Assessment Overview
|
Assessment Task
|
Type
|
Weight
|
Length
|
Due
|
ULOs
Assessed
|
|
Assessment 1: Research Plan
Students identify an individual research area and discuss it with his/her lecturer. Students need to write a research plan with a timeframe on basis of his/her research interest.
|
Individual
Invigilated
|
10%
|
1000 words
|
Week
4
|
ULO1
ULO4
|
|
Assessment 2: Structured Literature Review
Conducting a critical review of the literature for a topic/area of interest based on Assessment 1, identifying knowledge gaps, and defining an appropriate research question and objectives
|
Individual
|
20%
|
1500 words
|
Week
6
|
ULO1
ULO2
ULO3
|
|
Assessment 3: Research Design
Identifying appropriate research designand methods with data analysis and ethical consideration to achieve the research objectives.
|
Individual
|
25%
|
2500 words
|
Week
8
|
ULO2
ULO3
|
|
Assessment 4: Research Proposal (Report)
Write a two-pages short letter in IEEE format.
|
Individual
|
30%
|
2500 words
|
Week
12
|
ULO1
ULO2
ULO3
ULO4
|
|
Assessment 5: Research Proposal Presentation
Presenting the short paper.
|
Individual
Invigilated
|
15%
|
10 minutes
presentation (equiv. 1000 words)
|
Week
12
|
ULO1
ULO2
ULO3
ULO4
|
Assessment 1: Research Plan
|
Due date:
|
Week 4
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Individual
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
1000 words
|
|
Weighting:
|
10%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO1, ULO4
|
Assessment 1 Detail
In this assessment, students need to identify the individual research problem based on his/her interest and then justify why the problems are worth pursuing and what benefits they expect to see as an outcome of the research.
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
Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric
|
Marking Criteria
|
Excellent
(85-100% of the criterion mark)
|
Very Good
(75-84% of the criterion mark)
|
Good
(65-74% of the criterion mark)
|
Satisfactory
(50-64% of the criterion mark)
|
Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion mark)
|
|
Identification of Problem, Rationale & Significance (50 marks)
|
• Problems are clearly
identified and are
researchable
• Problems are relevant and justified by excellently
conducted needs
assessment.
• Research significance is supported by excellent
arguments with
comparison to the latest research.
|
• Problems are clearly identified and are
researchable
• Problems are relevant and justified by well
conducted needs
assessment.
• Research significance is supported by very good arguments with
comparison to the
latest research.
|
• Problems are clearly identified and are
researchable
• Problems are relevant and justified by
conducted needs
assessment.
• Research significance is supported by good
arguments with
comparison to some
relevant research.
|
• Problems are identified but not likely to result into a
researchable question.
• Problems are justified with no detail needs assessment.
• Research significance is
presented but not supported by arguments with
comparison to the latest
research.
|
• Problems are poorly
identified and are not
researchable
• Problems are not relevant and justified by needs
assessment.
• Research significance is not presented
|
|
Expected Outcome &
Relevance of Cited
Research, and Time
frame (35 marks)
|
• Expected research
outcome is presented and an excellent comparison to past findings is also
provided.
• The research referred to in the report is the latest relevant research
available
• Add expected time frame
|
• Expected research
outcome is presented and a very good
comparison to past
findings is also
provided.
• The research referred to in the report is the
latest relevant research available
• Add expected time
frame
|
• Expected research
outcome is presented
and a good comparison to past findings is also
provided.
