Assessment Overview
Assessment Task | Type | Weight | Length | Due | ULOs Assessed |
Assessment 1: Research Problem Identification Students are required to identify suitable research problems for their applied project; justify why the problem is worth pursuing and what are the benefits they expect to see as an outcome of the research. This is an invigilated assessment and need to be conducted face-to-face in class. | Individual & Invigilated  
| 20% | 10 minutes presenta tion (equiv. 1000 words) | Week4 | Part (A) ULO1 ULO4 |
Assessment 2: LiteratureReview Students are required to develop literature review for the problem which they have identified in Assessment 1; identify research gaps and propose at least three research questions. | Individual
| 25% | 1500 words | Week 6 | ULO1 ULO2 ULO4 |
Assessment 3: Research Design Students are required to Identify appropriate research methodology /design to address the research questions proposed in Assessment 2 that can help to achieve research objectives. | Individual
| 20% | 1000 words | Week 8 | ULO1 ULO2 ULO4 |
Assessment 4: Research Proposal: Students are required to develop and write research proposal considering Assessment 1 to Assessment 3. | Individual
| 35% | 3000 words | Week 11 | ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 |
Assessment 1: Research Problem Identification
Due date: | Week 4 |
Group/individual: | Individual & Invigilated |
Word count/Time provided: | 10 mins maximum (equiv. 1000words) |
Weighting: | 20% |
Unit Learning Outcomes: | ULO1, ULO4 |
Assessment 1 Detail
This is an invigilate assessment which needs to be conducted face-to-face in class as an oral presentation. This assessment requires you to:
• Identify suitable research problems for your applied project.
• Justify why the problem is worth pursuing.
• Discuss the benefits you expect to see as an outcome of the research.
Note: You are allowed to employ ChatGPT or other AI tools for study purposes, gaining knowledge about your topic, and aiding in the development of your assignment. However, it is crucial that you include a transparent declaration of all generative AI tools utilised along with a description of how
and where you have utilised them (for example, “I acknowledge the use of ChatGPT to create content to plan and brainstorm ideas for my assessment. The prompts used were entered on 1 July 2024.”). Details on generative AI can be found from Academic Integrity Module in the page titled Generative AI: Guidelines for Students
Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.
Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric
Marking Criteria | Excellent (85-100% of the criterion mark) | Very Good (75-84% of the criterion mark) | Good (65-74% of the criterion mark) | Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion mark) | Not Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion mark) |
Identification of Problem, Rationale & Significance (40 marks) | • Problems are clearly identified and are researchable. • Problems are relevant and justified by excellently conducted needs assessment. • Research significance is supported by excellent arguments with comparison to the latest research. | • Problems are clearly identified and are researchable. • Problems are relevant and justified by well conducted needs assessment. • Research significance is supported by very good arguments with comparison to the latest research. | • Problems are clearly identified and are researchable. • Problems are relevant and justified by conducted needs assessment. • Research significance is supported by good arguments with comparison to some relevant research. | • Problems are identified but not likely to result into a researchable question. • Problems are justified with no detail needs assessment. • Research significance is presented but not supported by arguments with comparison to the latest research. | • Problems are poorly identified and are not researchable. • Problems are not relevant and justified by needs assessment. • Research significance is not presented |
Expected benefit & Relevance of Cited literature. (40 marks) | • Expected research benefit is presented and an excellent comparison to past findings is also discussed. • The citation referred in the presentation is the latest and relevant to the research topic. | • Expected research benefit is presented and a very good comparison to past findings is also provided. • The citation referred in the presentation is the latest and relevant to the research topic. | • Expected research benefit is presented and a good comparison to past findings is also provided. • The citation referred in the presentation is the latest and relevant to the research topic. | • Expected research benefit is presented and an acceptable comparison to past findings is also provided. • The citation referred in the presentation is somewhat latest, and some literature are not relevant. | • Expected research benefit is not presented and no comparison to past findings is not provided. • The citation referred to in the presentation is not the latest and not relevant to the research topic. |
