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