Assessment Brief: ICT6001 Applied Project
Trimester 1, 2025
Assessment Overview
|
Assessment Task
|
Type
|
Weight
|
Length
|
Due
|
ULOs
Assessed
|
|
Assessment 1: Project Brief
Report provides a detailed project proposal outlining the objectives, research question(s), and
methodologies. This builds upon their previous work in ICT5201.
|
Individual
|
15%
|
1000
words
|
Week 3
|
ULO1
ULO2
|
|
Assessment 2: Project Progress and Critical Review of Literature Report Submit a comprehensive literature
review and a project progress report summarizing project progress so far, including synthesis of the current literature including comparison of various authors’ views and
identification of research gaps, highlighting the critical analysis of previous research.
|
Individual
|
25%
|
1500
words
|
Week 6
|
ULO1
ULO2
|
|
Assessment 3: Data Collection and Analysis
Students submit a report
demonstrates the preliminary findings, data collection results, and analysis of the data.
|
Individual
|
20%
|
1000
words
|
Week 9
|
ULO1
ULO2
ULO3
ULO4
|
|
Assessment 4: Submission of
Report/Artefact and Oral
Presentation
Students prepare and present a final report, model, or artefact of the research study with a
particular focus on the outcomes.
|
Individual
Invigilated
|
40%
|
3500
Words +
10min.
presenta
tion
(equiv.
900
words)
|
Week 11 (Oral
Presentation),
Week 12 (Report submission)
|
ULO1
ULO2
ULO3
ULO4
|
equiv. – equivalent word count based on the Assessment Load Equivalence Guide. It means this assessment is equivalent to the normally expected time requirement for a written submission containing the specified number of words.
Note for all assessments tasks:
• Students can generate/modify/create text generated by AI. They are then asked to modify the text according to the brief of the assignment.
• During the preparation and writing of an assignment, students use AI tools, but may not include any AI generated material in their final report.
• AI tools are used by students in researching topics and preparing assignments, but all AI-generated content must be acknowledged in the final report as follows:
|
Format
|
|
I acknowledge the use of [insert the name of AI system and link] to [describe how it was used]. The prompts used were entered on [enter the date in ddmmyyy:] [list the prompts that were used]
|
|
Example
|
|
Tools
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: • What are some key challenges in running an online business?
|
Assessment 1: Project Brief
|
Due date:
|
Week 3
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Individual
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
1000 Words
|
|
Weighting:
|
15%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO1, ULO2
|
Assessment 1 Detail
This assessment is designed to help students define and formalize the scope of their IT research project. Building upon the proposed project from ICT5201, this assessment will allow students to clearly articulate their research question, propose appropriate IT methodologies, and develop a project plan. The proposal sets the groundwork for the IT project that will be executed in ICT6001.
Students are required to submit a project brief report focused on an IT-related problem or innovation. The report should include the following sections:
1. Project Title: This is a brief descriptive summary of the proposed project topic.
2. Introduction: Provide background information on the IT topic, the specific issue or challenge being addressed, and the motivation for pursuing this project.
3. Research Objectives, Research question and Sub-questions: Linking back to sections (2) and (3), present and justify the question that your research project will be designed to answer.
4. Brief Literature Review: Outline the objectives, methodologies and findings of at least three most relevant literatures recently (within last 5 years) published that provide a background for your research topic.
5. Methodology: Details about how you would answer your research question and start to consider any advantages, disadvantages, materials needed or practical limitations of the methodology.
6. Significance of the research of the project. A summary of the sections ending with a statement of why it is important to conduct the research using the methodology proposed.
7. References and Resources: provide references to key research studies, government reports and/or industry reports using Harvard Referencing.
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 15% of the total unit mark.