Presentation Skill (20 marks) | • Presentation (narration) was excellent and very engaging. • Tones, pitch, and clarity of narration was excellent. • Narrated (presented) in a professional manner with | • Presentation (narration) was very good and engaging. • Tones, pitch, and the clarity of the narration was very good. | • Presentation (narration) was good and engaging. • Tones, pitch, and clarity of narration was good. • Narrated (presented) in a professional manner with good body language | • Presentation (narration) was adequate. • Tones, pitch, and clarity of narration was adequate. • Narrated (presented) in somewhat in professional | • Presentation (narration) was not adequate. • Tones, pitch, and clarity of narration was not adequate- spoke too quickly or too slowly making it difficult to understand. |
| | good body language and appropriate attire and look. • No dependent on slide and/or additional notes • Excellent eye contact with the audience. | • Narrated (presented) in a professional manner with good body language and appropriate attire and look. • Dependent on slides and/or additional notes is very minimal. | but not in an appropriate attire and look. • Dependent on slide and/or additional notes are somewhat present. • Adequate level of eye contact with the audience. | manner but not in an appropriate attire and look. • Dependent on slide and/or additional notes is prominent. • Minimum level of eye contact with the audience. | • Narrated (presented) is not in a professional manner but not in an appropriate attire and look. • Heavily dependent on slide and/or additional notes for narration • No eye contact with the audience. • Looked disinterested and disengaged. |
Assessment 2: Literature Review
Due date: | Week 6 |
Group/individual: | Individual |
Word count/Time provided: | 1,500 words |
Weighting: | 25% |
Unit Learning Outcomes: | ULO1, ULO2, ULO3 |
Assessment 2 Detail
This assessment requires student to write critical review for the research problem which they have identified in Assessment 1. Students are advised to use peer reviewed journal articles using academic databases such as ProQuest Central, ERIC and Harvard Business Review. Research studies (thesis/desertion), government reports and/or industry reports may also be used a reference material, but websites are not acceptable resources for the purpose of the assignment. Unless a cited reference is a seminal work, they must be recent (published within last five years) and relevant to the proposed research topic. As an outcome of the literature review, student must
• Identify research gaps.
• Propose at least three research questions.
Note: While ChatGPT or other AI tools are permissible for study purposes and to enhance your understanding of the subject, it is important to note that no AI-generated materials, including copied and edited text, are allowed in the final submission. Details on generative AI can be found from Academic Integrity Module in the page titled Generative AI: Guidelines for Students
Assessments 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 25% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.
Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric
Marking Criteria | Excellent (85-100% of the criterion mark) | Very Good (75-84% of the criterion mark) | Good (65-74% of the criterion mark) | Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion mark) | Not Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion mark) |
Literature Review (30 marks) | • Literature review cites comprehensive research and theoretical knowledge of the field in the way relevant to the contextual needs. • Literature review is purposefully and excellently synthesized. • Literature review is excellently organized around Assessment 1 • All literature is reviewed in the context of the Problem identified in Assessment 1 | • Literature review cites comprehensive research and theoretical knowledge of the field in the way relevant to the contextual needs. • Literature review is very well synthesized. • Literature review is very well organized around Assessment 1 • All literature is reviewed in the context of the Problem identified in Assessment 1 | • Literature review cites major research and theoretical knowledge of the field in the way relevant to the contextual needs. • Literature review is well synthesized. • Literature review is well organized around Assessment 1 • Most of the literature is reviewed in the context of the Problem identified in Assessment 1 | • Literature review cites some of the major theories and research in the field in the way relevant to the contextual needs. • Literature review is satisfactorily written but not well synthesized. • Literature is marginally linked to Assessment 1 | • Literature review doesn’t cite relevant theories. • Literature review is not written in the way that can guide the development of research questions. • Literature is not linked Assessment 1 • Literature does not reflect the context of Assessment 1 |
knowledge gap in the Literature (10 marks) | • The knowledge gap identified in the literature review is assessed as excellent. | • The knowledge gap identified in the literature review is assessed as very good. | • The knowledge gap identified in the literature review is assessed as good. | • The knowledge gap identified in the literature review is assessed as satisfactory. | • The knowledge gap identified in the literature review is assessed as not satisfactory. |
