PART A: Project report

PART B: Presentation of project results.

PART A: 2,000 words.

PART B: 10 minutes and 5 - 10 PowerPoint slides.

PART A: Week 12

PART B: Week 12 date negotiated

PART A: 40%

PART B: 20%

= 60%

PART A: …/100

PART B: …/100

A project title

(5 marks)

• Title is provided which conveys a clear and deep understanding of the proposed project.
• The title is engaging and knowledgeable.

• Title is provided and conveys information, sufficient to convey a deeper understanding of the proposed project.

• Title is provided and conveys information, sufficient to convey a clear understanding of the proposed project.

• Title is provided and conveys basic information, sufficient to convey a simple understanding of the proposed project.

• Title is not provided.
• If provided, fails to convey sufficient / appropriate information regarding the proposed project.

Executive Summary

(5 marks)

• Executive Summary is succinct and clear, providing details about the proposed project within a knowledgeable evidenced context.
• All required elements have been provided.

• Executive Summary is provided and is relevant, offering important and insightful details about the proposed project.
• Most required elements have been provided.

• Executive Summary is provided and is relevant, offering essential details about the proposed project.
• Most required elements have been provided.

• Executive Summary is provided and is relevant, offering basic details about the proposed project.
• Some required elements have been omitted.

• Executive Summary is not provided or lacks relevance. It fails to offer appropriate details about the proposed project.
• Most required elements have been omitted.

Introduction

(5 marks)

• Introduction is succinct and clear, providing details about the proposed project within a knowledgeable evidenced context.
• All required elements have been provided.

• Introduction is provided and is relevant, offering important and insightful details about the proposed project.
• Most required elements have been provided.

• Introduction is provided and is relevant, offering essential details about the proposed project.
• Most required elements have been provided.

• Introduction is provided and is relevant, offering basic details about the proposed project.
• Some required elements have been omitted.

• Introduction is not provided or lacks relevance.
• It fails to offer appropriate details about the proposed project.
• Most required elements have been omitted.

Business problem, hypothesis, goals

(5 marks)

• Hypothesis, business problem statement or research goals are clearly articulated.

• Hypothesis, business problem statement or research goals are clearly articulated.

• Hypothesis, business problem statement or research goals are clearly articulated.

• Hypothesis, business problem or research goals are minimally stated and/or are somewhat ambiguous.

• Hypothesis, business problem or research goals are vague, unfocused or incomplete.

Literature review

(10 marks)

• Excellent discussion of cited works and in-depth insight and analysis; meaningful connections to proposed work are communicated effectively.
• Places the work within a larger context. Shows keen understanding of the significance of the research.
• It is clear how the proposed activities fit into the broader scholarly field.

• It is clear how the proposed activities fit into the broader scholarly field.
• Project addresses some relevant questions in the field. Provides a meaningful summary of the literature and builds a case for the research.
• Knowledge of literature or previous work in the field is good.
• Good discussion of cited works; adequate depth of insight and analysis.

• Good discussion of cited works; adequate depth of insight and analysis; relevant connections to proposed work.
• Cites most of the key literature. Lacks critical analysis and synthesis.
• A link is made between the proposed work and the broader research field.
• Knowledge of the literature or previous work in the field is adequate.

• Cites most of the key literature. Lacks critical analysis and synthesis.
• A link is made between the proposed work and the broader research field.
• Project addresses questions in the field. Knowledge of the literature or previous work in the field is adequate.

• Fails to cite important, relevant literature.
• Does not clearly relate the literature to research question and potential contribution.
• Knowledge of the literature or previous work in the field is limited. Misinterprets the literature.

Research design and methods.

(15 marks)

• Methods for collecting and analysing data are thoroughly discussed relative to the research objectives.
• Key variables and/or unit(s) of analysis relevant to the research business problem and objectives are succinctly incorporated into the research design.
• Sampling method, instrumentation and time frame of the research project are very clearly identified.

• Methods for collecting and analysing data are adequately discussed relative to the research objectives.
• Key variables and/or unit(s) of analysis relevant to the research business problem and objectives are adequately incorporated into the research design.
• Sampling method, instrumentation and timeframe of the research project are clearly identified.

• Methods for collecting and analysing data are generally discussed relative to the research objectives.
• Variables and/or unit(s) of analysis are incorporated into research design.
• Sampling method, instrumentation and time frame of the research project are identified.

• Methods for collecting and analysing data are minimally discussed relative to the research objectives.
• Variables and/or unit(s) of analysis are somewhat incorporated into the research design.
• Sampling method, instrumentation and time frame of the research project are vaguely identified.

• Methods for collecting and analysing data to support research objectives are not discussed.
• Variables and/or unit(s) of analysis are not relevant to the research business problem or objectives.
• Sampling method, instrumentation and time frame of the research project are poorly identified.

Project / research findings (results).

(15 marks)

• All pertinent data is described.
• Raw unprocessed data is absent.
• Results presented as both narrative text and in figures and tables.
• Data presented in a logical manner to enable the reader to draw conclusions.
• Important data is highlighted.
• No conclusions are present.
• All tables and figures have appropriate legends.
• All tables and figures are described in the narrative text.

