was evident and in-depth but could have been more insightful. A good grasp of the literature was presented. Critical evaluation and analysis of the literature in relation to the research problem was in-depth and insightful. A very good grasp of the literature was presented. Critical evaluation and analysis of the literature in relation to the research problem was in-depth and insightful. An outstanding grasp of the literature was presented. 3 Conclusions (15%) Conclusions (15%) No or poorly written conclusion. Lacked relevance. Did not synthesize the review. Did not or did a poor job in presenting the implications of the review. Some conclusions presented but lacked logic and/or insightfulness. Did not synthesize the review. Could have done a better job in presenting the implications of the review. Conclusions were logical and clearly presented. Acted as a synthesis to the review. Adequate implications of the review were presented. Conclusions were logical and thoughtful. Acted as a well thought out synthesis to the review. Insightful implications of the review were presented. Conclusions were logical, thoughtful and insightful. Acted as an outstanding synthesis to the review. Insightful and innovative implications of the review were presented. Presentation, structure, formatting and referencing (15%) Presentation, structure, formatting and referencing (15%) Not well presented. Poor structure. No, or poor, referencing. Numerous inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies evident. Lacked attention to detail and to academic conventions. Reasonably well presented. Structure could have been clearer. Greater attention to detail and to academic conventions required. Referencing was adequate. Some inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies evident. Well presented. Structure was clear. Attention to detail and to academic conventions was clear. Referencing was accurate. Minor inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies evident. Excellent presentation. Structure was very clear. Great attention to detail and to academic conventions was evident. Referencing was comprehensive and very accurate. No inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies evident. Outstanding presentation. Superior structure evident. Superior attention to detail and to academic conventions was evident. Referencing was comprehensive and faultless. No inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies evident. Literature provided was very relevant to the title. 4