Research questions. (20 marks) | • Questions are clear, excellent, relevant, researchable and could potentially resolve a clearly identified problem or issue from Assessment 1. | • Questions are clear, researchable, and relevant to the problem or issue identified in Assessment 1. • Questions are guided by knowledge gap in | • Questions are researchable and relevant to the problem or issue identified in Assessment 1. • Questions are guided by knowledge gap in the | • Questions are somewhat researchable and relevant to the problem or issue identified in Assessment 1 • Questions are somewhat guided by knowledge gap in the literature, but the | • Question does not reflect a problem related to Assessment 1 • Questions are not researchable. • No or unclear description of the context. |
| | • Questions are clearly guided by knowledge gap in the literature and the context is excellently described | the literature and the context is very well described | literature and the context is well described. | context is not well described. | • Questions are not guided by the knowledge gap in the literature and context is either not present or unclear. |
Summary on proposed research (10 marks) | • The summary is assessed as excellent which clearly mention research title and objectives | • The summary is assessed as very good which clearly mention research title and objectives | • The summary is assessed as good which clearly mention research title and objectives | • The summary is assessed as satisfactory, but title is somewhat vague, and objectives are not so clear. | • The summary is assessed as unsatisfactory; title and objectives missing. |
Clarity of expression (15 marks) | • The writing is fluent and coherent with excellent structure and presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with no minor spelling or typing error. • The writing perceives a sense of the wider context of the ideas. | • The writing is fluent and coherent with good structure exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with minor spelling or typing error. | • The writing is fluent and coherent with very good structure exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with few spellings or typing error. • The writing is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader of the argument who is left in no doubt of the purpose | • . The writing is satisfactory and exhibits majority of grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with some spelling or typing errors. • The writing does not go far enough in expanding key issues/ concepts. • The writing requires further information to clarify main arguments | • The writing is poor with no logical flow and has grammatical errors. • Information is limited, unclear and the depth is not adequately developed. • The idea is a simple restatement of the topic. • Demonstration of a limited sense of purpose or theme • Insufficient understanding of the topic. |
Presentation and referencing (15 marks) | • The writing shows excellent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) with no error in referencing. • Report is formatted and presented exactly as per the APIC Assessment | • The writing shows very good application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) with few errors in referencing. • Report is well formatted but not presented exactly as per the APIC Assessment | • The writing shows good application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) with some errors in referencing. • Report is formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines to large extent. | • The writing shows inconsistent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) • In-text citation match with the citation under Reference list • Report is formatted and presented as per the APIC | • The writing shows insufficient application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) • The writing shows no in-text citation. • In-text citation does to match with citation under Reference list |
| | presentation guidelines. | presentation guidelines. | | Assessment presentation guidelines to some extent. | • Report is not formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines. |
Assessment 3: Research Design
Due date: | Week 8 |
Group/individual: | Individual |
Word count/Time provided: | 1,000 words |
Weighting: | 20% |
Unit Learning Outcomes: | ULO2, ULO3 |
Assessment 3 Detail
This assessment requires students to identify appropriate research design (methodology and analysis techniques) to address research questions identified in Assessment 2 to provide satisfactory solutions and to achieve research objectives. Students are required to provide adequate references to any research studies which used or discussed the proposed research design, using Harvard Referencing. Please note, websites are not acceptable resources for the purpose of the assignment.
Note: While ChatGPT or other AI tools are permissible for study purposes and to enhance your understanding of the subject, it is important to note that no AI-generated materials, including copied and edited text, are allowed in the final submission. Details on generative AI can be found from Academic Integrity Module in the page titled Generative AI: Guidelines for Students
Assessments 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.
