PRJ5106 Research Methodology and Data Analysis T1 Assignment Help


Assessment Overview

Assessment Task 

Type 

Weight 

Length 

Due 

ULOs 

Assessed

Assessment 1: Research Plan &  Literature Review 

Part (A): Research Plan 

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

Part (B): LiteratureReview 

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

Part(A) 

Individual 

Part (B) 

Individual

Part (A) 

15% 

Part (B) 

25%

Part (A) 

600  

words 

Part (B) 

1500  

words

Part (A) 

Week4 

Part (B) 

Week 7

Part (A) 

ULO1 

ULO4 

Part (B) 

ULO1 

ULO2 

ULO3

Assessment 2: Research Design 

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

Individual 

20% 

1000 

words

Week10 

ULO2 

ULO3

Assessment 3: Research  

Proposal Presentation 

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

Individual  

&  

Invigilated

15% 

10  

minute 

s 

present 

ation 

(equiv.  

1000 

words)

Week12 

ULO1 

ULO2 

ULO3 

ULO4

Assessment 4: Research  

Proposal:  

Students are required to develop  and write research proposal. 

Individual 

25% 

3000  

words

Week 12 

ULO1 

ULO2 

ULO3 

ULO4

Assessment 1 (A): Research Plan 

Due date: 

Week 4

Group/individual: 

Individual

Word count/Time provided: 

600 words

Weighting: 

15%

Unit Learning Outcomes: 

ULO1, ULO4

Assessment 1 Detail 

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

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

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

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric 

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


Assessment 1(A) Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria 

Not Satisfactory  

(0-49% of the  

criterion mark)

Satisfactory 

(50-64% of the  

criterion mark)

Good 

(65-74% of the  

criterion mark)

Very Good 

(75-84% of the  

criterion mark)

Excellent 

(85-100% of the  

criterion mark)

Overview and  

justification of the  research plan. 

(20 marks)

The overview and  

justification of the  research plan is  

assessed as not  

satisfactory.

The overview and  

justification of the  research plan is  

assessed as  

satisfactory.

The overview and  

justification of the  research plan is  

assessed as good.

The overview and  

justification of the  research plan is  

assessed as very  

good.

The overview and  

justification of the  research plan is  

assessed as excellent.

Condensed  

introductory  

literature review of  the research plan. 

(20 marks)

The condensed  

introductory  

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as not  

satisfactory.

The condensed  

introductory  

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as  

satisfactory. 

The condensed  

introductory  

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as good. 

The condensed  

introductory  

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as very  

good. 

The condensed  

introductory  

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as excellent. 

Proposed  

methodology of the  research plan. 

(20 marks)

The condensed  

introductory  

literature review of  the research plan is  assessed as not  

satisfactory.

The proposed  

methodology of the  research plan is  

assessed as  

satisfactory.

The proposed  

methodology of the  research plan is  

assessed as good.

The proposed  

methodology of the  research plan is  

assessed as very  

good.

The proposed  

methodology of the  research plan is  

assessed as excellent.

Conclusion of the  

research plan  

explaining the  

expected outcomes.  (20 marks)

The conclusion of the  research plan  

explaining the  

expected outcomes is  assessed as not  

satisfactory.

The conclusion of the  research plan  

explaining the  

expected outcomes is  assessed as  

satisfactory. 

The conclusion of the  research plan  

explaining the  

expected outcomes is  assessed as good. 

The conclusion of the  research plan  

explaining the  

expected outcomes is  assessed as very  

good. 

The conclusion of the  research plan  

explaining the  

expected outcomes is  assessed as excellent. 

Academic writing  

style 

(20 marks)

Academic writing  

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

assessed as not  

satisfactory.

Academic writing  

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

assessed as  

satisfactory.

Academic writing  

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

assessed as good.

Academic writing  

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

assessed as very  

good.

Academic writing  

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

assessed as excellent.

Assessment 1(B): Literature Review 

Due date: 

Week 7

Group/individual: 

Individual

Word count/Time provided: 

1,500 words

Weighting: 

25%

Unit Learning Outcomes: 

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3

Assessment 1(B) Detail 

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

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

Assessments 1(B) Marking Criteria and Rubric 

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


Assessment 1(B) Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria

Not Satisfactory 

(0-49% of the  

criterion mark)

Satisfactory 

(50-64% of the  

criterion mark)

Good 

(65-74% of the  

criterion mark)

Very Good 

(75-84% of the  

criterion mark)

Excellent 

(85-100% of the  

criterion mark)

Critical review of the  literature on the  

research topic. 