Assessment 1 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)
|
|
Project Introduction, understanding of topic including background and rationale
(30 marks)
A logicalstructure and flow with a clear link between the specified problem and the proposed research.
|
Insufficient linking of the proposed research and the stated problem. The proposal does not demonstrate a clear understanding and
background of the topic, provide a rationale for why it was selected, or justify how the Research Project will progress.
|
Acceptable linking of the proposed research with the stated problem. The proposal demonstrates some
understanding and
background of the topic, and provides a rationale for why it wasselected, howeverit was unclear in places.
|
Good linking of the proposed research with the stated problem. The proposal
demonstrates a good
understanding and
background of the topic, and provides a rationale for why it was selected, however was somewhat unclearin places.
|
Very good linking of the proposed research with the stated problem. The proposal demonstrates a thorough knowledge and background of the topic and provides a rationale for why it was selected.
|
Excellent linking of the
proposed research with the stated problem. The proposal demonstrates a sophisticated understanding and
background of the topic and provides a clearrationale for why it was selected.
|
|
Overview of the intended approach, including study plan.
(30 marks)
The proposed methodology is likely to yield a
satisfactory solution to the specified problem.
|
The plan of the intended approach to the Research Project, including the timeline for completion, is absent or unclear. The methodology is not likely to provide a
satisfactory solution to the specified problem.
|
The plan of the intended approach to the Research Project providessomewhat of a strategy for literature review and collection of data and other materials, but is
unclear. The methodology may provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem.
|
The plan of the intended approach to the Research Project provides a strategy for literature review and
collection of data and other materials, but is a little
unclear. The methodology is most likely to provide a
satisfactory solution to the specified problem.
|
The plan of the intended approach to the Research Project is well-developed, with a clear and achievable strategy and timeline for literature review and
collection of data and other materials. The methodology is highly probable to provide a satisfactory solution to the
specified Problem.
|
The plan of the intended approach to the Research Project is very clear and well developed, with a coherent and achievable timeline and strategy. The methodology is almost certain to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem.
|
|
Literature Scan
(20 marks)
Latest relevant research is referred to in the report and the expected research
findings are compared to past findings.
|
The research referred to in the report is not the latest relevant research available and an acceptable
comparison of the expected research findings to past findings is not provided.
|
The research referred to in the report is current
research available but an acceptable comparison of the expected research
findingsto past findings not provided.
|
The research referred to in the report is the latest
relevantresearch available and a good comparison of the expected research
findings to past findings is provided.
|
The research referred to in the report is the latest
relevant research available and a very good comparison of the expected research findings to past findings is provided.
|
The research referred to in the report is the latest
relevant research available and an excellent comparison of the expected research findings to past findings is provided.
|
|
Structure and
presentation
(10 marks)
Academically written
with an appropriate
length,structure and
clarity of expression.
Correct spelling and
grammar.
|
There are many structural, wording, spelling and
grammatical issues
|
The ideas are written in a reasonably clear manner, however there are some
structural, wording,spelling and grammatical issues.
|
The ideas are written and structured in a clear
manner, with only minor wording, spelling and
grammatical issues.
|
The ideas are written and structured in a very clear manner, with no wording, spelling or grammatical
issues.
|
The ideas are written and structured with excellent clarity and cohesion, with no wording, spelling or
grammatical issues.
|
|
Referencing
(10 marks)
Correct citing and reference listing using Harvard
|
Insufficient and incorrect Harvard listing provided.
|
Harvard citing for a few
authors and listing of those references with some errors.
|
Harvard citing for most
references with some errors.
|
Mostly correct Harvard
citing in the text and
reference list.
|
Accurate Harvard citing in the text and reference list for all references.
|
Assessment 2: Project Progress and Critical Review of Literature Report
|
Due date:
|
Week 6
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Individual
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
1500 Words
|
|
Weighting:
|
25%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO1, ULO2
|
Assessment 2 Detail
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the student’s progress on their IT research project, with a focus on the literature review, project development, and a proposed framework to guide the research. Students are expected to critically engage with existing literature, present a visual representation of their proposed framework (e.g., a flow chart or diagram), and discuss how their project could lead to improvements over existing technologies or methodologies. Students are required to submit a progress report that includes:
1. A comprehensive literature review.
2. An update on the progress of their IT research project.
3. A proposed framework (diagram/flowchart) detailing the methodology or system architecture. 4. A comparative analysis on how the proposed framework or project can improve upon existing research technologies.