Assessment 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric
Marking Criteria | Excellent (85-100% of the criterion mark) | Very Good (75-84% of the criterion mark) | Good (65-74% of the criterion mark) | Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion mark) | Not Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion mark) |
Justification of the proposed research design and methods. (30 marks) | • The justification of the proposed research design and methods are assessed as excellent. | The justification of the proposed research design and methods is assessed as very good. | The justification of the proposed research design and methods are assessed as good. | The justification of the proposed research design and methods are assessed as satisfactory. | The justification of the proposed research design and methods are assessed as not satisfactory. |
Description on proposed data collection tools and methods. (15 marks) | • The description on proposed data collection tools and methods are assessed as excellent. | • The description on proposed data collection tools and methods are assessed as very good. | • The description on proposed data collection tools and methods is assessed as good. | • The description on proposed data collection tools and methods is assessed as satisfactory. | • The description on proposed data collection tools and methods are assessed as not satisfactory. |
Description on proposed data analysis techniques. (15 marks) | • The description on proposed data analysis techniques is assessed as excellent. | • The description on proposed data analysis techniques is assessed as very good. | • The description on proposed data analysis techniques is assessed as good. | • The description on proposed data analysis techniques is assessed as satisfactory. | • The description on proposed data analysis techniques is assessed as not satisfactory. |
Conclusion on the proposed data collection and analysis. (10 marks) | • The conclusion on the proposed data collection and analysis is assessed as excellent. | • The conclusion on the proposed data collection and analysis is assessed as very good. | • The conclusion on the proposed data collection and analysis is assessed as good. | • The conclusion on the proposed data collection and analysis is assessed as satisfactory. | • The conclusion on the proposed data collection and analysis is assessed as not satisfactory. |
Clarity of expression (15 marks) | • The writing is fluent and coherent with excellent structure and presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with no minor spelling or typing error. | • The writing is fluent and coherent with good structure exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with minor spelling or typing error. | • The writing is fluent and coherent with very good structure exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with few spellings or typing error. • The writing is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader | • . The writing is satisfactory and exhibits majority of grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with some spelling or typing errors. • The writing does not go far enough in expanding key issues/ concepts. | • The writing is poor with no logical flow and has grammatical errors. • Information is limited, unclear and the depth is not adequately developed. • The idea is a simple restatement of the topic. • Demonstration of a limited sense of purpose or theme |
| | • The writing perceives a sense of the wider context of the ideas. | | of the argument who is left in no doubt of the purpose | • The writing requires further information to clarify main arguments | • Insufficient understanding of the topic. |
Presentation and referencing (15 marks) | • The writing shows excellent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) with no error in referencing. • Report is formatted and presented exactly as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines. | • The writing shows very good application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) with few errors in referencing. • Report is well formatted but not presented exactly as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines. | • The writing shows good application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) with some errors in referencing. • Report is formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines to large extent. | • The writing shows inconsistent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) • In-text citation match with the citation under Reference list • Report is formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines to some extent. | • The writing shows insufficient application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) • The writing shows no in-text citation. • In-text citation does to match with citation under Reference list • Report is not formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines. |
Assessment 4: Research Proposal
Due date: | Week 11 |
Group/individual: | Individual |
Word count/Time provided: | 3,000 words |
Weighting: | 35% |
Unit Learning Outcomes: | ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4 |
Assessment 4 Detail
This assessment requires students to develop a final research proposal based on the previous three assessments which should also include research ethics and proposed time frame. It is expected that students progressing to the MPMB/MBA will use this proposal as a base to further develop their Capstone research project (Applied Research Project) such as PRJ6001. Students are recommended to develop their assessment in the following order:
1. Introduction (Problem definition & objective): State the research problem clearly (research questions), provide motivation for undertaking the research; provide succinct, clear, logical description of the objectives and plan of action.
2. Background (Literature and Previous Work): Discuss the objectives, methodologies and findings of relevant previous research that provides a background for your research topic. The aim is to provide a critique of existing work and identify gaps in knowledge and / or methodological weaknesses in existing research.