(20 marks)

The critical review of  the literature on the  research topic is  

assessed as not  

satisfactory.

The critical review of  the literature on the  research topic is  

assessed as  

satisfactory.

The critical review of  the literature on the  research topic is  

assessed as good.

The critical review of  the literature on the  research topic is  

assessed as very  

good.

The critical review of  the literature on the  research topic is  

assessed as  

excellent.

Identifying the  

knowledge gap in  the literature review  on the research  

topic. 

(20 marks)

The knowledge gap  identified in the  

literature review is  assessed as not  

satisfactory. 

The knowledge gap  

identified in the  

literature review is  

assessed as  

satisfactory. 

The knowledge gap  identified in the  

literature review is  assessed as good. 

The knowledge gap  identified in the  

literature review is  rated as highly  

significant.

The knowledge gap  identified in the  

literature review is  assessed as  

excellent. 

Defining appropriate  research questions  and objectives. 

(20 marks)

The appropriateness  of the research  

questions and  

objectives is  

assessed as not  

satisfactory.

The appropriateness of  the research questions  and objectives is  

assessed as  

satisfactory.

The appropriateness  of the research  

questions and  

objectives is  

assessed as good.

The appropriateness  of the research  

questions and  

objectives is  

assessed as very  

good.

The appropriateness  of the research  

questions and  

objectives is  

assessed as  

excellent.

Conclusion on the  literature review.  (20 marks)

The conclusion on  the literature review  is assessed as not  

satisfactory. 

The conclusion on the  literature review is  

assessed as  

satisfactory. 

The conclusion on  the literature review  is assessed as good. 

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

The conclusion on  the literature review  is assessed as  

excellent. 


Academic writing  style 

(20 marks)

Academic writing  

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

satisfactory.

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

referencing is assessed  as satisfactory.

Academic writing  

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

Academic writing  

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

good.

Academic writing  

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

excellent.

Assessment 2: Research Design 

Due date: 

Week 10

Group/individual: 

Individual

Word count/Time provided: 

1,000 words

Weighting: 

20%

Unit Learning Outcomes: 

ULO2, ULO3

Assessment 2 Detail 

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

Assessments 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric 

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


Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria

Not Satisfactory 

(0-49% of the  

criterion mark)

Satisfactory 

(50-64% of the  

criterion mark)

Good 

(65-74% of the  

criterion mark)

Very Good 

(75-84% of the  

criterion mark)

Excellent 

(85-100% of the  

criterion mark)

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

The justification of  the proposed  

research design and  methods is assessed  as not satisfactory.

The justification of the  proposed research  

design and methods is  assessed as  

satisfactory.

The justification of  the proposed  

research design and  methods is assessed  as good.

The justification of  the proposed  

research design and  methods is assessed  as very good.

The justification of  the proposed  

research design and  methods is assessed  as excellent.

Description on  

proposed data  

collection tools and  methods. 

(20 marks)

The description on  proposed data  

collection tools and  methods is assessed  as not satisfactory. 

The description on  

proposed data  

collection tools and  

methods is assessed as  satisfactory. 

The description on  proposed data  

collection tools and  methods is assessed  as good. 

The description on  proposed data  

collection tools and  methods is assessed  as very good. 

The description on  proposed data  

collection tools and  methods is assessed  as excellent. 

Description on  

proposed data  

analysis techniques. (20 marks)

The description on  proposed data  

analysis techniques is  assessed as not  

satisfactory.

The description on  

proposed data analysis  techniques is assessed  as satisfactory.

The description on  proposed data  

analysis techniques is  assessed as good.

The description on  proposed data  

analysis techniques is  assessed as very  

good.

The description on  proposed data  

analysis techniques is  assessed as  

excellent.

Conclusion on the  proposed data  

collection and  

analysis.  

(20 marks)

The conclusion on  the proposed data  collection and  

analysis is assessed  as not satisfactory. 

The conclusion on the  proposed data  

collection and analysis  is assessed as  

satisfactory. 

The conclusion on  the proposed data  collection and  

analysis is assessed  as good. 

The conclusion on  the proposed data  collection and  

analysis is assessed  as very good. 

