Assessment Brief: PRJ6001 Applied Project
Trimester 2, 2022
Assessment Overview
| Assessment Task | Type | Weight | Length | Due | ULOs Assessed |
| Assessment 1: Project Brief Report outlining what research project could be carried out and how the project could be analysed and evaluated to address the project or business goal/problem. |
Individual | 15% | 1000 words |
Week 4 | ULO1 ULO2 |
| Assessment 2: Critical Review of Literature Synthesis of the current literature including comparison of various authors’ views and identification of research gaps, highlighting the critical analysis of previous research. |
Individual | 25% | 1500 words |
Week 7 | ULO1 ULO2 |
| Assessment 3: Oral Presentation/Viva Students present their final report, model, or artefact of the research study, with a particular focus on the outcomes and recommendations. |
Individual Invigilated |
20% | 10 min. (equiv. 900 words) |
Week 10 |
ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 |
| Assessment 4: Submission of Report/Artefact Students prepare a final report, model, or artefact of the research study with a particular focus on the outcomes and recommendations. |
Individual | 40% | 3500 words |
Week 12 |
ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 |
Assessment 1: Project Brief
| Due date: | Week 4 |
| Group/individual: | Individual |
| Word count/Time provided: | 1000 Words |
| Weighting: | 15% |
| Unit Learning Outcomes: | ULO1, ULO2 |
Assessment 1 Detail
A report outlining the project to be carried out, analysed and evaluated to address the business goal/problem.
A Research Proposal Brief early in the semester is to ensure feedback about the suitability of the topic and
which informs others of a proposed piece of research and its significance. This is the outline of the Research
Proposal that could be used as part of an application to undertake a research degree or to apply for funding to
conduct the research.
For Assessment Task 1 you need to prepare an outline of your proposed research topic and research plan for
investigating the topic using a structure like shown below:
1. Project Title: This is a brief descriptive summary of the proposed research topic. For ideas on how a
project title should look, see the articles in Project Management journals such as the International Journal
of Project Management.
2. Research Overview and Justification: This is a summary of the research topic that describes the topic
and why it is important for a research study to be conducted to investigate the topic.
3. Brief Literature Review: Outline the objectives, methodologies and findings of at least three most
relevant literatures recently (within last 5 years) published that provide a background for your research
topic.
4. Research Objectives, Research question and Sub-questions: Linking back to sections (2) and (3), present
and justify the question that your research project will be designed to answer.
5. Methodology: Details about how you would answer your research question (e.g., by reviewing trends in
national / international statistics, by conducting a survey of consumers, by undertaking interviews with
employers) and start to consider any advantages, disadvantages, materials needed or practical limitations
of the methodology.
6. Significance of the research of the project. A summary of the sections ending with a statement of why it
is important to conduct the research using the methodology proposed.
7. Ethical issues. This section would cover any ethical issues (following APIC policy) that are considered in the
research.
8. References and Resources: provide references to key research studies, government reports and/or
industry reports using Harvard Referencing.
Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 15% of the total unit mark.