3. Significance & Broader Impact (Impact of Proposed Research): Discuss the potential value of solution or contribution to the research problem within and outside the area/field of study. Also discuss broader implications of the proposed research. Broader impacts may include social, economic, technical, ethical, translational, clinical, pharmaceutical, technological, or business aspects.
4. Research Design and Methods (Proposed Methodology): Discuss research methods/tools suitable for use to solve the defined problem. This should include the type of data to be used, how data will be collected and analyzed, possible ethical issues and how these will be addressed. In addition, discuss why the methodology and methods you have selected is suitable to address the research question(s).
5. Results & Communication (Expected outcomes): Discuss what are the potential output of the proposed research and how the same will be disseminated to a wider audience. 6. Conclusion: Summarize the key points from your proposal and reiterate the significance of the proposed research, why it is worth undertaking and what benefits it would have. End this with a positive note so that your proposal will be considered for research.
7. Timeline: Present the tentative timeline for completing your research project. You should focus on completing your research work within 10 teaching weeks.
8. References: Include bibliographic detail of all in-text citations in APIC Harvard Style. Websites, blogs, personal communications are generally not viewed as a trusted source of reference.
Note: While ChatGPT or other AI tools are permissible for study purposes and to enhance your understanding of the subject, it is important to note that no AI-generated materials, including copied and edited text, are allowed in the final submission. Details on generative AI can be found from Academic Integrity Module in the page titled Generative AI: Guidelines for Students
Assessments 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 35% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.
Assessment 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric
Marking Criteria | Excellent (85-100% of the criterion mark) | Very Good (75-84% of the criterion mark) | Good (65-74% of the criterion mark) | Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion mark) | Not Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion mark) |
Introduction (Problem definition & objective) (15 marks) | • Excellent linking of the proposed research with the stated specific problem and research objectives. • The author describes how the research is to be approached in a logical and succinct manners. • Research timeline is presented excellently. • Motivation is excellently presented | • Very good linking of the proposed research with the stated specific problem and research objectives • The author describes how the research is to be approached in a logical manner. • Research timeline is very well presented. • Motivation is very well presented | • Good linking of the proposed research with the stated specific problem and research objectives • The author’s description of research approach is good and logical manners. • Research timeline is well presented. • Motivation is well presented. | • Acceptable linking of the proposed research with the stated specific problem and objectives • The author’s description of the research approach is limited. • Research timeline is adequately presented. • Motivation is somewhat presented. | • Insufficient linking of the proposed research and the stated specific problem and objectives • The author does not describe how the research is approached. • Research timeline is not well presented. • Motivation is not evident. |
Background (Literature and Previous Work) (15 marks) | • Synthesis of previous research in forming background of the proposed study is excellently presented. • Previous research were excellently critiqued • Research gaps were identified and discussed in the study. • Research discussed and critiqued are entirely related to the present research topic | • Synthesis of previous research in forming background of the the proposed study is very well presented. • Previous research were very well critiqued • Research gaps were identified and discussed in the study. • Research discussed and critiqued are entirely related to the present research topic. | • Synthesis of previous research in forming background of the proposed study is well presented. • Previous research were well critiqued • Discussion on research gaps is limiting. • Research discussed and critiqued are mostly related to the present research topic. | • Synthesis of previous research in forming background of the proposed study somewhat presented. • Previous research were not critiqued • Research gap identified but no discussion presented. • Research discussed and critiqued are somewhat related to the present research topic. | • Synthesis of previous research in forming the background of the proposed study is not presented. • Previous research were not critiqued • Research gap neither identified nor discussed. • Majority of research discussed are not related to the present research topic. |
Significance & Broader Impact (Impact of Proposed Research) (10 marks) | • Excellent discussion on significance and broader impact of the study | • Very good discussion on significance and broader impact of the study | • Good discussion on significance and broader impact of the study | • Discussion on significance and broader impact of the study is somewhat presented | • Neither significance nor the impact of the study is presented. |