This assessment builds on the initial project proposal from Assessment 1, with a focus on grounding the research in relevant academic and industry literature while also proposing a visual framework and discussing potential improvements.
The assessment consists of four key components:
1. Progress Report:
o Provide an update on the IT project, highlighting significant developments, achievements, and any changes since the initial proposal.
o Include updates on system design, initial data analysis, or development progress. o Identify challenges faced and strategies for overcoming them.
o Update the project plan/timeline for remaining work.
2. Literature Review:
o Conduct a detailed review of academic, technical, and industry literature related to the research problem.
o Identify key trends, methodologies, tools, and technologies relevant to the project. o Analyse how existing research informs or supports the objectives of the project. o Highlight any gaps in the literature that the project aims to address.
3. Framework Proposal:
o Present a visual representation of the proposed framework, such as a flowchart, system diagram, or architecture model.
o Clearly illustrate the system structure and explain how it integrates with the research goals.
o Discuss the rationale behind the design of the framework and its relevance to the project.
4. Comparative Analysis:
o Compare the proposed framework to existing technologies, methodologies, or systems discussed in the literature.
o Highlight the potential improvements or advancements your project may offer over current approaches.
o Discuss how these improvements will address limitations or challenges in existing research.
The progress and critical review of literature report should include the following sections:
1. Project Title
2. Critical evaluation of the literature: this section may be divided into several sub-sections depending on nature of the research.
3. Updates on system design, data analysis, or development progress supported by diagrams.
4. Framework proposal including the present a visual representation of the proposed framework, such as a flowchart, system diagram, architecture model or others. In addition, to clearly illustrate the system structure and explain how it integrates with the research goals.
5. Comparative Analysis: Compare the proposed framework to existing technologies, methodologies, or systems discussed in the literature. Highlight the potential improvements or advancements your project may offer over current approaches. Discuss how these improvements will address limitations or challenges in existing research.
6. Conclusion
7. References and Resources: provide references to key research studies, government reports and/or industry reports using Harvard Referencing.
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 25% of the total unit mark.
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)
|
|
Critical review of the literature on the
research topic.
(20 Marks)
A clear statement of
current literature
including comparison of various authors’ views, highlighting the critical analysis of previous
research.
|
Reviewed papers are
remotely relevant to the topic. Superficial review of different authors’
views and conclusions on the topic.
|
Authors and references relevant to the topic are included. Listed most key aspects of the current knowledge. Comparing, contrasting and
synthesizing of literature were not done properly.
|
Includes some key
authors with many
relevant references.
Sufficient coverage of current knowledge.
However, insufficient coverage of comparative analysis of different
views and conclusions on the topic.
|
Includes most key
authors with a range of references relevant to the topic.
Comprehensively
compares different
authors views and
conclusions on the topic. Synthesis of the current literature into some
points that cover current knowledge.
|
Includes all key authors in the field with a wide range of references
specific to the topic.
Insight-fully compares different authors’
views. Synthesis of the current literature and provision of some new insights.
|
|
System Design and
Development Progress (15 Marks)
|
No evidence of system design, development
progress, or diagrams to support the project.
|
Minimal updates on
system design and
progress with limited use of diagrams.
|
Some evidence of system design and progress, supported by basic
diagrams.
|
Clear updates on system design, data analysis, and progress, well-supported by diagrams and visuals.
|
Comprehensive updates on system design, data analysis, and progress, supported by highly
relevant and detailed diagrams and visuals.
|
|
Framework Proposal
(15 Marks)
|
No framework proposal or insufficient visual
representation.
|
A basic framework
proposal with minimal visual representation (flowchart/system
diagram).
|
Good framework proposal, with a clear but somewhat basic visual representation.
|
Very clear framework proposal with a detailed visual representation (flowchart/system
diagram), well-integrated with research goals.