• The research referred to in the report is the latest relevant research
available
• Add expected time frame
|
• Expected research outcome is presented and an acceptable comparison to past findings is also provided
• The research referred to in the report is the latest
relevant research available • Add expected time frame
|
• Expected outcome is not presented and no
comparison to past findings is not provided
• The research referred to in the report is not the latest relevant research available • Add expected time
|
|
Presenting and
referencing
(15 marks)
|
• The writing shows
excellent application of
the recommended style of referencing (APIC
Harvard style) with no
error in referencing
• Report is formatted and presented exactly as per the APIC Assessment
presentation guidelines.
|
• The writing shows very good application of
the recommended
style of referencing
(APIC Harvard style)
with few errors in
referencing
• Report is well
formatted but not
presented exactly as
per the APIC
Assessment
presentation
guidelines
|
• The writing shows good application of the
recommended style of
referencing (APIC
Harvard style) with
some errors in
referencing
• Report is formatted and presented as per the
APIC Assessment
presentation guidelines to large extent.
|
• The writing shows
inconsistent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard
style)
• In-text citation match with the citation under Reference list
• Report is formatted and presented as per the APIC
Assessment presentation
guidelines to some extent.
|
• The writing shows
insufficient application of the recommended style
of referencing (APIC
Harvard style)
• The writing shows no in text citation
• In-text citation does to match with citation under Reference list
Report is not formatted
and presented as per the APIC Assessment
presentation guidelines.
|
Assessment 2: Structured Literature Review
|
Due date:
|
Week 6
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Individual
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
1,500 words
|
|
Weighting:
|
20%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO2, ULO3
|
Assessment 2 Detail
This assessment requires students to conduct structured review of literature about the individual research problem in Assessment 1. Research studies journal articles, conference papers, thesis/desertion, government reports and/or industry reports may also be used a reference material. Your literature review should include at least 15 references.
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 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric
Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric
|
Marking Criteria
|
Excellent
(85-100% of the criterion mark)
|
Very Good
(75-84% of the criterion mark)
|
Good
(65-74% of the criterion mark)
|
Satisfactory
(50-64% of the criterion mark)
|
Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion mark)
|
|
Literature Review
(30 marks)
|
• Literature review cites comprehensive
research and
theoretical knowledge of the field in the way relevant to the
contextual needs
• Literature review is purposefully and
excellently synthesized • Literature review is excellently organized
around Assessment 1
• All literature is
reviewed in the context of the Problem
identified in
Assessment 1
|
• Literature review cites comprehensive
research and
theoretical knowledge of the field in the way relevant to the
contextual needs
• Literature review is very well synthesized
• Literature review is very well organized
around Assessment 1
• All literature is
reviewed in the context of the Problem
identified in
Assessment 1
|
• Literature review cites major research and
theoretical knowledge of the field in the way
relevant to the
contextual needs
• Literature review is well synthesized
• Literature review is well organized around
Assessment 1
• Most of the literature is reviewed in the context of the Problem identified in Assessment 1
|
• Literature review cites some of the major
theories and research in the field in the way
relevant to the contextual needs
• Literature review is
satisfactorily written but not well synthesized.
• Literature is marginally linked to Assessment 1
|
• Literature review doesn’t cite relevant theories
• Literature review is not written in the way that can guide the development of research question.
• Literature is not linked
Assessment 1
• Literature does not reflect the context of Assessment 1
|
|
knowledge gap in the
(10 marks)
|
• The knowledge gap identified in the
literature review is
assessed as excellent.
|
• The knowledge gap identified in the
literature review is
assessed as very good.
|
• The knowledge gap
identified in the
literature review is
assessed as good.
|
• The knowledge gap
identified in the literature review is assessed as
satisfactory.
|
• The knowledge gap identified in the literature review is
assessed as not satisfactory.
|
|
Research questions
(20 marks)
|
• Questions are clear, excellent, relevant,
researchable and could potentially resolve a
clearly identified
problem or issue from Assessment 1.
|
• Questions are clear, researchable, and
relevant to the problem or issue identified in
Assessment 1.
• Questions are guided by knowledge gap in
|
• Questions are
researchable and
relevant to the problem or issue identified in
Assessment 1.
