PRJ5106 Research Methodology and Data Analysis T1 Assignment Help

Assessment Overview

Assessment Task

Type

Weight

Length

Due

ULOs

Assessed

Assessment 1: Research Plan &  Literature Review

Part (A): Research Plan

Students are required to identify an  individual research area and discuss it  with their lecturer/supervisor and write a  research plan with a timeframe.

Part (B): LiteratureReview

Individual literature review, identify  gaps and propose research questions  and objectives.

Part(A)

Individual

Part (B)

Individual

Part (A)

15%

Part (B)

25%

Part (A)

600

words

Part (B)

1500

words

Part (A)

Week4

Part (B)

Week 7

Part (A)

ULO1

ULO4

Part (B)

ULO1

ULO2

ULO3

Assessment 2: Research Design

Students are required to Identify  appropriate research methods to  achieve research objectives.

Individual

20%

1000

words

Week10

ULO2

ULO3

Assessment 3: Research

Proposal Presentation

Students are required present their  research proposal orally. This is an  invigilated assessment and need to  be conducted face-to-face in class.

Individual

&

Invigilated

15%

10

minute

s

present

ation

(equiv.

1000

words)

Week12

ULO1

ULO2

ULO3

ULO4

Assessment 4: Research

Proposal:

Students are required to develop  and write research proposal.

Individual

25%

3000

words

Week 12

ULO1

ULO2

ULO3

ULO4

 

Assessment 1 (A): Research Plan

Due date:

Week 4

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

600 words

Weighting:

15%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO1, ULO4

 

Assessment 1 Detail

Students need to identify an individual research area and discuss it with their lecturer/supervisor  and write a research plan with a timeframe. Provide references to at least three research studies,  government reports and/or industry reports, using Harvard Referencing. Please note, websites are  not acceptable resources for the purpose of the assignment.

Note: You are allowed to employ ChatGPT or other AI tools for study purposes, gaining knowledge  about your topic, and aiding in the development of your assignment. However, it is crucial that you  include a transparent declaration of all generative AI tools utilised along with a description of how

and where you have utilised them (for example, “I acknowledge the use of ChatGPT to create content  to plan and brainstorm ideas for my assessment. The prompts used were entered on 18 March,  2023.”). Details on generative AI can be found from Academic Integrity Module in the page titled  Generative AI: Guidelines for Students.

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 15% of the total unit mark. The  marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 1(A) Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria

Not Satisfactory

(0-49% of the

criterion mark)

Satisfactory

(50-64% of the

criterion mark)

Good

(65-74% of the

criterion mark)

Very Good

(75-84% of the

criterion mark)

Excellent

(85-100% of the

criterion mark)

Overview and

justification of the  research plan.

(20 marks)

The overview and

justification of the  research plan is

assessed as not

satisfactory.

The overview and

justification of the  research plan is

assessed as

satisfactory.

The overview and

justification of the  research plan is

assessed as good.

The overview and

justification of the  research plan is

assessed as very

good.

The overview and

justification of the  research plan is

assessed as excellent.

Condensed

introductory

literature review of  the research plan.

(20 marks)

The condensed

introductory

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as not

satisfactory.

The condensed

introductory

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as

satisfactory.

The condensed

introductory

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as good.

The condensed

introductory

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as very

good.

The condensed

introductory

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as excellent.

Proposed

methodology of the  research plan.

(20 marks)

The condensed

introductory

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as not

satisfactory.

The proposed

methodology of the  research plan is

assessed as

satisfactory.

The proposed

methodology of the  research plan is

assessed as good.

The proposed

methodology of the  research plan is

assessed as very

good.

The proposed

methodology of the  research plan is

assessed as excellent.

Conclusion of the

research plan

explaining the

expected outcomes.  (20 marks)

The conclusion of the  research plan

explaining the

expected outcomes is  assessed as not

satisfactory.

The conclusion of the  research plan

explaining the

expected outcomes is  assessed as

satisfactory.

The conclusion of the  research plan

explaining the

expected outcomes is  assessed as good.

The conclusion of the  research plan

explaining the

expected outcomes is  assessed as very

good.

The conclusion of the  research plan

explaining the

expected outcomes is  assessed as excellent.

 

Academic writing

style

(20 marks)

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,  and referencing is

assessed as not

satisfactory.

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,  and referencing is

assessed as

satisfactory.

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,  and referencing is

assessed as good.

