Assessment Brief: PRJ6001 Applied Project
Trimester 1, 2022
Assessment Overview
| Assessment Task | Type | Weight | Length | Due | ULOs Assessed |
| Assessment 1: Project Procedure and Evaluation-Data Collection Report outlining what project could be carried out, analysed and evaluated to address the Project or business goal/problem. |
Individual | 20% | 1500 words |
Week 5 | ULO1 ULO2 |
| Assessment 2: Project Procedure and Evaluation – Data Analysis Report outlining how the project was conducted, the data was collected and analysed and an evaluation of the key findings. |
Individual | 20% | 1500 words |
Week 9 | ULO1 ULO2 |
| Assessment 3: Peer review/persuasive critique presentation For each research theme, students need to critique their peer’s research and present their critique |
Individual Invigilated |
20% | 15 min. (equiv. 1500 words) |
Week 10 | ULO3 |
| 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 | 25% | 3000 words |
Week 12 | ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 |
| Assessment 5: Verbal 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 |
15% | 10 min. (equiv. 900 words) |
Week 12 | ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 |
Equiv. – equivalent word count based on the Assessment Load Equivalence Guide. It means this assessment is equivalent to the
normally expected time requirement for a written submission containing the specified number of words.
Assessment 1: Project Procedure and Evaluation-Data Collection
| Due date: | Week 5 |
| Group/individual: | Individual |
| Word count/Time provided: | 1500 Words |
| Weighting: | 20% |
| 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 first stage of preparing a
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, look at articles in Project Management journals such as the International Journal
of Project Management.
2. Research Overview and Justification: This is a brief 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. Literature Review: Discuss the objectives, methodologies and findings of relevant previous research that
provides 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. 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 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) |
| 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 is likely 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 of a 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 pastfindings. |
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 andreference 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: Project Procedure and Evaluation – Data Analysis
| Due date: | Week 9 |
| Group/individual: | Individual |
| Word count/Time provided: | 1500 Words |
| Weighting: | 20% |
| Unit Learning Outcomes: | ULO1, ULO2 |
Assessment 2 Detail
A report outlining how the project was conducted, the data was collected and analysed and an evaluation of key
findings in comparison to other published reports on a similar topic.
For Assessment Task 2 you need to prepare an outline of your proposed research topic and research plan for
collecting and analysing the data relevant to the research topic using a structure like shown below:
1. Project Title:
2. Research Overview and Justification:
3. Methodology: Describe the proposed strategy.
4. Data Analysis: Describe the proposed analysis strategy briefly.
5. Results: An indication of what results are expected.
6. Ethical issues: This section would cover any ethical issues that were considered in the research.
7. Significance of the research of the project.
8. 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 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) |
| Justification of the Study (30 marks) A clear statement of the rationale and objectives for this research and description of the significance of the study. |
Insufficient linking of the proposed research and the stated specific problem. The author does not describe how the research is approached. |
Acceptable linking of the proposed research with the stated specific problem. The author’s description of the research approach is limited. |
Good linking of the proposed research with the stated specific problem. The author describes how the research is approached in a logical manner. |
Very good linking of the proposed research with the stated specific problem. The author describes how the research is to be approached in a logical manner. |
Excellent linking of the proposed research with the stated specific problem. The author describes how the research is to be approached in a logical and succinct manner. |
| Design and Methodology (30 Marks). Clear understanding of the research design of this project (What), the significance of the assumptions of academic research (Why), and a description/explanation of the research design of this project (How). Research design is well presented. |
The methodology is not likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. The research design is limited and there is no conceptual or theoretical framework in the report. |
The methodology is likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. The research design is adequate and there is a conceptual or theoretical framework in the report, but this requires further work. |
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 and there is a conceptual or theoretical framework in the report which provides the basis of the data collection and analysis. |
The methodology is highly likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified Problem. The research design is most appropriate to the research project and question and there is a conceptual or theoretical framework in the report which provides the basis of the data collection and analysis. |
The methodology is almost certain to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem. The research design is well thought and appropriate to the research project and question. There is a clear conceptual or theoretical framework which provides the basis of the data collection and analysis. |
| Research Analysis and Results (20 Marks) A clear understanding of the major research question and how appropriate data was collected and analysed. (20 marks) |
The data collection and analysis is not clear and fails to address the research topic and the relevant context. |
The data collection approach is clear but is not clearly addressed by the analysis and is unlikely to address the research topic. |
The data collection and analysis are clear but could be better linked to the research topic and relevant context. |
The data collection and analysis are clear and address the research topic in most areas. |
The data collection and analysis are very clear and address the research topic and relevant context. |
| 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: Peer review/persuasive critique presentation
| Due date: | Week 10 |
| Group/individual: | Individual / Invigilated |
| Word count/Time provided: | 15 Minutes (1500 words equivalent) |
| Weighting: | 20% |
| Unit Learning Outcomes: | ULO3 |
Assessment 3 Detail
For each research theme, students need to critique their peer’s research and present their critique in
the form of a presentation using an annotated PowerPoint, Zoom recording and mobile recording.
