Research Methodology and Data Analysis (PRJ5106) Assignment Help

Assessment Overview

Assessment Task

Type

Weight

Length

Due

ULOs

Assessed

Assessment 1: Research Problem  Identification

Students are required to identify  suitable research problems for

their applied project; justify why

the problem is worth pursuing and  what are the benefits they expect  to see as an outcome of the

research. This is an invigilated

assessment and need to be

conducted face-to-face in class.

Individual

&

Invigilated

20%

10

minutes

presenta

tion

(equiv.

1000

words)

Week4

Part (A)

ULO1

ULO4

Assessment 2: LiteratureReview Students are required to develop  literature review for the problem  which they have identified in

Assessment 1; identify research gaps  and propose at least three research  questions.

Individual

25%

1500

words

Week 6

ULO1

ULO2

ULO4

Assessment 3: Research Design Students are required to Identify  appropriate research methodology  /design to address the research

questions proposed in Assessment  2 that can help to achieve research objectives.

Individual

20%

1000

words

Week 8

ULO1

ULO2

ULO4

Assessment 4: Research

Proposal:

Students are required to develop  and write research proposal

considering Assessment 1 to

Assessment 3.

Individual

35%

3000

words

Week

11

ULO1

ULO2

ULO3

ULO4

Assessment 1: Research Problem Identification

Due date:

Week 4

Group/individual:

Individual & Invigilated

Word count/Time provided:

10 mins maximum (equiv. 1000words)

Weighting:

20%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO1, ULO4

Assessment 1 Detail

This is an invigilate assessment which needs to be conducted face-to-face in class as an oral  presentation. This assessment requires you to:

• Identify suitable research problems for your applied project.

• Justify why the problem is worth pursuing.

• Discuss the benefits you 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 1 July 2024.”). 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 20% of the total unit mark. The  marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

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  (40 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 benefit &

Relevance of Cited

literature.

(40 marks)

• Expected research benefit is presented and an

excellent comparison to  past findings is also

discussed.

• The citation referred in  the presentation is the

latest and relevant to the  research topic.

• Expected research

benefit is presented and  a very good comparison  to past findings is also  provided.

• The citation referred in  the presentation is the  latest and relevant to

the research topic.

• Expected research

benefit is presented and  a good comparison to

past findings is also

provided.

• The citation referred in  the presentation is the  latest and relevant to the  research topic.

• Expected research benefit is  presented and an acceptable  comparison to past findings is  also provided.

• The citation referred in the  presentation is somewhat

latest, and some literature are not relevant.

• Expected research benefit is  not presented and no

comparison to past findings  is not provided.

• The citation referred to in the  presentation is not the  latest and not relevant to  the research topic.

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

• Presentation

(narration) was very

good and engaging.

• Tones, pitch, and

the clarity of the narration was  very good.

• Presentation (narration)  was good and engaging. • Tones, pitch, and clarity  of narration was good.

• Narrated (presented) in  a professional manner

with good body language

• Presentation (narration) was  adequate.

• Tones, pitch, and clarity of  narration was adequate.

• Narrated (presented) in  somewhat in professional

• 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.

 

good body language and  appropriate attire and

look.

• No dependent on slide  and/or additional notes

• Excellent eye contact with  the audience.

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

language and

appropriate attire and  look.

• Dependent on slides  and/or additional notes  is very minimal.

but not in an appropriate  attire and look.

• Dependent on slide

and/or additional notes  are somewhat present.

• Adequate level of eye  contact with the

audience.

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.

• Narrated (presented) is not  in a professional 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.

Assessment 2: Literature Review

Due date:

Week 6

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

1,500 words

Weighting:

25%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3

Assessment 2 Detail

This assessment requires student to write critical review for the research problem which they have  identified in Assessment 1. Students are advised to use peer reviewed journal articles using  academic databases such as ProQuest Central, ERIC and Harvard Business Review. Research studies  (thesis/desertion), government reports and/or industry reports may also be used a reference  material, but websites are not acceptable resources for the purpose of the assignment. Unless a  cited reference is a seminal work, they must be recent (published within last five years) and relevant  to the proposed research topic. As an outcome of the literature review, student must

• Identify research gaps.

• Propose at least three research questions.

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

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 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 questions.

• Literature is not linked

Assessment 1

• Literature does not reflect  the context of Assessment 1

knowledge gap in the

Literature

(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.

Summary on proposed

research

(10 marks)

• The summary is

assessed as excellent

which clearly mention  research title and

objectives

• The summary is

assessed as very good which clearly mention  research title and

objectives

• The summary is assessed  as good which clearly

mention research title

and objectives

• The summary is assessed  as satisfactory, but title is  somewhat vague, and

objectives are not so clear.

• The summary is assessed as  unsatisfactory; title and

objectives missing.

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 ideas.

• 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

• 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

• 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

presentation

guidelines.

presentation

guidelines.

Assessment presentation  guidelines to some extent.

• Report is not formatted and  presented as per the APIC  Assessment presentation

guidelines.

Assessment 3: Research Design

Due date:

Week 8

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

1,000 words

Weighting:

20%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO2, ULO3


Assessment 3 Detail 

This assessment requires students to identify appropriate research design (methodology and analysis  techniques) to address research questions identified in Assessment 2 to provide satisfactory solutions  and to achieve research objectives. Students are required to provide adequate references to any  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.

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

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 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 are 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 are assessed as  good.

The justification of the

proposed research design  and methods are assessed as  satisfactory.

The justification of the

proposed research design and  methods are assessed as not  satisfactory.

Description on proposed data  collection tools and methods. (15 marks)

• The description on

proposed data

collection tools and

methods are assessed as  excellent.

• The description on

proposed data

collection tools and

methods are 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 are 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

(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 ideas.

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

Due date:

Week 11

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

3,000 words

Weighting:

35%

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/MBA 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 analyzed, 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 a 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 a 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.

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

Online Assignment help

Assessments 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric

The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 35% of the total unit mark. The  marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

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

manners.

• 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

manners.

• 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

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

the 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, including

research ethics)

(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 questions.

• Conceptual or

theoretical framework  provides the basis of

the data collection and  analysis in a succinct

manners.

• 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 questions.

• 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 has 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.

Timeframe

(5 marks)

• Excellent presentation  of tentative timeline

for completing the

research project

• Very good presentation  of tentative timeline for  completing the

research project

• Good presentation of  tentative timeline for

completing the research  project

• Satisfactory presentation  of tentative timeline for  completing the research  project

• Unsatisfactory presentation  of tentative timeline for

completing the research

project.

• Timeline is missing

Clarity of expression

(10 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 ideas.

•

• 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

• 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 a 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

• 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

presentation

guidelines.

Assessment presentation  guidelines to some extent.

• Report is not formatted and  presented as per the APIC  Assessment presentation

guidelines.