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,  and referencing is

assessed as very

good.

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,  and referencing is

assessed as excellent.

 

Assessment 1(B): Literature Review

Due date:

Week 7

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

1,500 words

Weighting:

25%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3

 

Assessment 1(B) Detail

Conduct a critical review of the literature for a topic/area of interest, identify knowledge gaps and  define an appropriate research question and objectives. Include a minimum of fifteen references  from research studies, government reports, and/or industry reports, using Harvard Referencing.  Please note, websites are not acceptable resources for the purpose of the assignment. Further,  references are not included in the total word count.

Note: While ChatGPT or other AI tools are permissible for study purposes and to enhance your  understanding of the subject, it is important to note that no AI-generated materials, including copied  and edited text, are allowed in the final submission. Details on generative AI can be found from  Academic Integrity Module in the page titled Generative AI: Guidelines for Students.

Assessments 1(B) Marking Criteria and Rubric

The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 25% of the total unit mark. The  marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 1(B) Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria

Not Satisfactory

(0-49% of the

criterion mark)

Satisfactory

(50-64% of the

criterion mark)

Good

(65-74% of the

criterion mark)

Very Good

(75-84% of the

criterion mark)

Excellent

(85-100% of the

criterion mark)

Critical review of the  literature on the

research topic.

(20 marks)

The critical review of  the literature on the  research topic is

assessed as not

satisfactory.

The critical review of  the literature on the  research topic is

assessed as

satisfactory.

The critical review of  the literature on the  research topic is

assessed as good.

The critical review of  the literature on the  research topic is

assessed as very

good.

The critical review of  the literature on the  research topic is

assessed as

excellent.

Identifying the

knowledge gap in  the literature review  on the research

topic.

(20 marks)

The knowledge gap  identified in the

literature review is  assessed as not

satisfactory.

The knowledge gap

identified in the

literature review is

assessed as

satisfactory.

The knowledge gap  identified in the

literature review is  assessed as good.

The knowledge gap  identified in the

literature review is  rated as highly

significant.

The knowledge gap  identified in the

literature review is  assessed as

excellent.

Defining appropriate  research questions  and objectives.

(20 marks)

The appropriateness  of the research

questions and

objectives is

assessed as not

satisfactory.

The appropriateness of  the research questions  and objectives is

assessed as

satisfactory.

The appropriateness  of the research

questions and

objectives is

assessed as good.

The appropriateness  of the research

questions and

objectives is

assessed as very

good.

The appropriateness  of the research

questions and

objectives is

assessed as

excellent.

Conclusion on the  literature review.  (20 marks)

The conclusion on  the literature review  is assessed as not

satisfactory.

The conclusion on the  literature review is

assessed as

satisfactory.

The conclusion on  the literature review  is assessed as good.

The conclusion on  the literature review  is assessed as very  good.

The conclusion on  the literature review  is assessed as

excellent.

 

Academic writing  style

(20 marks)

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,  and referencing is  assessed as not

satisfactory.

Academic writing style  including the sentence  structure, grammar,  spelling, and

referencing is assessed  as satisfactory.

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,  and referencing is  assessed as good.

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,  and referencing is  assessed as very

good.

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,  and referencing is  assessed as

excellent.

 

Assessment 2: Research Design

Due date:

Week 10

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

1,000 words

Weighting:

20%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO2, ULO3

 

Assessment 2 Detail

Students need to identify an appropriate research design and methods to achieve the research  objectives. Provide adequate references to research studies which used or discussed the proposed  research design, using Harvard Referencing. Please note, websites are not acceptable resources for  the purpose of the assignment.

Assessments 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark. The  marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria

Not Satisfactory

(0-49% of the

criterion mark)

Satisfactory

(50-64% of the

criterion mark)

Good

(65-74% of the

criterion mark)

Very Good

(75-84% of the

criterion mark)

Excellent

(85-100% of the

criterion mark)

Justification of the  proposed research  design and methods. (20 marks)

The justification of  the proposed

research design and  methods is assessed  as not satisfactory.

The justification of the  proposed research

design and methods is  assessed as

satisfactory.

The justification of  the proposed

research design and  methods is assessed  as good.

The justification of  the proposed

research design and  methods is assessed  as very good.

The justification of  the proposed

research design and  methods is assessed  as excellent.

Description on

proposed data

collection tools and  methods.