| 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) |
| Understanding of topic including background and rationale (30 marks) A logical structure and flow with a clear link between the specified problem and the proposed research. |
Insufficient linking of the proposed research and the stated problem. The proposal does not demonstrate a clear understanding and background of the topic, provide a rationale for why it was selected, or justify how the Research Project will progress. |
Acceptable linking of the proposed research with the stated problem. The proposal demonstrates some understanding and background of the topic, and provides a rationale for why it was selected, however it was unclear in places. |
Good linking of the proposed research with the stated problem. The proposal demonstrates a good understanding and background of the topic, and provides a rationale for why it was selected, however was somewhat unclear in places. |
Very good linking of the proposed research with the stated problem. The proposal demonstrates a thorough knowledge and background of the topic and provides a rationale for why it was selected. |
Excellent linking of the proposed research with the stated problem. The proposal demonstrates a sophisticated understanding and background of the topic and provides a clear rationale for why it was selected. |
| Overview of the intended approach, including study plan. (30 marks) The proposed methodology islikely to yield a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. |
The plan of the intended approach to the Research Project, including the timeline for completion, is absent or unclear. The methodology is not likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. |
The plan of the intended approach to the Research Project provides somewhat ofa strategy for literature review and collection of data and other materials, but is unclear. The methodology may provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. |
The plan of the intended approach to the Research Project provides a strategy for literature review and collection of data and other materials, but is a little unclear. The methodology is most likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. |
The plan of the intended approach to the Research Project is well-developed, with a clear and achievable strategy and timeline for literature review and collection of data and other materials. The methodology is highly probable to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified Problem. |
The plan of the intended approach to the Research Project is very clear and well developed, with a coherent and achievable timeline and strategy. The methodology is almost certain to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. |
| Literature Scan (20 marks) Latest relevant research is referred to in the report and the expected research findings are compared to past findings. |
The research referred to in the report is not the latest relevant research available and an acceptable comparison of the expected research findings to past findings is not provided. |
The research referred to in the report is current research available but an acceptable comparison of the expected research findings to past findings not provided. |
The research referred to in the report is the latest relevant research available and a good comparison of the expected research findings to past findings is provided. |
The research referred to in the report is the latest relevant research available and a very good comparison of the expected research findings to past findings is provided. |
The research referred to in the report is the latest relevant research available and an excellent comparison of the expected research findings to past findings is provided. |
| Structure and presentation (10 marks) Academically written with an appropriate length, structure and clarity of expression. Correct spelling and grammar. |
There are many structural, wording, spelling and grammatical issues |
The ideas are written in a reasonably clear manner, however there are some structural, wording, spelling and grammatical issues. |
The ideas are written and structured in a clear manner, with only minor wording, spelling and grammatical issues. |
The ideas are written and structured in a very clear manner, with no wording, spelling or grammatical issues. |
The ideas are written and structured with excellent clarity and cohesion, with no wording, spelling or grammatical issues. |
| Referencing (10 marks ) Correct citing and reference listing using Harvard |
Insufficient and incorrect Harvard listing provided. |
Harvard citing for a few authors and listing of those references with some errors. |
Harvard citing for most references with some errors. |
Mostly correct Harvard citing in the text and reference list. |
Accurate Harvard citing in the text and reference list for all references. |
Assessment 2: Critical Review of Literature
| Due date: | Week 7 |
| Group/individual: | Individual |
| Word count/Time provided: | 1500 Words |
| Weighting: | 25% |
| Unit Learning Outcomes: | ULO1, ULO2 |
Assessment 2 Detail
A report outlining the current literature including comparison of various authors’ views and identification of
research gaps, highlighting the critical analysis of previous research.
For Assessment Task 2 you need to prepare a report, which Includes synthesis of findings of all key authors in the
field with a wide range of references specific to the topic using a structure like shown below:
1. Project Title
2. Abstract: provide a summary of the literature review
3. Critical evaluation of the literature: this section may be divided into several sub-sections depending on
nature of the research
4. Identification of research gaps
5. Conclusion
6. References and Resources: provide references to key research studies, government reports and/or
industry reports using Harvard Referencing.
Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 25% of the total unit mark.
