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

Due date:

Week 4

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

1000 words

Weighting:

10%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO1, ULO4

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 frame

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.

Due date:

Week 6

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

1,500 words

Weighting:

20%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO2, ULO3

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.

Due date:

Week 8

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

2,500 words

Weighting:

25%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

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.

Due date:

Week 12

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

2,500 words

Weighting:

30%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

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.

Due date:

Week 12

Group/individual:

Individual

Word count/Time provided:

1,000 words (equivalent)

Weighting:

15%

Unit Learning Outcomes:

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

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.