• Questions are guided by knowledge gap in the
|
• Questions are somewhat researchable and relevant to the problem or issue
identified in Assessment 1 • Questions are somewhat guided by knowledge gap in the literature, but the
|
• Question does not reflect a problem related to
Assessment 1
• Questions are not
researchable
• No or unclear description of the context
|
|
• Questions are clearly guided by knowledge
gap in the literature
and the context is
excellently described
|
the literature and the context is very well
described
|
literature and the context is well described.
|
context is not well
described.
|
• Questions are not guided by the knowledge gap in the
literature and context is
either not present or unclear.
|
|
Conclusion on the literature review.
(10 marks)
|
• The conclusion on the literature review is
assessed as excellent.
|
• The conclusion on the literature review is
assessed as very good.
|
• The conclusion on the literature review is
assessed as good.
|
• The conclusion on the literature review is
assessed as satisfactory.
|
• The conclusion on the
literature review is assessed as not satisfactory.
|
|
Clarity of expression
(20 marks)
|
• The writing is fluent and coherent with
excellent structure and presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are
appropriately
punctuated with no
minor spelling or typing error.
• The writing perceives a sense of the wider
context of the ides
|
• The writing is fluent and coherent with
good structure
exhibiting
grammatically correct sentences that are
appropriately
punctuated with
minor spelling or
typing error.
|
• The writing is fluent and coherent with very good structure exhibiting
grammatically correct
sentences that are
appropriately punctuated with few spellings or
typing error.
• The writing is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader of the argument who is left in no doubt of the
purpose
|
• . The writing is satisfactory and exhibits majority of grammatically correct
sentences that are
appropriately punctuated with some spelling or
typing errors
• The writing does not go far enough in expanding key issues/ concepts.
• The writing requires
further information to
clarify main arguments
|
• The writing is poor with no logical flow and has
grammatical errors.
• Information is limited,
unclear and the depth is not adequately developed.
• The idea is a simple
restatement of the topic.
• Demonstration of a limited sense of purpose or theme • Insufficient understanding of the topic.
|
|
Presentation and referencing (10 marks)
|
• The writing shows
excellent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC
Harvard style) with no error in referencing
• Report is formatted and presented exactly as per the APIC
Assessment
presentation
guidelines.
|
• The writing shows very good application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC
Harvard style) with few errors in referencing
• Report is well
formatted but not
presented exactly as
per the APIC
Assessment
|
• The writing shows good application of the
recommended style of
referencing (APIC
Harvard style) with some errors in referencing
• Report is formatted and presented as per the
APIC Assessment
presentation guidelines to large extent.
|
• The writing shows
inconsistent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style)
• In-text citation match with the citation under
Reference list
• Report is formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines to some extent.
|
• The writing shows
insufficient application of the recommended style of
referencing (APIC Harvard style)
• The writing shows no in-text citation
• In-text citation does to
match with citation under Reference list
• Report is not formatted and presented as per the APIC
|
|
|
presentation
guidelines.
|
|
|
Assessment presentation
guidelines.
|
Assessment 3: Research Design
|
Due date:
|
Week 8
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Individual
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
2,500 words
|
|
Weighting:
|
25%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4
|
Assessment 3 Detail
This assessment requires student to identify appropriate methodology and analysis techniques to address research questions identified in Assessment 2 to provide satisfactory solution with data analysis and to achieve research objectives. Students should include research ethics and proposed time frame in this assessment.
Assessments 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric
Assessment 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric
|
Marking Criteria
|
Excellent
(85-100% of the criterion mark)
|
Very Good
(75-84% of the criterion mark)
|
Good
(65-74% of the criterion mark)
|
Satisfactory
(50-64% of the criterion mark)
|
Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion mark)
|
|
Justification of the proposed research design and methods. (30 marks)
|
• The justification of the proposed research
design and methods is assessed as excellent.
|
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 good.
|
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 not satisfactory.
|
|
Description on proposed data collection tools and methods. (15 marks)
|
• The description on
proposed data
collection tools and
methods is assessed as excellent.
|
• 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 good.
|
• 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 not satisfactory.
|
|
Description on proposed data analysis techniques.