This presentation will be submitted in Canvas but will not be presented to their peers. Students will
be allocated two other Assessment 2 submissions to critique.
This assignment is aimed at ensuring that the students can assess whether a research project is
important, realistic and manageable, and that the research question is appropriate and can be
answered with the proposed methodology. It is crucial for their own project that the students can
complete research evaluation tasks in a timely manner and then apply the relevant project
management and research tools and techniques.
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) |
| Relevance of the critique (30 Marks) |
Critiques do not address the topic prompts, and do not extend knowledge, amplify or explore the topic in any meaningful way. |
Critiques only vaguely address the topic prompts, and could do much more to extend knowledge, amplify and explore the topic in more detail. |
Critiques address the topic prompts, but could do more to extend knowledge, amplify and explore the topic in more detail. |
Critiques address the topic prompts, extend knowledge or amplify or explore the topic in more detail. |
Critiques address the topic prompts directly, extend knowledge, amplify and explore the topic in significant detail. |
| Quality of the expression and delivery of the critiques (20 Marks) |
No opinions or ideas expressed. Poor grammar, spelling and punctuation in many posts. |
Opinions and ideas are unclear and lacking in support. Several grammar, spelling or punctuation errors. |
Opinions and ideas are clearly stated with an occasional lack of supporting evidence. Few grammar, spelling or punctuation errors. |
Opinions are expressed in a clear, concise and well-supported manner. No grammar, spelling or punctuation errors. |
Contributions add significant value to the discussions, are thoughtful, well-written and contribute relevant additional resources and perspectives |
| Evidence-based critique (20 Marks) |
Critiques are not supported by evidence, and claims are made without any supporting evidence. |
Critiques are occasionally supported by evidence, and many claims are made without the support of evidence. |
Critiques are sometimes supported by evidence, however sometimes the evidence for claims being made is lacking. |
Critiques are supported by evidence where appropriate. |
Critiques are strongly supported by evidence where appropriate. |
| Presentation is structured and case well argued for undertaking the proposed research. (30 marks). |
The critique is not acceptably structured and the case for undertaking the proposed research is not acceptably addressed. Limited display of media shown. |
The critique is acceptably structured and the case for undertaking the proposed research is acceptably addressed. Limited display of media shown. |
The critique is mostly structured and the case for undertaking the proposed research is mostly addressed. Adequate display of media shown. |
The critique is well structured and the case for undertaking the proposed research is well addressed. Strong display of media shown. |
The critique is well structured and excellently addresses the case for undertaking the proposed research. Excellent display of media shown. |
Assessment 4: Submission of Report/Artefact
| Due date: | Week 12 |
| Group/individual: | Individual |
| Word count/Time provided: | 3000 Words |
| Weighting: | 25% |
| 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 and results, discussion,
conclusion and appropriate referencing.
Assessment 4: 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) |
| 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. |
Assessment 5: Verbal Presentation/Viva
| Due date: | Week 12 |
| Group/individual: | Individual / Invigilated |
| Word count/Time provided: | 10 Minutes (equivalent to 900 words) |
| Weighting: | 15% |
| Unit Learning Outcomes: | ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4 |
Assessment 5: Detail
Students present their final report, model, or artefact of the research study. The assessment will
consist of a PowerPoint together with Audio or a short video which will cover the marking criteria.
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 5: 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) |
| Research problem is detailed and relevant research methodologyrationale included. (20 marks). |
Inadequate explanation of the problem and the methodology to be employed. No rationale provided. |
Acceptable explanation of the problem and the methodology to be employed, with rationale included. |
Good explanation of the problem and the methodology to be 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 to be employed. The rationale was very clear and supported the chosen approach. |
| Literature was appropriate and critiqued. (30 marks). |
Limited explanation of the literature with no rationale. |
Acceptable explanation of the selected literature was provided with limited discussion on gaps in the field. |
Good explanation of the selected literature provided with some discussion of the gaps in the field. |
Very good account of the literature selected with ample discussion of the gaps in the field. |
Excellent critique of the relevant literature with clear identification of the gaps in the field. |
| Presentation is structured and case well argued for undertaking the proposed research. Suitable display media were used. (30 marks). |
Talk is not acceptably structured and the case for undertaking the proposed research is not acceptably argued for. Limited display of media shown. |
Talk is acceptably structured and the case for undertaking the proposed research is acceptably argued for. Limited display of media shown. |
Talk is mostly structured and the case for undertaking the proposed research is mostly argued for. Adequate display of media shown. |
Talk is well structured and the case for undertaking the proposed research is well argued. Strong display of media shown. |
Talk is well structured and excellently argues the case for undertaking the proposed research. Excellent display of media shown. |
| Personal approach to presentation. (20 Marks) |
Poor presentation skills – both spoken and visual. |
Satisfactory presentation skills – both spoken and visual. |
Good presentation skills – both spoken and visual. |
Very good presentation skills – both spoken and visual. |
Excellent presentation skills – both spoken and visual. |