|
An excellent and highly detailed framework proposal, with a
sophisticated visual
representation
(flowchart/system
diagram), fully integrated with research goals.
|
|
Comparative Analysis of Framework
(15 Marks)
|
No comparative analysis between the proposed framework and existing technologies or
methodologies.
|
Minimal comparative analysis, with little
discussion of
improvements or
advancements over
existing approaches.
|
Good comparative analysis, with some
discussion of how the framework improves
upon existing
technologies.
|
Very clear comparative analysis, highlighting the advancements and
improvements the
framework offers over existing technologies or methodologies.
|
Excellent comparative analysis, thoroughly demonstrating how the proposed framework
addresses limitations in existing research and offers significant
advancements.
|
|
Identification of the
knowledge gap in the literature review
(15 Marks).
A clear statement
addressing the gaps
identified in the
literature review.
|
Did not cover current knowledge of the topic or failed to identify gaps.
|
Discussed some
knowledge gaps which may not be clear and/or very relevant.
|
Identified some gaps and discussed the need for the research.
|
Identified most gaps and discussed the importance of the research.
|
Identification of clear gaps and highlighted the significance of the
research.
|
|
Structure and
presentation
(10 marks)
Academically written
with an appropriate
length,structure and
clarity of expression.
Correct spelling and
grammar.
|
There are many
structural, wording,
spelling and grammatical issues
|
The ideas are written in a reasonably clear manner, however there are some structural, wording,
spelling and grammatical issues.
|
The ideas are written and structured in a clear
manner, with only minor wording, spelling and grammatical issues.
|
The ideas are written
and structured in a very clear manner, with no wording, spelling or
grammatical issues.
|
The ideas are written and structured with excellent clarity and cohesion, with no wording, spelling or
grammatical issues.
|
|
Referencing
(10 marks)
Correct citing and
reference listing
|
Insufficient and incorrect Harvard listing provided.
|
Harvard citing for a few authors and listing of those references with some errors.
|
Harvard citing for most references with some errors.
|
Mostly correct Harvard citing in the text and
reference list listing an adequate number of
references.
|
Accurate Harvard citing in the text and reference list for all references.
|
Assessment 3: Data Collection and Analysis
|
Due date:
|
Week 9
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Individual / Invigilated
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
1000 words
|
|
Weighting:
|
20%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4
|
Assessment 3: Detail
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the student’s ability to collect, organize, and analyse data relevant to their IT research project. Students are expected to demonstrate their understanding of appropriate data collection methods, including simulation or real-world data collection, and implement analytical techniques that align with the project’s objectives. This assessment builds upon the framework proposed in Assessment 2, focusing on how data supports project development and informs the research outcomes.
The Data Collection and Analysis report should include the following sections:
1. Data Collection Methodology
o Description of Data Collection Approach: Students should describe the chosen data collection methods (e.g., simulations, real-world data gathering, system logs, network traffic analysis, API data retrieval, or surveys) and justify their relevance to the IT project.
o Use of Simulations/Tools: If applicable, explain the use of simulation tools (e.g., network simulators, virtual machines, cloud platforms) to model systems, networks, or
environments and collect data from these simulations.
o Sampling Strategy: Discuss the sampling technique (e.g., selecting datasets from simulations, monitoring specific system behaviours, or gathering user data) and explain how it aligns with the research goals.
2. Data Collection Process
o Implementation of Data Collection: Provide a detailed description of how the data was collected using tools such as simulation platforms, programming, system monitoring, APIs, or surveys. Include details of technologies (e.g., packet tracers, virtual environments, cloud solutions) used to generate or gather the data.
3. Data Analysis
o Analytical Techniques: Provide an overview of the data analysis methods employed (e.g., statistical analysis, machine learning algorithms, data mining, or log analysis) to extract meaningful insights from the collected data.
o Visualization of Data: Present key findings using appropriate visualizations, such as graphs, charts, or network diagrams, to clearly convey the outcomes of the data analysis. o Interpretation of Results: Explain how the analysis results support or contradict the research project objectives, focusing on insights gained from system performance, simulated scenarios, or user behaviour data.