(15 marks)
|
• The description on
proposed data analysis techniques is assessed as excellent.
|
• The description on
proposed data analysis techniques is assessed as very good.
|
• The description on
proposed data analysis techniques is assessed
as good.
|
• The description on
proposed data analysis
techniques is assessed as satisfactory.
|
• The description on proposed data analysis techniques is assessed as not satisfactory.
|
|
Conclusion on the proposed data collection and analysis. (10 marks)
|
• The conclusion on the proposed data
collection and analysis is assessed as
excellent.
|
• 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 good.
|
• 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 not satisfactory.
|
|
Clarity of expression with
research ethics and proposed time frame
(15 marks)
|
• The writing is fluent and coherent with
excellent structure and presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are
appropriately
punctuated with no
minor spelling or typing error.
|
• The writing is fluent and coherent with
good structure
exhibiting
grammatically correct sentences that are
appropriately
punctuated with minor spelling or typing
error.
|
• The writing is fluent and coherent with very good structure exhibiting
grammatically correct
sentences that are
appropriately punctuated with few spellings or
typing error.
• The writing is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader
|
• . The writing is satisfactory and exhibits majority of grammatically correct
sentences that are
appropriately punctuated with some spelling or
typing errors
• The writing does not go far enough in expanding key issues/ concepts.
|
• The writing is poor with no logical flow and has
grammatical errors.
• Information is limited,
unclear and the depth is not adequately developed.
• The idea is a simple
restatement of the topic.
• Demonstration of a limited sense of purpose or theme
|
|
• The writing perceives a sense of the wider
context of the ides
|
|
of the argument who is left in no doubt of the
purpose
|
• The writing requires
further information to
clarify main arguments
|
• Insufficient understanding of the topic.
•
|
|
Presentation and referencing (15 marks)
|
• The writing shows
excellent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC
Harvard style) with no error in referencing
• Report is formatted and presented exactly as per the APIC
Assessment
presentation
guidelines.
|
• The writing shows very good application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC
Harvard style) with few errors in referencing
• Report is well
formatted but not
presented exactly as
per the APIC
Assessment
presentation
guidelines.
|
• The writing shows good application of the
recommended style of
referencing (APIC
Harvard style) with some errors in referencing
• Report is formatted and presented as per the
APIC Assessment
presentation guidelines to large extent.
|
• The writing shows
inconsistent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style)
• In-text citation match with the citation under
Reference list
• Report is formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines to some
extent.
|
• The writing shows
insufficient application of the recommended style of
referencing (APIC Harvard style)
• The writing shows no in-text citation
• In-text citation does to
match with citation under Reference list
• Report is not formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation
guidelines.
|
Assessment 4: Research Proposal Report
|
Due date:
|
Week 12
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Individual
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
2,500 words
|
|
Weighting:
|
30%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4
|
Assessment 4 Detail
This assessment requires student to develop a two-page paper with IEEE format based on previous three assessments. It is expected that student will use this idea for further develop their Capstone research project (Applied Research Project) in ICT6001. Students are recommended to develop their assessment in the following order:
1. Introduction (Problem definition & objective): State the research problem clearly (research questions), provides 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 to solve the defined problem. This should include what type of data will be used, how data will be collected and analyse, what could be possible ethical issues and how that will be addressed. In addtion, 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 results 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. References: Include bibliographic detail of all in-text citations in IEEE format. 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 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric
Assessment 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric
|
Marking Criteria
|
Excellent
(85-100% of the criterion mark)
|
Very Good
(75-84% of the criterion mark)
|
Good
(65-74% of the criterion mark)
|
Satisfactory
(50-64% of the criterion mark)
|
Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion mark)
|
|
Introduction
(Problem definition &
objective)
(15 marks)
|
• Excellent linking of the proposed research
with the stated
specific problem and
research objectives
• The author describes how the research is to be approached in a
logical and succinct
manner.
