LLH305: Literature Review and Research Paper-QUT LAW

Assessment Task Sheet 2017
LLH305: Literature Review (10%) and Research
Paper (40%)
Tasks Task 1 Literature Review
Due Date – Thursday 17 Sunday 20 August 11.59pm (week 4) *Note
extension to original due date.
Task 2 Research Paper
Due Date – Thursday 14 Sunday 17 September 11.59pm (week 8) *Note
extension to original due date.
Course and
Unit Learning
Outcomes
Addressed
Upon completion of the Literature Review (Task 1) and the Research
Paper (Task 2) you should be able to:
1. construct arguments, synthesising the law and policy, to critically
analyse complex corporate problems and communicate arguments
and reasoning appropriately;
2. interpret and explain relevant provisions of corporate legislation and
demonstrate an awareness of the various contexts in which the law
operates; and
3. research a complex corporate law problem or issue by selecting the
appropriate methodology and using a range of legal resources to
complete a research project within a set time frame.
Specifications Task 1 Literature Review: maximum 1000 words excluding footnotes and
your attached bibliography, 12 point font size Times New Roman or Arial,
1.5 line spacing, page margins at a minimum of 2.5 cm (left, right, top
and bottom), and you must upload your Literature Review as a pdf
document.
Task 2 Research Paper: maximum 2500 words excluding footnotes
and your attached bibliography, 12 point font size Times New Roman or
Arial, 1.5 line spacing, page margins at a minimum of 2.5 cm (left,
right, top and bottom), and you must upload your Research Paper as
a pdf document.
Overview
CRICOS No. 00213J
You are required to:
Task 1: Prepare a Literature Review that synthesises and critically evaluates the
relevant materials (literature, case law, and legislation) that you have located through your
research of the Research Paper topic (provided within this document). Within this Literature
Review you must also articulate the central argument that you have chosen to make in your
Research Paper. Your Literature Review must be accompanied by a bibliography, but the
bibliography is not included in the 1000 word limit.
Task 2: Research and prepare a written Research Paper that critically analyses the
research topic. Critical analysis of course requires you to take a position (that is
formulate a central argument), and develop that argument throughout your paper by
critically analysing existing literature, case law and legislation. You must attach a
bibliography but it is not be included in the 2500 word limit.
What you will do
TASK 1: LITERATURE REVIEW (10%)
Due Date – Thursday 17 Sunday 20 August 11.59pm (week 4) *note extended due date.
Relates to learning outcome 3 as specified in the unit outline
In this task you are required to:
Synthesise and critically evaluate the relevant materials (literature, case law, and legislation)
that you have located through your research of the Research Paper topic (provided below).
Articulate the central argument that you have chosen to make in your Research Paper. We
recommend that you do this within one concise paragraph.
Literature Reviews can be formulated in different ways. We do not want you to simply produce
a descriptive summary of the materials that you have located through your research. You are
required to “synthesize” and “critically evaluate” the materials. This exercise will assist you to
decide what your central argument will be because you will have an understanding of not only
what the literature says, but you will also develop an appreciation of, and opinion about, the
strengths and weaknesses of the law and different viewpoints on the topic.
Your Literature Review is due in week 4 so that we can provide you with general feedback to
assist your continued work on your Research Paper. We expect you to reflect upon this
feedback as you complete the final stages of your Research Paper’s formulation.
TASK 2: RESEARCH PAPER (Worth 40%)
CRICOS No. 00213J
Due Date – Thursday 14 Sunday 17 September 11.59pm (week 8) *note extended due date.
Relates to learning outcomes 1-3 as specified in the unit outline
Topic:
Proprietary companies are typically small, closely held and restricted to no more than 50 nonemployee
shareholders. Should proprietary companies in Australia be allowed to raise capital
via crowd-sourced equity funding? Discuss and critically evaluate recent and proposed
amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to this end.
Your answer should refer to a range of scholarly legal materials. To the extent that you
determine that they are relevant to your answer, this may include journal articles, books,
legislative materials and case law.
What you will submit
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
You must submit your Literature Review (in week 4) and Research Paper (in week 8) to the
FINAL submission link provided for each item of assessment located under the “assessment”
link on the unit’s Blackboard site.