• All pertinent data is described.
• Raw unprocessed data is absent.
• All results presented as both narrative text and in figures and tables.
• All data presented in a logical manner to enable the reader to draw conclusions.
• All important data is highlighted.
• All tables and figures have appropriate legends.
• All tables and figures are described in the narrative text.

• Majority of pertinent data is described.
• Raw unprocessed data is absent.
• Majority of results presented as both narrative text and in figures and tables.
• Majority of data presented in a logical manner.
• Majority of important data is highlighted.
• Majority of the tables and figures have appropriate legends.
• Majority of tables and figures are described in the narrative text.

• Most pertinent data is described.
• Raw unprocessed data is absent.
• Most results presented as both narrative text and in figures and tables.
• Most data presented in a logical manner.
• Most important data is highlighted.
• Most of the tables and figures have appropriate legends.
• Most tables and figures are described in the narrative text.

• Raw unprocessed data is present.
• Some results presented as both narrative text and in figures and tables.
• Data not clearly presented.
• Important data not highlighted.
• Data in tables or figures not described in narrative form.

Discussion.

(15 marks)

• Discussion of the results is carefully and expertly planned and constructed.
• It is fully supported by related literature.
• Findings are summarised, and interpreted to a sophisticated and expert level.
• Student uses the results to expertly explore the research question.
• The discussion places the findings in context.

• Discussion of the results is carefully planned and constructed.
• It is supported by related literature.
• Findings are summarised, and interpreted to a sophisticated level.
• Student uses the results to meaningfully explore the research question.
• The discussion places the findings in context.

• Discussion of the results is planned and constructed.
• It is partially supported by related literature.
• Findings are summarised, and interpreted to a basic level.
• Student uses the results to explore the research question.
• The discussion places the findings in context.

• Discussion of the results is undertaken.
• It is minimally supported by related literature.
• Findings are summarised, but not interpreted.
• Student simply repeats the findings from the results section.
• The discussion fails to place the findings in context.

• Discussion of the results is not undertaken.
• Findings are summarised, but not interpreted.
• Student simply repeats the findings from the results section.
• The discussion fails to place the findings in context.

Project / research significance & limitations.

(10 marks)

• Significance and limitations of the research are identified and are researched / articulated to an expert level.

• Significance and limitations of the research are identified and are researched / articulated to a sophisticated level.

• Significance and limitations of the research are identified and are researched / articulated to a basic level.

• A basic statement / discussion of the research significance and possible limitations is provided. However, it lacks critical analysis.

• Significance and limitations of the research are not explored or articulated.

Project / research Conclusions.

(5 marks)

• Question / hypothesis restated.
• Conclusions are stated clearly with explicit reference to the data that support a conclusion.
• Argument for conclusions well organised.
• Conclusions are related to other studies and put into a context of current knowledge.
• Final paragraph states the major finding of the project (the take home message).
• The conclusion is engaging and restates the thesis.

• Conclusions are stated clearly with explicit reference to the data that support a conclusion.
• Argument for conclusions is generally well organised.
• Importance of conclusions discussed.
• Conclusions are related to other studies and put into a context of current knowledge.
• Final paragraph states the major finding of the project (the take home message).

• Conclusions are stated clearly with reference to the data that support a conclusion.
• Argument for the conclusions can be understood but difficult to follow.
• The conclusion adequately ties together the purpose and focus of the research proposal and research business problem.
• Final paragraph states the major finding of the project (the take home message).

• Conclusions are inconsistently stated with reference to the data that support a conclusion.
• Final paragraph states the major finding of the project (the take home message).

• Conclusions are stated but without sufficient reference to the results that support it.
• Conclusion fails to tie together the purpose and focus of the research proposal and research business problem.

Correct citation of key resources and evidence

(5 Marks)

• Demonstrates use of high quality, credible standards and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements.
• Shows evidence of wide scope within and without the organisation for sourcing evidence.
• There are no mistakes in the APA style.

• Demonstrates use of good quality, credible standards and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements.
• There are no mistakes in the APA style.

• Demonstrates use of high quality, credible and relevant resources and standards to support and develop ideas.
• There are no mistakes in the APA style.

• Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed.
• There are few mistakes in the APA style.

• Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.
• There are mistakes in the APA style.

Effective written Communication and evidence of students having taken previous feedback into consideration.

(5 Marks)

• Expertly presented in business language is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments.
• Engages and sustains audience's interest in the topic.
• Comprehensive use of diverse communication aids, including graphics, diagrams and tables.
• Evidence of student having considered and incorporated feedback into their research.

• Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented; communication is logical, clear and well supported by evidence.
• Effective use of diverse communication aids, including graphics, diagrams and tables.
• Evidence of student having considered and incorporated feedback into their research.

• Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments.
• Line of reasoning is easy to follow.
• Some use of diverse communication aids, including graphics, diagrams and tables.
• Some evidence of student having considered and incorporated feedback into their research.

• Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical.
• Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow.
• Limited evidence of student having considered and incorporated feedback into their research.