• Research timeline is presented excellently
• Motivation is
excellently presented
|
• Very good linking of the proposed research with the stated
specific problem and
research objectives
• The author describes how the research is to be approached in a
logical manner.
• Research timeline is very well presented
• Motivation is very well presented
|
• Good linking of the
proposed research with the stated specific
problem and research
objectives
• The author’s description of research approach is good and logical manner
• Research timeline is well presented
• Motivation is well
presented.
|
• Acceptable linking of the proposed research with the stated specific
problem and objectives
• The author’s description of the research approach is limited.
• Research timeline is
adequately presented
• Motivation is somewhat presented.
|
• Insufficient linking of the proposed research and the stated specific problem and objectives
• The author does not
describe how the research is approached
• Research timeline is not well presented
• Motivation is not evident.
|
|
Background
(Literature and Previous Work) (15 marks)
|
• Synthesis of previous research in forming
background of the
proposed study is
excellently presented
• Previous research
were excellently
critiqued
• Research gaps were identified and
discussed in the study • Research discussed and critiqued are
entirely related to the present research topic
|
• Synthesis of previous research in forming
background of the
proposed study is very well presented
• Previous research
were very well
critiqued
• Research gaps were identified and
discussed in the study. • Research discussed and critiqued are
entirely related to the present research topic
|
• Synthesis of previous research in forming
background of the
proposed study is well
presented
• Previous research were well critiqued
• Discussion on research gaps is limiting.
• Research discussed and critiqued are mostly
related to the present
research topic
|
• Synthesis of previous
research in forming
background of the
proposed study
somewhat presented
• Previous research were not critiqued
• Research gap identified but no discussion
presented.
• Research discussed and critiqued are somewhat related to the present
research topic
|
• Synthesis of previous
research in forming
background of the proposed study is not presented
• Previous research were not critiqued
• Research gap neither
identified nor discussed.
• Majority of research
discussed are not related to the present research topic
|
|
Significance & Broader Impact (Impact of Proposed Research) (10 marks)
|
• Excellent discussion on significance and
broader impact of the study
|
• Very good discussion on significance and
broader impact of the study
|
• Good discussion on
significance and broader impact of the study
|
• Discussion on
significance and broader impact of the study is
somewhat presented
|
• Neither significance nor the impact of the study is
presented.
|
|
Research Design and
Methods (Proposed
Methodology)
(20 Marks)
|
• The methodology is almost certain to
provide a satisfactory solution to the
specified problem.
• The research design is well thought and is
most appropriate to
the research project
and question.
• Conceptual or
theoretical framework provides the basis of
the data collection and analysis in a succinct
manner.
• The author has
presented a range of
suitable tools to carry out the data analysis.
• Ethical considerations were discussed.
|
• The methodology is highly probable to
provide a satisfactory solution to the
specified Problem.
• The research design is most appropriate to
the research project
and question
• Conceptual or
theoretical framework in the report provides the basis of the data
collection and analysis. • The author has
proposed a range of
tools and techniques
to carry out the data
analysis.
• Ethical considerations were discussed.
|
• The methodology is
most likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem.
• The research design is appropriate to the
research project and
question
• Conceptual or
theoretical framework in the report provides the basis of the data
collection and analysis. • The author has
proposed limited range of tools and techniques to carry out the data
analysis.
• Ethical considerations were mentioned.
|
• The methodology is likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem.
• The research design is adequate
• Conceptual or theoretical framework requires
further work.
• The author has proposed limited range of tools and techniques to carry out
the data analysis.
• Ethical considerations were limited.
|
• The methodology is not likely to provide a
satisfactory solution to the specified problem.
• The research design is
limited
• No conceptual or theoretical framework in the report.