Ensure that you familiarise yourself with the CRA (the criteria upon which you will be marked)
for each task. These CRA are contained within this document. You are not required to attach
a copy of the CRA to your submissions.
LLH305: Literature Review – Criteria and Standards for Grading
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Synthesis and critical
evaluation
(How well you have read,
analysed and understood the
connection between the
identified sources and your
central thesis or argument).
7%
Thorough, concise and
appropriate identification and
coverage of a variety of high
quality and relevant sources
Summarises and shows
insightful synthesis of the
sources, including analysis of
gaps, limitations and
inconsistencies in the research
using higher-level thinking,
analysis and critique moving
beyond description of the issues
involved
Comprehensive and nuanced
critical evaluation of the literature
and the connections and
underlying themes apparent in
the sources
Clear and concise identification
of the major and minor
objectives of the research.
Thorough and appropriate (but
not always concise) identification
and coverage of a number of
quality and relevant sources
Summarises and shows
synthesis of the sources,
including analysis of gaps,
limitations and inconsistencies in
the research using higher level
thinking, analysis and critique
moving beyond description of
the issues involved
Comprehensive critical
evaluation of the literature and
the connections and underlying
themes apparent in the sources
Clear identification of the major
and minor objectives of the
research.
Appropriate identification and
coverage of a number of
relevant sources
Summarises the overall picture
obtained from the literature and
synthesises the knowledge
gained using a coherent and
logical structure but may fail to
identify consistencies and/or
inconsistencies between sources
and/or may not move beyond
description of the issues
involved
Critical evaluation of the majority
of the literature and the
connections and underlying
themes apparent in the sources
Identification of the main
objective and some minor
objectives of the research.
Satisfactory identification and
coverage of a number of sources
but also refers to a number of
irrelevant sources.
Summarises the overall picture
obtained from the literature and
synthesises the knowledge
gained but aspects become
confused or undeveloped and
does not move beyond
description of the issues
involved
Some critical evaluation of the
literature but demonstrates a
limited understanding of the
interactions and underlying
themes apparent in the sources
Some confusion about the main
objective of the research
Inadequate identification and
coverage of sources and/or
focus on largely irrelevant or low
quality sources
Lacks summary or any synthesis
of the information, leaving each
source as a stand alone piece
and/or may misinterpret the
information and make
statements unsupported by the
literature. Lacks a logical and
coherent framework or the
subject is confused or
undeveloped. No higher-level
thinking, analysis and/or critique
No critical evaluation of the
literature and no understanding
of the interactions and
underlying themes apparent in
the sources
Unable to identify the main
objective of the research.
Articulation of central
thesis/argument
(How clearly you have
articulated your central
thesis/argument and complied
Clear and concise statement of
central thesis or argument
Referencing and bibliographic
details are correct and comply
with AGLC
Clear statement of central thesis
or argument
Almost all referencing and
bibliographic details are correct
and comply with AGLC
Central thesis or argument is
stated
Most referencing and
bibliographic details are correct
and comply with AGLC
Central thesis or argument is
stated but may be stated in a
confused or illogical manner
Referencing and bibliographic
details attempt to comply with
AGLC
No statement of central thesis or
argument
Referencing and bibliographic
details are mostly incorrect or
lack appropriate
with AGLC referencing
requirements).
3%
acknowledgement of others’
ideas
LLH305: Research Paper – Criteria and Standards for Grading
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Sequencing, Structure,
Cohesion and Cogency of
Argument
10%
• An introduction insightfully
articulates key issues and
provides context for both
content and conclusion
• Paragraphs and sentences
are well structured and
logically linked.
• Substantive law and legal
argument are well delineated
with highly appropriate
headings contributing to the
logical flow of the paper
• Arguments are logically and
cogently developed
throughout
• Arguments are strongly
supported by appropriate
evidence
• Conclusions make
connections and observations
that flow from the total
analysis and emphasise the
theme/thread of critical
analysis
• An introduction identifies key
issues and provides context
for both content and
conclusion
• Paragraphs and sentences
are mostly well structured and
logically linked
• Substantive law and legal
argument are clearly
delineated with headings
useful to the reader
• Arguments are logically
developed throughout
• Arguments are supported by
appropriate evidence
• Conclusions are drawn on all
issues
• Attempt is made to make
connections and observations
flowing from the total analysis
and these often emphasize
the theme/thread of critical
analysis
• The introduction summarises
for the reader the approach
adopted to the assignment
topic
• Paragraphs and sentences
are generally well structured
and logically linked
• Substantive law and legal
argument are usually well
delineated with appropriate
headings
• Arguments are developed
throughout, with some gaps in
logic
• Most, but not all, arguments
are supported by appropriate
evidence
• The paper draws conclusions
on some issues
• Some attempt is made to
make connections and
observations flowing from the
total analysis
• The paper includes an
introduction and conclusion
• The structure of paragraphs
and sentences, and the
linkages between them, are
satisfactory.