• Difficult to understand with no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence.
• Audience cannot follow the line of reasoning.
• No evidence of student having considered and incorporated feedback into their research.

An introduction and background to the project is provided.

(15 Marks)

• Presenter provides an articulate, engaging and energetic introduction that fully, and to a sophisticated level, identifies:
• The business problem topic.
• The background and context to the business problem topic.
• The business problem question.
• The required assessment elements:

  - Identify the business problem question and importance.

  - Overview of the Literature and its relevance to the business problem.

  - Overview of the Business problem Method and Data Analysis.

  - Findings.

  - Analysis / consideration of the results.

  - Limitations.

  - Future research.

  - Conclusions.

• Presenter provides an introduction that fully, and to a sophisticated level, identifies:
• The business problem topic.
• The background and context.
• The business problem question.
• All required assessment elements.

• Presenter provides an introduction that fully, and to an acceptable level, identifies:
• The business problem topic.
• The background and context.
• The business problem question.
• The required assessment elements.

• Presenter provides an introduction that, in part, identifies:
• The business problem topic.
• The background and context.
• The business problem question.
• Some required assessment elements.

• The presentation has no / incomplete introduction.
• The research topic is not identified.
• The background and context to the research topic and question is not provided.
• The business problem question is not identified.

Literature and its relevance to the business problem

(20 Marks)

• The presentation includes a high calibre overview of the literature.
• The presenter relates the literature to the business problem question.
• The presenter utilises cited works and in-depth insight and analysis; to create meaningful connections to the business problem question.
• Significant evidence of the presenter's deep knowledge of the literature or previous work in the field, and its application to the business problem question.
• Places the work within a larger context. Shows keen understanding of the significance of the business problem.

• The presentation includes a skillful overview of the literature.
• The presenter relates the literature to the business problem question.
• The presenter cites the key literature, and provides a meaningful summary that is critical which builds a case for the business problem.
• Evidence of the presenter's deep knowledge of the literature or previous work in the field, and its application to the business problem question.

• The presentation includes a competent overview of the literature.
• The presenter relates the literature to the business problem question.
• The presenter cites the key literature, and attempts critical analysis and synthesis.
• Some evidence of the presenter's deep knowledge of the literature or previous work in the field, and its application to the business problem question.

• The presentation includes a basic but adequate overview of the literature.
• The presenter attempts to relate the literature to the business problem question.
• The presenter cites most of the key literature, but lacks critical analysis and synthesis.
• Limited evidence of the presenter's deep knowledge of the literature or previous work in the field.

• The presentation has no / incomplete overview of the literature.
• The presenter does not clearly relate the literature to the business problem question.
• Little to no evidence of the presenter's knowledge of the literature or previous work in the field.

Overview of the Investigation Method and Data Analysis

(20 Marks)

• Methods for collecting and analysing data are adequately discussed relative to the investigation objectives.
• Sampling method, and analysis are clearly identified and relevant.

• Methods for collecting and analysing data are adequately discussed relative to the investigation objectives.
• Sampling method and analysis are clearly identified.

• Methods for collecting and analysing data are generally discussed relative to the investigation objectives.
• Sampling method and analysis are identified.

• Methods for collecting and analysing data to support investigation objectives are not minimally identified.
• Sampling method and analysis are minimally identified.

• Methods for collecting and analysing data to support investigation objectives are not identified.
• Sampling method and analysis are poorly identified.

Findings

(20 Marks)

• Data and analysis is presented engagingly.
• Careful consideration of findings undertaken within the context of literature and previous investigation.
• Sophisticated and analytical presentation of investigation findings.
• Investigation conclusions are professionally presented.
• Limitations and future investigation implications are identified and discussed in terms of future exploration.

• Data and analysis is presented.
• Consideration of findings undertaken within the context of literature and previous investigation.
• Some sophisticated analysis of findings is presented.
• Investigation conclusions are presented.
• Limitations and future investigation implications are identified.

• Data and analysis is presented, some consideration undertaken and identified.
• Some critical analysis of findings is presented.
• Some investigation conclusions are presented.
• Limitations and future investigation implications partially identified.

• Data and analysis is presented, but is basic and lacks consideration – it is a mechanistic approach.
• No critical analysis of findings is presented.
• Limited investigation conclusions are presented.
• Limitations and future investigation implications not/poorly identified.

• Data and analysis not clearly presented.
• Implications of analysis not identified.
• Investigation conclusions not identified.
• Limitations and future investigation implications not identified.

Format – the presentation is logical, is in the required format; its structure is as outlined in the assessment brief and is of the correct length.

(15 Marks).

PowerPoint Slides - grammar, punctuation, and spelling are correct.

(5 Marks).

Citation of sources – PowerPoint intext and reference list adhere to APA conventions.

(5 Marks).

HoS

(Change to template approved through Teaching & Learning Committee)

HoS

(Change to template approved through Teaching & Learning Committee)

Original Development

Updated to accommodate a template

Update to new template

Added GenAI requirements

Updated rubric order (high to low)

Change reference from Part 1,2 to Part A,B