Term 1 (Week 1 - 15) - ILP 1

Term 1 (Week 1 - 15) - ILP 1

Term 1 (Week 1 - 15) - ILP 1

At the end of week 8, students must submit a literature review that presents a scholarly account of the literature relevant to their area of study. The review will be assessed by the supervisor; a copy of the review must be submitted to the portfolio system and may be viewed by the ILP committee.

In the week following submission of the literature review, supervisors will receive an email detailing how and where to submit their assessment. The online reporting system will allow for separate grading of the literature review and the student’s progress. Space will be provided for the supervisor to add comments or flag concerns relating to the student’s progress.

Literature Review

The production of the literature review is expected to reflect the culmination of a collaborative process, of review and editing, in which both the student and the supervisor are satisfied that the end product is a scholarly account that accurately reflects the current standing of knowledge in the area of research. At the time of submitting the literature review the supervisor will be required to warrant, not only that the literature review been completed to their satisfaction, but that the student has made timely and appropriate progress in all aspects of their ILP project.

In order to achieve a satisfactory grade in the literature review, the student must demonstrate an active and timely engagement in the preparation, editing and review of the literature review. Students should note that the preparation of a literature review often involves several revisions of their original draft. Therefore, it is important that writing of the review is commenced in a timely manner and feedback from peers is sought – during the ILP this is most likely to be your supervisor and/or co-supervisor. Late submissions will be referred to the ILP committee for further consideration. The literature review should display the following attributes:

  • Appropriate background information provided
  • Covers the main issues in sufficient detail
  • Identifies the areas of controversy and assesses them critically.
  • Has clear and logical flow.
  • Citation style appropriate and consistent.
  • Citation list free of careless errors.


Format of Literature Review

  • Provide a title page with the student’s name, student number, and title of project.
  • Required length is between 2000 and 3000 words not including tables, figures or references.
  • References: all non-original ideas must be given due acknowledgement and referenced fully, use first author and date in text (e.g. Bargebottom et al., 2008), provide list of references in alphabetical order
  • In addition to the review of the literature, students will provide the following three sections (these sections are in addition to the 3000 word limit of the review)
  1. An outline of the main questions to be answered
  2. Hypotheses (if appropriate, and/or aims (up to 1 page)
  3. Brief outline of study design and methods (up to 1 page)
  • It should be written in Times New Roman font, 12 pt.
  • All margins are to be 2 cm.


Assessment of Literature Review

The following are features upon which a student’s performance should be assessed. Use the attributes listed below each component as a guide for determining each grade. These grades are for feedback purposes only.

50.0 - 64: pass only
65 - 74: credit
75 - 84: distinction
85 - 100: high distinction


A. Introduction
i. Appropriate scientific information provided (i.e. relevant to the project's topic).
ii. Covers the main issues in sufficient detail (i.e. sufficient information provided).
iii. Identifies the limitations of the literature to date.
iv. Identifies the areas of controversy and assesses them critically.
v. Has clear and logical flow.
Grade: F / P / CR / D / HD


B. Aims, Hypotheses and Methods Statement
i. Aims clearly relate to the areas of controversy outlined in the Introduction.
ii. Hypotheses or a research question stated are clear and valid.
iii. Methods are summarised clearly and concisely.
iv. Methods are appropriate and valid for the stated aims.
Grade: F / P / CR / D / HD


C. References
i. Adequately referenced with recent and appropriate studies.
ii. Citation style appropriate and consistent.
iii. Citation list free of careless errors.
Grade: F / P / CR / D / HD


D. Overall Grade
Award a mark out of 100 for the Literature Review using the grading criteria above. Please submit it into eMed.
Overall Grade: __________ Marks out of 100


Further Comments
Please provide comments regarding the literature review which can be of assistance to the student in her/his writing of the project report.


ILP1 Progress Report

Supervisors will be asked to grade the student’s performance during ILP1 by awarding a mark out of 100 (that will contribute 10% of the students overall ILP mark). In addition to awarding a mark, supervisors are asked to make comments and provide feedback.

Supervisors may comment on such topics as the student participation in the collegial activities of the Research Group/Department/School (if appropriate), attendance, and the ability to meet deadlines. Space will be provided for the supervisor to add comments, or flag concerns relating to the student’s progress; these comments will be released to students. Both students and supervisors are encouraged to discuss all concerns as they arise. Where concerns arise that cannot be resolved between the student and supervisor, or where either party wishes additional advice, both parties are encouraged to contact the ILP coordinator as-soon-as-possible.

In all cases the initial approach is confidential and need go no further. However, where the ILP coordinator feels further action is warranted the ILP coordinator may approach the supervisor, student or seek guidance from the ILP committee and/or UNSW bodies. All concerns will be dealt with in accordance with the UNSW policy on grievance resolution procedure for undergraduate and postgraduate (coursework) students.

Grading Criteria for the ILP1 Progress Report

Supervisors should award marks within the following bands, when a student’s performance is best characterised by the following descriptors.

Fail (< 50%):
The student has:

  • not engaged with the project or applied themselves for the required time period of the ILP
  • not met deadlines in a timely manner,
  • shown little or no understanding of the project

Pass (50-65%):
The student has:

  • demonstrated a relatively superficial or limited understanding of the core aspects of the topic,
  • usually met deadlines,
  • engaged with the project in an adequate but superficial manner,
  • displayed some ability to communicate aspects of the study,
  • one or two aspects may not be well done but the overall result is still satisfactory.

Credit (65-74%):
In addition to meeting the criteria for a pass grade, the student has:

  • applied themselves diligently to the project and was successful in completing the tasks set,
  • shown evidence of critical analysis,
  • met all deadlines in a timely manner,
  • communicated clearly and effectively.

Distinction (75- 84%):

  • The student has performed well in all areas of the project. This level of performance involves all of the characteristics of a credit performance but also:
  • a degree of originality, creativity, or depth of thought and understanding,
  • can answer questions regarding the project intelligently and with insight.

High Distinction (85-100%):
The student performance has matched that required for a distinction AND has shown exceptional initiative and an in-depth and sophisticated understanding of the project.

Back to Top