• The author has not
proposed sufficient tools
and techniques to carry out the data analysis.
• Ethical considerations were missing.
|
|
Results & Communication (Expected outcomes)
(10 marks)
|
• Expected outcome of the proposed research were excellently
discussed with its
wider applicability.
• Suitable avenues of research result
|
• Expected outcome of the proposed research were very well
discussed with its
wider applicability.
• Suitable avenues of research result
|
• Expected outcome of the proposed research
were well discussed with its wider applicability.
• Suitable avenues of
research result
dissemination have been discussed.
|
• Expected outcome of the proposed research were somewhat discussed but discussion on its wider
applicability is not
evident
• Suitable avenues of
research result
|
• Nether expected outcome of the proposed research or its wider applicability is
presented
• No suitable avenues of
research result
dissemination have
discussed.
|
|
dissemination have
been discussed.
|
dissemination have
been discussed.
|
|
dissemination have
marginally discussed.
|
|
|
Clarity of expression
(15 marks)
|
• The writing is fluent and coherent with
excellent structure and presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are
appropriately
punctuated with no
minor spelling or typing error.
• The writing perceives a sense of the wider
context of the ides
|
• The writing is fluent and coherent with
good structure
exhibiting
grammatically correct sentences that are
appropriately
punctuated with minor spelling or typing error.
|
• The writing is fluent and coherent with very good structure exhibiting
grammatically correct
sentences that are
appropriately punctuated with few spellings or
typing error.
• The writing is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader of the argument who is left in no doubt of the
purpose
|
• . The writing is satisfactory and exhibits majority of grammatically correct
sentences that are
appropriately punctuated with some spelling or
typing errors
• The writing does not go far enough in expanding key issues/ concepts.
• The writing requires
further information to
clarify main arguments
|
• The writing is poor with no logical flow and has
grammatical errors.
• Information is limited,
unclear and the depth is not adequately developed.
• The idea is a simple
restatement of the topic.
• Demonstration of a limited sense of purpose or theme • Insufficient understanding of the topic.
|
|
Presentation and referencing (15 marks)
|
• The writing shows
excellent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC
Harvard style) with no error in referencing
• Report is formatted and presented exactly as per the APIC
Assessment
presentation
guidelines.
|
• The writing shows very good application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC
Harvard style) with few errors in referencing
• Report is well
formatted but not
presented exactly as
per the APIC
Assessment
presentation
guidelines.
|
• The writing shows good application of the
recommended style of
referencing (APIC
Harvard style) with some errors in referencing
• Report is formatted and presented as per the
APIC Assessment
presentation guidelines to large extent.
|
• The writing shows
inconsistent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style)
• In-text citation match with the citation under
Reference list
• Report is formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines to some extent.
|
• The writing shows
insufficient application of the recommended style of
referencing (APIC Harvard style)
• The writing shows no in-text citation
• In-text citation does to
match with citation under Reference list
• Report is not formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation
guidelines.
|
Assessment 5: 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 5 Detail
This assessment requires student to orally present the summary of their Assessment 4 ( two page paper in Research Proposal section). A typical presentation should include:
1. Proposed research title: What would be the title of your research?
2. Abstract: short overview of the entire paper
3. Background and Justification: What is this research, why this research is important and what motivates this research?
4. Research questions & objectives: Specific Research question(s) and research objectives 5. Methodology & Methods: What methodology and methods will be used to address the research question & why the proposed methodology is suitable?
6. Expected Result & Communication: What would be the result of the proposed research and how that will be disseminated to the wider audience?