(20 marks)

The description on  proposed data

collection tools and  methods is assessed  as not satisfactory.

The description on

proposed data

collection tools and

methods is assessed as  satisfactory.

The description on  proposed data

collection tools and  methods is assessed  as good.

The description on  proposed data

collection tools and  methods is assessed  as very good.

The description on  proposed data

collection tools and  methods is assessed  as excellent.

Description on

proposed data

analysis techniques. (20 marks)

The description on  proposed data

analysis techniques is  assessed as not

satisfactory.

The description on

proposed data analysis  techniques is assessed  as satisfactory.

The description on  proposed data

analysis techniques is  assessed as good.

The description on  proposed data

analysis techniques is  assessed as very

good.

The description on  proposed data

analysis techniques is  assessed as

excellent.

Conclusion on the  proposed data

collection and

analysis.

(20 marks)

The conclusion on  the proposed data  collection and

analysis is assessed  as not satisfactory.

The conclusion on the  proposed data

collection and analysis  is assessed as

satisfactory.

The conclusion on  the proposed data  collection and

analysis is assessed  as good.

The conclusion on  the proposed data  collection and

analysis is assessed  as very good.

The conclusion on  the proposed data  collection and

analysis is assessed  as excellent.

Academic writing  style

(20 marks)

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,

Academic writing style  including the sentence  structure, grammar,  spelling, and

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,

Academic writing

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling,

and referencing is  assessed as not

satisfactory.

referencing is assessed  as satisfactory.

and referencing is  assessed as good.

and referencing is  assessed as very

good.

and referencing is  assessed as

excellent.

 

Assessment 3: Research Proposal Presentation

Due date:

Week 12

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

1,000 words (equivalent)

Weighting:

15%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

 

Assessment 3 Detail

This assessment requires student to orally present the summary of their Assessment 4 (Research  Proposal). A typical presentation should include:

1. Proposed research title: What is the title of your research?

2. Background and Justification: What is this research aiming to achieve, why this research is  important and what motivates this research?

3. Research questions & objectives: Specific Research question(s) and research objectives  4. Methodology & Methods: What methodology and methods will be used to address the  research question & why the proposed methodology is suitable?

5. Expected Result & Communication: What could be the result of the proposed research and  how might that be disseminated to a wider audience?

6. Ethical Consideration: What ethical issues are foreseen and how they are going to be  addressed?

7. Proposed timeline: What is the timeline for the prosed research from starting to end?  8. References: Bibliographic detail of all references used in preparing the presentation slides.  The style of referencing should be APIC Harvard style. Websites, blogs, personal  communications are generally not viewed as a trusted source of reference.

Note: While ChatGPT or other AI tools are permissible for study purposes and to enhance your  understanding of the subject, it is important to note that no AI-generated materials, including copied  and edited text, are allowed in the final submission. Details on generative AI can be found from  Academic Integrity Module in the page titled Generative AI: Guidelines for Students

Assessments 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 15% of the total unit mark. The  marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking

Criteria

Not Satisfactory

(0-49% of the criterion mark)

Satisfactory

(50-64% of the criterion

mark)

Good

(65-74% of the

criterion

mark)

Very Good

(75-84% of the criterion mark)

Excellent

(85-100% of the criterion

mark)

Visual Appeal

(20 marks)

• Proposed research title and author is missing.

• Poor visual appeal;

cluttered.

• Colours, font size and typehinder readability

• Content organization is poorand confusing and  doe s does not assist

viewer in

understanding without narration.

• Presents spelling

andgrammar

errors.

• No use of graphics

(e.g.,Table, figures,

etc.)

• Proposed research title and author is not so well

presented.

• Visual appeal is adequate; somewhat cluttered.

• Colours, font size and

type enhance somewhat detract from readability.

• Adequate organization of text content with some

spelling and grammar

errors

• No use of graphics (e.g., Table, figures, etc.)

• Proposed research

titleand author is

well positioned.

• Good visual appeal, some instances of

clutter

• Colours, font size and  type enhance

readability.

• Good organization  of text content with

few spelling and

grammarerrors.

• Good use of graphics (e.g., Table, figures,

etc.)

• Proposed research

title and author is well presented.

• Very good visual

appeal with minimal

clutter

• Colours, font size and type enhance

readability.

• Very good

organization of text

content with no

spelling and grammar

errors

• Very good use of

graphics (e.g., Table,

figures, etc.)