The conclusion on  the proposed data  collection and  

analysis is assessed  as excellent. 

Academic writing  style 

(20 marks)

Academic writing  

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling, 

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

Academic writing  

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling, 

Academic writing  

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling, 

Academic writing  

style including the  sentence structure,  grammar, spelling, 


and referencing is  assessed as not  

satisfactory.

referencing is assessed  as satisfactory.

and referencing is  assessed as good.

and referencing is  assessed as very  

good.

and referencing is  assessed as  

excellent.


Assessment 3: Research Proposal Presentation 

Due date: 

Week 12

Group/individual: 

Individual

Word count/Time provided: 

1,000 words (equivalent)

Weighting: 

15%

Unit Learning Outcomes: 

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

Assessment 3 Detail 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessments 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric 

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

 

Assessment 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking 

Criteria

Not Satisfactory 

(0-49% of the criterion mark)

Satisfactory 

(50-64% of the criterion 

mark)

Good 

(65-74% of the 

criterion 

mark)

Very Good 

(75-84% of the criterion mark)

Excellent 

(85-100% of the criterion 

mark)

Visual Appeal 

(20 marks)

• Proposed research title and author is missing. 

• Poor visual appeal; 

cluttered. 

• Colours, font size and typehinder readability 

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

viewer in 

understanding without narration. 

• Presents spelling 

andgrammar 

errors. 

• No use of graphics 

(e.g.,Table, figures, 

etc.)

• Proposed research title and author is not so well 

presented. 

• Visual appeal is adequate; somewhat cluttered. 

• Colours, font size and 

type enhance somewhat detract from readability. 

• Adequate organization of text content with some 

spelling and grammar 

errors 

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

• Proposed research 

titleand author is  

well positioned. 

• Good visual appeal, some instances of  

clutter 

• Colours, font size and  type enhance 

readability. 

• Good organization  of text content with  

few spelling and  

grammarerrors. 

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

etc.)

• Proposed research 

title and author is well presented. 

• Very good visual 

appeal with minimal  

clutter 

• Colours, font size and type enhance 

readability. 

• Very good 

organization of text 

content with no 

spelling and grammar 

errors 

• Very good use of 

graphics (e.g., Table, 

figures, etc.)

• Proposed researchtitle  

and author is 

prominently presented. 

• Excellent visual appeal  

with no clutter 

• Colours, font size andtype  enhance readability. 

• Excellent organization of text content with nospelling  and grammar errors 

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



Topic 

Knowledge/content (40 marks)

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

questions adequately  

put forward by the 

moderator. 

• The presentation was a brieflook at the topic,  

but many questions  

were left unanswered. • Majority of information irrelevant and 

significantpoints left 

out.

• Presenter showed 

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

• The presentation was 

informative, butseveral 

elements went 

unanswered. 

• Much of the information irrelevant; coverage of  

some of major points.

• Presenter showed  

goodunderstanding  

of topic by  

answering most of 

the questions put 

forward by the 

moderator. 

• The presentation 

was agood summary  of the research  

proposal. 

• Major information 

covered;  

presentation 

containssome 

irrelevant  

information.

• Presentershowed very good understanding of topic by answering 

almost all questions 

put forward by the 

moderator. 

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

• Almost all-important information covered;  

presentation 

contained very little  

irrelevant information

• Presenter showed an 

extensive knowledge of  

topic by answering all  

questions put forward by 

moderator. 

• Presentation was 

comprehensive and 

included all relevant 

information and very 

good discussion on the 

content of the 

presentation.

Presentation Skill (20 marks)

• Presentation (narration) wasnot adequate. 

• Tones, pitch, and clarity  of narration was not 

adequate-spoke too  

quickly or too slowly  

making it difficult to 

understand. 

• Narrated (presented) is  not in a professional 

manner butnot in an  

appropriate attire and 

look. 

• Heavily dependent on  slideand/or additional 

• Presentation (narration) was adequate. 

• Tones, pitch, and clarity of narration was 

adequate. 

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

appropriate attire and 

look. 

• Dependent on slide 

and/or additional notes is prominent. 

• Minimum level of eye 

contact with the audience.

• Presentation  

(narration)was good 

and engaging. 

• Tones, pitch, and 

clarityof narration 

was good. 

• Narrated (presented)  ina professional  

manner with good  

body language but  

not in an appropriate  attire and look. 