7. Conclusion: summary of the paper
8. References: Bibliographic detail of all references that is used in preparing the presentation slides. The style of referencing should be IEEE format. 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 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric
Assessment 5 Marking Criteria and Rubric
|
Marking Criteria
|
Excellent
(85-100% of the criterion mark)
|
Very Good
(75-84% of the criterion mark)
|
Good
(65-74% of the criterion mark)
|
Satisfactory
(50-64% of the criterion mark)
|
Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion mark)
|
|
Visual Appeal
(20 marks)
|
• Proposed research
title and author is
prominently presented • Excellent visual
appeal; no cluttered
• Colours , font size and type enhance
readability
• Excellent organization of text content with no spelling and grammar errors
• Excellent use of
graphics (e.g., Table,
figures, etc.)
|
• Proposed research
title and author is well presented
• Very good visual
appeal; no cluttered
• 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 research title and author is well
positioned
• Good visual appeal;
some cluttered presents but colours , font size
and type enhance
readability
• Good organization of text content with few
spelling and grammar
errors
• Good 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 title and author is missing
• Not very visual appealing; and cluttered;
• Colours , font size and type hinder readability
• Content organization is poor and confusing and doe s
does not assist viewer in
understanding without
narration
• Presents spelling and
grammar errors
• No use of graphics (e.g., Table, figures, etc.)
|
|
Topic Knowledge/content
(40 marks)
|
• 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
|
• Presenter showed very good understanding of topic by answering
almost all questions
put forward by the
moderator.
• The presentation was a very good summary of the research
proposal.
• Almost all-important information covered;
presentation contain
|
• Presenter showed good understanding of topic
by answering most of
the questions put
forward by the
moderator.
• The presentation was a good summary of the
research proposal.
• Major information
covered; presentation
contain some irrelevant information.
|
• Presenter showed
adequate understanding topic by answering half of the questions put
forward by the
moderator.
• The presentation was informative, but several elements went
unanswered.
• Much of the information irrelevant; coverage of
some of major points.
|
• Presenters didn’t show
understand of the topic and failed to answer questions adequately put forward by the moderator
• The presentation was a brief look at the topic, but many questions were left
unanswered.
• Majority of information irrelevant and significant
points left out.
|
|
• Comprehensive and complete coverage of information.
|
little irrelevant
information.
|
|
|
|
|
Presentation Skill
(20 marks)
|
• Presentation
(narration) was
excellent and very
engaging
• Tones, pitch, and
clarity of narration
was excellent
• Narrated (presented) in a professional
manner with good
body language and
appropriate attire and look.
• No dependent on slide and/or additional
notes
• Excellent eye contact with the audience.
|
• 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
• Vey good eye contact with the audience.
|
• Presentation (narration) was good and engaging • Tones, pitch, and clarity of narration was good
• Narrated (presented) in a professional manner
with good body
language but not in an
appropriate attire and
look.
• Dependent on slide
and/or additional notes is somewhat present
• Adequate level of eye contact with the
audience.
|
• 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 not 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 l manner but not in an appropriate attire and look.
• Heavily dependent on slide and/or additional notes for narration
• No eye contact with the audience.
• Looked disinterested and disengaged
|
|
Preparedness
(15 marks)
|
• Presented on
scheduled time
• Excellent use of media • Very well prepared and rehearsed
presentation
|
• Presented on
scheduled time
• Very good use of
media
• Well prepared and
rehearsed
presentation
|
• Presented on scheduled time
• Good use of media
• Good demonstration of preparedness but not
well rehearsed
|
• on a scheduled time
• Use of media is adequate • Preparedness is
somewhat demonstrated but not rehearsed
|
• Presentation was not on a scheduled time
• Use of media is very poor • No evidence of
preparedness and not
rehearsed
|
|
Documentation of Sources (5 marks)
|
• Cited all data obtained from other sources.
• APIC-Harvard citation style is accurate
|
• Cited most data
obtained from other
sources.
|
• Cites some data
obtained from other
sources.
|
• Cites some data obtained from other sources.
|
• Sources are not cited
|
|
|
• APIC-Harvard citation style is accurate
|
• APIC-Harvard citation style is accurate
|
• APIC-Harvard citation style is either inconsistent or incorrect.
|
|
Leave A Comment