• Proposed researchtitle

and author is

prominently presented.

• Excellent visual appeal

with no clutter

• Colours, font size andtype  enhance readability.

• Excellent organization of text content with nospelling  and grammar errors

• Excellent use of graphics (e.g., Table,figures, etc.)

 

Topic

Knowledge/content (40 marks)

• Presenter didn’t show understand of the topic andfailed to answer

questions adequately

put forward by the

moderator.

• The presentation was a brieflook at the topic,

but many questions

were left unanswered. • Majority of information irrelevant and

significantpoints left

out.

• Presenter showed

adequate understanding topic by answering half of the questions put forward  by the moderator.

• The presentation was

informative, butseveral

elements went

unanswered.

• Much of the information irrelevant; coverage of

some of major points.

• Presenter showed

goodunderstanding

of topic by

answering most of

the questions put

forward by the

moderator.

• The presentation

was agood summary  of the research

proposal.

• Major information

covered;

presentation

containssome

irrelevant

information.

• Presentershowed very good understanding of topic by answering

almost all questions

put forward by the

moderator.

• The presentation wasa  very good summary of  the research proposal.

• Almost all-important information covered;

presentation

contained very little

irrelevant information

• Presenter showed an

extensive knowledge of

topic by answering all

questions put forward by

moderator.

• Presentation was

comprehensive and

included all relevant

information and very

good discussion on the

content of the

presentation.

Presentation Skill (20 marks)

• Presentation (narration) wasnot adequate.

• Tones, pitch, and clarity  of narration was not

adequate-spoke too

quickly or too slowly

making it difficult to

understand.

• Narrated (presented) is  not in a professional

manner butnot in an

appropriate attire and

look.

• Heavily dependent on  slideand/or additional

• Presentation (narration) was adequate.

• Tones, pitch, and clarity of narration was

adequate.

• Narrated (presented) in somewhat in professional manner but not in an

appropriate attire and

look.

• Dependent on slide

and/or additional notes is prominent.

• Minimum level of eye

contact with the audience.

• Presentation

(narration)was good

and engaging.

• Tones, pitch, and

clarityof narration

was good.

• Narrated (presented)  ina professional

manner with good

body language but

not in an appropriate  attire and look.

• Dependent on slide and/or additional

notesis somewhat

• Presentation

(narration) was very

good and engaging.

• Tones, pitch, and

clarity of narration

was very good.

• Narrated (presented) in a professional

manner with good

body language and

appropriate attire and look.

• Dependent on slide

and/or additional

notes is very minimal.

• Presentation (narration)  was excellent and very

engaging.

• Tones, pitch, and clarity of narrationwas

excellent.

• Narrated (presented) in a  professional manner with  good body language and

appropriate attire andlook. • No dependent on slide

and/or additional notes

• Excellent eye contactwith the audience.

 

notes fornarration

• No eye contact with

theaudience.

• Looked disinterested  anddisengaged

present.

• Adequate level of

eyecontact with the

audience.

• Very good eye contact with the audience.

Preparedness

(15 marks)

• Presentation was not on ascheduled time.

• Use of media is very

poor.

• No evidence of

preparedness and not

rehearsed.

• Presentation was on a

scheduled time

• Use of media is adequate. • Preparedness is somewhat  demonstratedbut not

rehearsed.

• Presented on

scheduledtime.

• Good use of media

• Good demonstration ofpreparedness but

not well rehearsed

• Presented on

scheduled time.

• Very good use of

media

• Well prepared and

rehearsed

presentation

• Presented on

scheduled time.

• Excellent use of media

• Very well preparedand

rehearsed presentation

Documentation of Sources

(5 marks)

• Sources are not cited

• Cited some data obtained from other sources.

• APIC-Harvard citation

style is either inconsistent or incorrect.

• Cited some data

obtained from other

sources.

• APIC-Harvard citation style is accurate

• Cited most data

obtained from other

sources.

• APIC-Harvard citation style is accurate

• Cited all data obtainedfrom other sources.

• APIC-Harvard citationstyle is accurate

 

Assessment 4 : Research Proposal Report

Due date:

Week 12

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

3,000 words

Weighting:

25%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

 

Assessment 4 Detail

This assessment requires students to develop a final research proposal based on the previous three  assessments which should also include research ethics and proposed time frame. It is expected that  students progressing to the MPMB will use this proposal as a base to further develop their Capstone

research project (Applied Research Project) such as PRJ6001. Students are recommended to develop  their assessment in the following order:

1. Introduction (Problem definition & objective): State the research problem clearly (research  questions), provide motivation for undertaking the research; provide succinct, clear, logical  description of the objectives and plan of action.

