Research Methodology and Data Analysis T1 (ICT5201) Assignment Help


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.