Assessment Overview

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.