2. Background (Literature and Previous Work): Discuss the objectives, methodologies and findings of relevant previous research that provides a background for your research topic. The  aim is to provide a critique of existing work and identify gaps in knowledge and / or methodological weaknesses in existing research.

3. Significance & Broader Impact (Impact of Proposed Research): Discuss the potential value of  solution or contribution to the research problem within and outside the area/field of study.  Also discuss broader implications of the proposed research. Broader impacts may include  social, economic, technical, ethical, translational, clinical, pharmaceutical, technological, or  business aspects.

4. Research Design and Methods (Proposed Methodology): Discuss research methods/tools  suitable for use to solve the defined problem. This should include the type of data to be used,  how data will be collected and analysed, possible ethical issues and how these will be  addressed. In addition, discuss why the methodology and methods you have selected is  suitable to address the research question(s).

5. Results & Communication (Expected outcomes): Discuss what are the potential output of the  proposed research and how the same will be disseminated to wider audience. 6. Conclusion: Summarize the key points from your proposal and reiterate the significance of  the proposed research, why it is worth undertaking and what benefits it would have. End this  with positive note so that your proposal will be considered for research.

7. Timeline: Present the tentative timeline for completing your research project. You should focus on completing your research work within 10 teaching weeks.

8. References: Include bibliographic detail of all in-text citations in APIC Harvard Style. Websites,  blogs, personal communications are generally not viewed as a trusted source of reference.

Asia Pacific International College Pty Ltd. Trading as Asia Pacific International College 15 PRV12007; CRICOS 03048D PRJ5106 Research Methodology and Data Analysis

Note: While ChatGPT or other AI tools are permissible for study purposes and to enhance your  understanding of the subject, it is important to note that no AI-generated materials, including copied  and edited text, are allowed in the final submission. Details on generative AI can be found from  Academic Integrity Module in the page titled Generative AI: Guidelines for Students.

Assessments 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 25% of the total unit mark. The  marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria

Not Satisfactory

(0-49% of the

criterion mark)

Satisfactory

(50-64% of the

criterion mark)

Good

(65-74% of the

criterion mark)

Very Good

(75-84% of the

criterion mark)

Excellent

(85-100% of the criterion  mark)

Abstract of the research  proposal.

(20 marks)

The abstract of the

research proposal is  assessed as not

satisfactory.

The abstract of the

research proposal is  assessed as

satisfactory.

The abstract of the

research proposal is

assessed as good.

The abstract of the

research proposal is

assessed as very good.

The abstract of the research  proposal is assessed as

excellent.

Overview of the proposed  research questions and  their justification.

(20 marks)

The overview of the  proposed research

questions and their  justification is assessed  as not satisfactory.

The overview of the  proposed research

questions and their  justification is assessed  as satisfactory.

The overview of the

proposed research

questions and their

justification is assessed  as good.

The overview of the

proposed research

questions and their

justification is assessed as  very good.

The overview of the

proposed research

questions and their

justification is assessed as  excellent.

Structured literature

review.

(20 marks)

The structured

literature review is

assessed as not

satisfactory.

The structured

literature review is

assessed as

satisfactory.

The structured literature  review is assessed as  good.

The structured literature  review is assessed as very  good.

The structured literature  review is assessed as

excellent.

Description on proposed  research design.

(20 marks)

The description on the  proposed research

design is assessed as  not satisfactory.

The description on the  proposed research

design is assessed as  satisfactory.

The description on the  proposed research

design is assessed as  good.

The description on the  proposed research design  is assessed as very good.

The description on the

proposed research design is  assessed as excellent.

Academic writing style

(20 marks)

Academic writing style  including the sentence  structure, grammar,  spelling, and

referencing is assessed  as not satisfactory.

Academic writing style  including the sentence  structure, grammar,  spelling, and

referencing is assessed  as satisfactory.

Academic writing style  including the sentence  structure, grammar,

spelling, and referencing  is assessed as good.

Academic writing style  including the sentence  structure, grammar,

spelling, and referencing  is assessed as very good.

Academic writing style

including the sentence

structure, grammar,

spelling, and referencing is  assessed as excellent.