Assessment 3: Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark.
|
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)
|
|
Data Collection
Methodology
(20 Marks)
|
The data collection methodology is unclear, lacks detail, and is not relevant to the IT project.
|
The data collection methodology is described briefly but lacks clear justification for the methods chosen.
|
The data collection methodology is described with some relevance to the IT project but lacks depth in justification.
|
The data collection methodology is well structured, relevant to the IT project, and
includes a good
justification.
|
The data collection methodology is
comprehensive, highly relevant, and strongly justified for the IT
project.
|
|
Data Collection Process (20 Marks)
|
The description of the data collection process is unclear, lacking detail, and does not explain how tools or technologies were used.
|
The description provides limited information about the data collection
process and tools but lacks depth and clarity.
|
The data collection process is described, with some explanation of the tools and technologies used, but could be more detailed.
|
The data collection process is well-described, with a good explanation of the tools and
technologies used.
|
The data collection process is thoroughly described with clear, detailed explanations of the tools, technologies, and methods used.
|
|
Data Analysis and
Visualization
(30 Marks)
|
Data analysis methods are unclear, with no or very limited use of
appropriate
visualizations.
|
Data analysis methods are described but lack sufficient depth, with limited or unclear
visualizations.
|
Data analysis methods are adequately
described, with some relevant visualizations, but could be more
detailed.
|
Data analysis methods are clearly described, with relevant and well executed visualizations.
|
Data analysis methods are thoroughly described, with excellent, detailed visualizations that clearly support the findings.
|
|
Interpretation of Results (20 Marks)
|
Interpretation of the results is unclear and does not link the analysis to the project objectives.
|
The interpretation of results is superficial and only partially links the analysis to the project objectives.
|
Results are interpreted with some clarity, linking to the project objectives, but could be more
detailed.
|
Results are well
interpreted, with clear links to the project
objectives and insights into the IT project.
|
Results are expertly interpreted, with strong links to the project
objectives, providing
|
| |
|
|
|
|
significant insights into the IT project.
|
|
Report Structure and Presentation
(10 Marks)
|
The report lacks clear structure, with significant grammatical or
presentation issues.
|
The report has a basic structure but contains multiple grammatical or formatting issues.
|
The report has a clear structure but contains some minor grammatical or formatting issues.
|
The report is well
structured and presented with only a few minor grammatical or
formatting issues.
|
The report is excellently structured, with clear, concise language and no grammatical or
formatting issues.
|
Assessment 4: Submission of Report/Artefact and Oral Presentation
|
Due date:
|
Week 11 (Oral Presentation),
Week 12 (Final Report Submission)
|
|
Group/individual:
|
Individual
|
|
Word count/Time provided:
|
3500 Words
|
|
Weighting:
|
40%
|
|
Unit Learning Outcomes:
|
ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4
|
Assessment 4 Detail
Students prepare and present the final report, model, or artefact of the research study. Students are required to submit a comprehensive research report that encapsulates their IT project.
Final Report
The report should consolidate all the previous assessments (progress reports, literature reviews, frameworks, and data analysis) into a cohesive document. This research report will serve as both the culmination of their work and a demonstration of their ability to contribute to academic discussions in the field of IT. The report should include the followings sections:
1. Introduction:
• Provide an overview of the research problem, its significance, and the specific aims of the IT project.
• Discuss the research questions or hypotheses guiding the study.
• Include a clear thesis statement or objective.
2. Literature Review:
• A critical review of the existing academic and industry literature related to the project. • Highlight relevant theories, frameworks, and methodologies, situating the project within the broader context of IT research.
• Identify any gaps in the literature that the project seeks to address.
3. Methodology:
• Detailed explanation of the research methods and design.
• Describe how data was collected (e.g., through simulations, real-world experiments, or surveys). • Include technical aspects like the tools, algorithms, or systems used in the project.