| 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. (50 Marks) A clear statement of current literature including comparison of various authors’ views, highlighting the critical analysis of previous research. |
Reviewed papers are remotely relevant to the topic. Superficial review of different authors’ views and conclusions on the topic. |
Authors and references relevant to the topic are included. Listed most key aspects of the current knowledge. Comparing, contrasting and synthesizing of literature were not done properly. |
Includes some key authors with many relevant references. Sufficient coverage of current knowledge. However, insufficient coverage of comparative analysis of different views and conclusions on the topic. |
Includes most key authors with a range of references relevant to the topic. Comprehensively compares different authors views and conclusions on the topic. Synthesis of the current literature into some points that cover current knowledge. |
Includes all key authors in the field with a wide range of references specific to the topic. Insight-fully compares different authors’ views. Synthesis of the current literature and provision of some new insights. |
| Identification of the knowledge gap in the literature review (20 Marks). A clear statement addressing the gaps identified in the literature review. |
Did not cover current knowledge of the topic or failed to identify gaps. |
Discussed some knowledge gaps which may not be clear and/or very relevant. |
Identified some gaps and discussed the need for the research. |
Identified most gaps and discussed the importance of the research. |
Identification of clear gaps and highlighted the significance of the research. |
| Conclusion of the literature review (10 Marks) A clear understanding of the findings of previous research. |
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. |
| Structure and presentation (10 marks) Academically written with an appropriate length, structure and clarity of expression. Correct spelling and grammar. |
There are many structural, wording, spelling and grammatical issues |
The ideas are written in a reasonably clear manner, however there are some structural, wording, spelling and grammatical issues. |
The ideas are written and structured in a clear manner, with only minor wording, spelling and grammatical issues. |
The ideas are written and structured in a very clear manner, with no wording, spelling or grammatical issues. |
The ideas are written and structured with excellent clarity and cohesion, with no wording, spelling or grammatical issues. |
| Referencing (10 marks) Correct citing and reference listing using Harvard |
Insufficient and incorrect Harvard listing provided. |
Harvard citing for a few authors and listing of those references with some errors. |
Harvard citing for most references with some errors. |
Mostly correct Harvard citing in the text and reference list listing an adequate number of references. |
Accurate Harvard citing in the text and reference list for all references. |
Assessment 3: Oral Presentation/Viva
| Due date: | Week 10 |
| Group/individual: | Individual / Invigilated |
| Word count/Time provided: | 10 Minutes (equivalent to 900 words) |
| Weighting: | 20% |
| Unit Learning Outcomes: | ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4 |
Assessment 3: Detail
Students present their final report, model, or artefact of the research study. The assessment will
consist of a PowerPoint and/or Audio or a short video which will cover the marking criteria.
Presentation will cover key aspects of the research, which include background, significance, research
gap, objectives, research method, results, discussion, recommendation and conclusion.
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
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark.
| 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) |
| Topic knowledge/content (30 marks). |
Inadequate explanation of the problem and the methodology employed. No rationale provided. |
Acceptable explanation of the problem and the methodology employed, with rationale included. |
Good explanation of the problem and the methodology employed. A rationale outlining the research approach was included. |
Very good explanation of the problem and methodology employed. The rationale was very clear and justified the chosen approach. |
Excellent explanation of the problem and the methodology employed. The rationale was very clear and supported the chosen approach. |
| Research outcome (30 marks). |
Presentation does not appropriately cover one or more of the key aspects of the research. |
Presentation covers mostly the literature data and very little about on the work carried out by the student in terms of experimental/theoretical/field studies. |
Covers key aspects of the research. However, presentation does not cover in depth analysis of data generated from experimental/theoretical/field studies. |
Covers all key aspects of the research. However, amount of work carried out by the student in terms of experimental/theoretical/field studies are not highlighted. |
Covers all key aspects of the research. Presentation highlights the significant work carried out by the student in terms of experimental/theoretical/field studies. |
| Presentation is structured and case well argued (20 marks). |
Talk is not acceptably structured and the research case is not acceptably argued for. |
Talk is acceptably structured and the research case is acceptably argued for. |
Talk is mostly structured and the research case is mostly argued for. |
Talk is well structured and the research case is well argued for. |
Talk is well structured and excellently argues the research case. |
| Formal approach to presentation. (20 Marks) |
Poor presentation skills – both spoken and visual. Used very few visuals to present results. Slides were not well prepared. |
Satisfactory presentation skills – both spoken and visual. Used few visuals to present results. Slides are easy to read but formats and styles may have some inconsistency. |
Good presentation skills – both spoken and visual. Used enough visuals to present results, some may be not relevant. Background and font size/colour have some inconsistency. |
Very good presentation skills – both spoken and visual. Used relevant figures/pictures/tables and other visuals to present results. Background and font size/colour are easy for reading and consistent. |
Excellent presentation skills – both spoken and visual. Used attractive and clear figures/pictures/tables and other visuals to present results. Background and font size/colour are easy for reading and consistent. |
Assessment 4: Submission of Report/Artefact
| Due date: | Week 12 |
| Group/individual: | Individual |
| Word count/Time provided: | 3500 Words |
| Weighting: | 40% |
| Unit Learning Outcomes: | ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4 |
Assessment 4 Detail
Students prepare a final report, model, or artefact of the research study.