• Some attempt to provide a
sequential structure, though
arguments are not well
integrated.
• Arguments are laboured or
reflect logical gaps in
reasoning
• Some, but not all, arguments
are supported by appropriate
evidence
• Paper lacks a clear structure
• Paragraphs and sentences
are poorly structured.
• Sequencing hampers
understanding
• Arguments are poorly adapted
to the specifics of the question
• Insufficient evidence to
support arguments
• Conclusions are not drawn –
or, if they are, evidence logical
gaps in reasoning
Formal Legal Writing Skills
and Style
10%
• Clearly written in appropriate
language with a professional
tone, adopting gender
inclusive language and plain
English
• Thoroughly proofread to
ensuring that there are no
errors
• Correct spelling, grammar,
punctuation and capitalisation
In almost all respects the paper:
• is clearly written in
appropriate language with a
professional tone, adopting
gender inclusive language
and plain English
• has been proofread
thoroughly
• uses correct spelling,
grammar, punctuation and
capitalisation.
Errors are rare, minor and could
be unnoticed by the reader
• Clearly written in appropriate
language adopting a
professional tone
• Spelling, grammar and use of
language is generally correct
• Evidence of proofreading but
this has not been undertaken
thoroughly
• While there may be a few
errors these do not distort or
undermine intended meaning
• The paper is mostly written in
appropriate language with a
professional tone
• Spelling, grammar and
language are generally
correct, with some errors,
those these are not extensive
• Some evidence of
proofreading but this has not
been undertaken thoroughly
• Errors may occasionally
distort or undermine intended
meaning
• Contains numerous examples
of poor spelling, grammar or
language
• Writing is not clear, or
expressed in plain English, or
does not adopt a professional
tone
• Evidence of proofreading
lacking
• Errors distort or undermine
intended meaning
• Extensive acknowledgement • Significant acknowledgement • Acknowledgement of • Significant reliance on others’ • Rehearses others’ arguments
Critical Analysis
40%
and reconciliation of
competing or conflicting
arguments
• Clearly articulates basis for
choosing between them
• Strong evidence of
independent thought
• Thoughtful analysis of broader
social/political/economic
implications of issues
of competing or conflicting
arguments
• Articulates basis for choosing
between them
• Acknowledgement of broader
social/political/economic
implications of issues
competing or conflicting
arguments
• Some articulation of basis for
choosing between them
• Some acknowledgement of
broader
social/political/economic
implications of issues
arguments or ideas
• Satisfactory attempt to
contextualise issues
• Difficulty in reconciling
competing arguments or
articulating the basis for
choosing between them
or ideas
• Awareness of broader
consequences/context is
incomplete or simplistic
• Significant difficulty in
recognising or reconciling
possible alternatives
Research & Citation
40%
• Evidence of extensive
independent research
• Sources relied upon are
persuasive and reputable
• Key issues and legal
authorities are identified
• Referencing is correct and
complies with AGLC
• Evidence of significant
independent research
• Sources relied upon are
almost all persuasive and
reputable
• Almost all key issues and
legal authorities are identified
• Almost all referencing is
correct and complies with
AGLC
• Evidence of independent
research
• Sources relied upon are
mostly persuasive and
reputable
• Most key issues and legal
authorities are identified
• Most referencing is correct
and complies with AGLC
• Evidence of some
independent research
• Some sources relied upon are
persuasive and reputable
• Some key issues and legal
authorities are omitted
• Referencing attempts to
comply with AGLC
• Limited evidence of
independent research
• Reliance on sources of
dubious quality
• Many key issues and legal
authorities are omitted
• Referencing is mostly
incorrect or lacks appropriate
acknowledgement of others’
ideas