• Dependent on slide and/or additional 

notesis somewhat

• Presentation 

(narration) was very 

good and engaging. 

• Tones, pitch, and 

clarity of narration 

was very good. 

• Narrated (presented) in a professional 

manner with good 

body language and 

appropriate attire and look. 

• Dependent on slide 

and/or additional 

notes is very minimal.

• Presentation (narration)  was excellent and very 

engaging. 

• Tones, pitch, and clarity of narrationwas 

excellent. 

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

appropriate attire andlook. • No dependent on slide 

and/or additional notes 

• Excellent eye contactwith the audience.


notes fornarration 

• No eye contact with 

theaudience. 

• Looked disinterested  anddisengaged

present. 

• Adequate level of 

eyecontact with the 

audience.

• Very good eye contact with the audience.

Preparedness 

(15 marks)

• Presentation was not on ascheduled time. 

• Use of media is very 

poor. 

• No evidence of 

preparedness and not 

rehearsed. 

• Presentation was on a 

scheduled time 

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

rehearsed.

• Presented on 

scheduledtime. 

• Good use of media 

• Good demonstration ofpreparedness but  

not well rehearsed

• Presented on 

scheduled time. 

• Very good use of 

media 

• Well prepared and 

rehearsed 

presentation

• Presented on 

scheduled time. 

• Excellent use of media 

• Very well preparedand  

rehearsed presentation

Documentation of Sources 

(5 marks)

• Sources are not cited 

• Cited some data obtained from other sources. 

• APIC-Harvard citation 

style is either inconsistent or incorrect.

• Cited some data 

obtained from other 

sources. 

• APIC-Harvard citation style is accurate

• Cited most data 

obtained from other 

sources. 

• APIC-Harvard citation style is accurate

• Cited all data obtainedfrom other sources. 

• APIC-Harvard citationstyle is accurate


Assessment 4 : Research Proposal Report 

Due date: 

Week 12

Group/individual: 

Individual

Word count/Time provided: 

3,000 words

Weighting: 

25%

Unit Learning Outcomes: 

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4


Assessment 4 Detail 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessments 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric 

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


Assessment 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria 

Not Satisfactory  

(0-49% of the  

criterion mark)

Satisfactory 

(50-64% of the  

criterion mark)

Good 

(65-74% of the  

criterion mark)

Very Good 

(75-84% of the  

criterion mark)

Excellent 

(85-100% of the criterion  mark)

Abstract of the research  proposal. 

(20 marks)

The abstract of the  

research proposal is  assessed as not  

satisfactory.

The abstract of the  

research proposal is  assessed as  

satisfactory.

The abstract of the  

research proposal is  

assessed as good.

The abstract of the  

research proposal is  

assessed as very good.

The abstract of the research  proposal is assessed as  

excellent.

Overview of the proposed  research questions and  their justification. 

(20 marks)

The overview of the  proposed research  

questions and their  justification is assessed  as not satisfactory. 

The overview of the  proposed research  

questions and their  justification is assessed  as satisfactory. 

The overview of the  

proposed research  

questions and their  

justification is assessed  as good. 

The overview of the  

proposed research  

questions and their  

justification is assessed as  very good. 

The overview of the  

proposed research  

questions and their  

justification is assessed as  excellent. 

Structured literature  

review. 

(20 marks)

The structured  

literature review is  

assessed as not  

satisfactory.

The structured  

literature review is  

assessed as  

satisfactory.

The structured literature  review is assessed as  good.

The structured literature  review is assessed as very  good.

The structured literature  review is assessed as  

excellent.

Description on proposed  research design. 

(20 marks)

The description on the  proposed research  

design is assessed as  not satisfactory. 

The description on the  proposed research  

design is assessed as  satisfactory. 

The description on the  proposed research  

design is assessed as  good. 

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

The description on the  

proposed research design is  assessed as excellent. 

Academic writing style 

(20 marks)

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

referencing is assessed  as not satisfactory.

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

referencing is assessed  as satisfactory.

Academic writing style  including the sentence  structure, grammar,  

spelling, and referencing  is assessed as good.

Academic writing style  including the sentence  structure, grammar,  

spelling, and referencing  is assessed as very good.

Academic writing style  

including the sentence  

structure, grammar,  

spelling, and referencing is  assessed as excellent.