The final report will incorporate key aspects of the design, conduct, research and analysis and will be
presented in a structured and coherent manner which is appropriate for a research report or
publication. This will include abstract, introduction, methods, analysis, results, discussion,
recommendations, conclusion and appropriate referencing.
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 40% of the total unit mark. The
marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.
Assessment 4: Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 40% of the total unit mark.
| 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) |
| Preparatory Context (20 Marks) |
The report does not provide a clear preparatory context for the project, or a clear rationale, overview of the approach to the literature review and its key findings, or a clear discussion of how the action plan was developed. |
The report provides a limited preparatory context for the project, with a brief rationale, overview of the approach to the literature review and its key findings, and some discussion of how the action plan was developed. |
The report provides a preparatory context for the project, with a rationale, overview of the approach to the literature review and its key findings, and discussion of how the action plan was developed. |
The report provides a good preparatory context for the project, with a good rationale, overview of the approach to the literature review and its key findings, and discussion of how the action plan was developed. |
The report provides a sophisticated preparatory context for the project, with an excellent rationale, overview of the approach to the literature review and its key findings, and discussion of how the action plan was developed. |
| Methods, Analysis and Results. (40 Marks) |
The report does not provide a clear commentary on the methodology of the action plan, or the findings at either a detailed or strategic level. |
The report provides a commentary on the methodology of the action plan, however with limited understanding of the findings at both a detailed and strategic level. |
The report provides a commentary on the methodology of the action plan, with some understanding of the findings at both a detailed and strategic level. |
The report provides a good commentary on the methodology of the action plan, with a good understanding of the findings at both a detailed and strategic level. |
The report provides an excellent commentary on the methodology of the action plan, with a sophisticated understanding of the findings at both a detailed and strategic level. |
| Recommendations (20 Marks) |
The report does not clearly state recommendations and implementation pathways. |
The report states some recommendations and pathways however discussions about how this could be implemented were unclear and lacking in specifics. |
The report states recommendations and pathways, however needed more clarity and precision about how this could be implemented. |
The report states recommendations and high-level implementation pathways. |
The report clearly states recommendations and high-level implementation pathways as a result of the research. |
| Structure and presentation (10 Marks) |
The report is not written for the appropriate audience, and there are many structural, wording, spelling and grammatical issues. |
The report is written in a reasonably clear manner for the audience, however there are some structural, wording, spelling and grammatical issues. |
The ideas are written and structured in a clear manner, with only minor wording, spelling and grammatical issues. |
The ideas are written and structured in a very clear manner, with no wording, spelling or grammatical issues. |
The ideas are written and structured with excellent clarity and cohesion, with no wording, spelling or grammatical issues. |
| Referencing (10 Marks) |
There are many errors with the Harvard referencing with in-text citations and the reference list. |
Harvard referencing is used, although there are some errors with in-text citations and the reference list. |
Harvard referencing is used appropriately, and only minor errors with in-text citations and the reference list. |
Harvard referencing is used appropriately, and no errors with in-text citations and the reference list. |
Harvard referencing is excellently used, with correct in-text citations and the reference list. |