4. Results:
• Present the findings of the project, backed by data collected and analyzed.
• Include relevant visualizations (e.g., graphs, charts, or diagrams) to support the results. • Highlight key insights and trends observed from the data.
5. Discussion:
• Provide a critical analysis of the results in the context of the research questions.
• Compare findings to the literature reviewed, discussing similarities, differences, and contributions.
• Address any limitations or challenges encountered during the project and suggest areas for future research.
6. Conclusion:
• Summarize the key findings and their implications for the field of Information Technology. • Reiterate the contributions of the project and its relevance to academia or industry. • Provide recommendations based on the research findings.
7. References:
• A complete list of references formatted in IEEE style.
• Include all cited academic papers, books, technical reports, and relevant industry publications.
Oral Presentation
The student should also present their final report, model, or artefact of the research study. The assessment will consist of a LIVE (invigilated) oral presentation with PowerPoint slides, which will cover the topics in the final report above (Sections 1-6).
The assessment is marked out of 100 and contributes 40% to the total unit grade. Please note that the evaluation will include the quality of the oral presentation and the student’s responses to questions related to their research project. The marking criteria and rubric are provided on the following page.
Assessment 4: Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 40% of the total unit mark.
|
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)
|
|
Introduction
(10 Marks)
|
Introduction lacks a clear problem statement or objective.
|
Introduction outlines the research problem but lacks clarity in
objectives.
|
Introduction provides a general overview with some clarity in objectives.
|
Introduction is clear, with well-defined
problem statement and objectives.
|
Excellent introduction with a clear, concise problem statement and well-structured objectives.
|
|
Literature Review
(20 Marks)
|
Poor review of
literature, lacking
relevant sources or critical analysis.
|
Basic review of
literature with
minimal critical
analysis of sources.
|
Good review of
relevant literature,
with some critical
evaluation.
|
Thorough review with clear critical analysis and comparison of key sources.
|
Comprehensive review with excellent critical analysis and synthesis of relevant literature.
|
|
Methodology
(15 Marks)
|
Methodology is unclear, incomplete, or
irrelevant to the
research.
|
Methodology is described but lacks detail or justification.
|
Methodology is
appropriate but lacks depth in justification or explanation.
|
Clear and
appropriate
methodology, with good detail and
justification.
|
Excellent, well
justified and
thoroughly explained methodology.
|
|
Results and Data
Analysis
(20 Marks)
|
Inadequate or unclear results with little
analysis.
|
Basic presentation of results with minimal analysis or discussion.
|
Results are presented with some analysis but lack depth in
interpretation.
|
Well-presented
results with clear and logical analysis.
|
Results are
excellently presented with in-depth analysis and clear
interpretation.
|
|
Discussion and
Comparative
Analysis
(15 Marks)
|
Discussion lacks depth and fails to connect results to the research objectives.
|
Discussion addresses research objectives but lacks
comprehensive
analysis.
|
Discussion is good but lacks critical evaluation of findings.
|
Very good discussion with a critical
evaluation of findings and clear connection to research
objectives.
|
Excellent discussion, with thorough
evaluation and
critical analysis,
offering new insights.
|
|
Conclusion
(10 Marks)
|
Conclusion is missing or fails to summarize key findings.
|
Conclusion
summarizes findings but lacks insight or
clarity.
|
Conclusion is clear but lacks comprehensive insights into the
research.
|
Very good conclusion with a clear summary of findings and
insights.
|
Excellent conclusion that clearly
summarizes findings and offers thoughtful insights into the
research.
|
|
Referencing
(10 Marks)
|
There are many errors with the referencing with in-text citations and the reference list.
|
There are some errors with in-text citations and the reference list.
|
Referencing style is used appropriately, and only minor errors with in-text citations and the reference list.
|
Referencing style is used appropriately, and no errors with in-text citations and the reference list.
|
Referencing style is
excellently used, with
correctin-text citations and the reference list.
|
Leave A Comment