Research Design and Methods (Proposed Methodology, including research ethics) (20 Marks) | • The methodology is almost certain to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. • The research design is well thought and is most appropriate to the research project and questions. • Conceptual or theoretical framework provides the basis of the data collection and analysis in a succinct manners. • The author has presented a range of suitable tools to carry out the data analysis. • Ethical considerations were discussed. | • The methodology is highly probable to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified Problem. • The research design is most appropriate to the research project and questions. • Conceptual or theoretical framework in the report provides the basis of the data collection and analysis. • The author has proposed a range of tools and techniques to carry out the data analysis. • Ethical considerations were discussed. | • The methodology is most likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. • The research design is appropriate to the research project and question. • Conceptual or theoretical framework in the report provides the basis of the data collection and analysis. • The author has proposed limited range of tools and techniques to carry out the data analysis. • Ethical considerations were mentioned. | • The methodology is likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. • The research design is adequate. • Conceptual or theoretical framework requires further work. • The author has proposed limited range of tools and techniques to carry out the data analysis. • Ethical considerations were limited. | • The methodology is not likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. • The research design is limited. • No conceptual or theoretical framework in the report. • The author has not proposed sufficient tools and techniques to carry out the data analysis. • Ethical considerations were missing. |
Results & Communication (Expected outcomes) (10 marks) | • Expected outcome of the proposed research were excellently discussed with its wider applicability. • Suitable avenues of research result | • Expected outcome of the proposed research were very well discussed with its wider applicability. • Suitable avenues of research result | • Expected outcome of the proposed research were well discussed with its wider applicability. • Suitable avenues of research result dissemination has been discussed. | • Expected outcome of the proposed research were somewhat discussed but discussion on its wider applicability is not evident. • Suitable avenues of research result | • Nether expected outcome of the proposed research or its wider applicability is presented. • No suitable avenues of research result dissemination have discussed. |
| | dissemination have been discussed. | dissemination have been discussed. | | dissemination have marginally discussed. | |
Timeframe (5 marks) | • Excellent presentation of tentative timeline for completing the research project | • Very good presentation of tentative timeline for completing the research project | • Good presentation of tentative timeline for completing the research project | • Satisfactory presentation of tentative timeline for completing the research project | • Unsatisfactory presentation of tentative timeline for completing the research project. • Timeline is missing |
Clarity of expression (10 marks) | • The writing is fluent and coherent with excellent structure and presentation exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with no minor spelling or typing error. • The writing perceives a sense of the wider context of the ideas. • | • The writing is fluent and coherent with good structure exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with minor spelling or typing error. | • The writing is fluent and coherent with very good structure exhibiting grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with few spellings or typing error. • The writing is used to support the main ideas and convince the reader of the argument who is left in no doubt of the purpose | • . The writing is satisfactory and exhibits majority of grammatically correct sentences that are appropriately punctuated with some spelling or typing errors. • The writing does not go far enough in expanding key issues/ concepts. • The writing requires further information to clarify main arguments | • The writing is poor with no logical flow and has grammatical errors. • Information is limited, unclear and the depth is not adequately developed. • The idea is a simple restatement of the topic. • Demonstration of a limited sense of purpose or theme • Insufficient understanding of the topic. • |
Presentation and referencing (15 marks) | • The writing shows excellent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) with no error in referencing. • Report is formatted and presented exactly as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines. | • The writing shows very good application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) with few errors in referencing. • Report is well formatted but not presented exactly as per the APIC Assessment | • The writing shows good application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) with some errors in referencing. • Report is formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines to a large extent. | • The writing shows inconsistent application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) • In-text citation match with the citation under Reference list • Report is formatted and presented as per the APIC | • The writing shows insufficient application of the recommended style of referencing (APIC Harvard style) • The writing shows no in-text citation. • In-text citation does to match with citation under Reference list |
| | | presentation guidelines. | | Assessment presentation guidelines to some extent. | • Report is not formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines. |
Leave A Comment