ASSESSMENT BRIEF 3

BUS9010 Capstone Project

Business Research Findings Report & Presentation

Assessment Description

PART A: Project report

PART B: Presentation of project results.
Individual/Group Individual
Length

PART A: 2,000 words.

PART B: 10 minutes and 5 – 10 PowerPoint slides.
Subject Learning Outcomes c, d.
Week Due

PART A: Week 12

PART B: Week 12 date negotiated
Weighting

PART A: 40%

PART B: 20%

= 60%
Total Marks

PART A: …/100

PART B: …/100

Overview of the assessment task

This assessment has two parts:

PART A: A written business project report – (2,000 words).

PART B: A presentation of project findings – (10 minutes and 5 – 10 PowerPoint slides).

Assessment instructions

Students are required to work through the project proposal process as outlined in Assessments 1 and 2, and as discussed with your lecturer. Once this is complete you are required to:

 

PART A: Project report – (2,000 words, 40%).

Students should develop a 2,000-word report describing the business problem they have been exploring throughout this subject. This report builds upon previous work you have done in Assessments 1 and 2.

You are required to use a template to guide your writing and to assist you to provide a complete report.

PART B: Present your business problem project findings to your fellow class members – (10 minutes, 20%).

The focus of this assessment is the results of your investigation – what did you find?

Things you might include:

  • What was the identified business problem and why was it important?
  • What does the literature say about the topic / problem?
  • What investigative method did you use? What data did you collect?
  • How did you analyse the data?
  • What did you find?
  • What does your analysis / consideration of the results indicate? What do you think?
  • What were the limitations of your research?
  • What future exploration of the business problem should be undertaken (by you or others)?

Note to Students:

PART A: YOU MUST UPLOAD YOUR REPORT ON THE DESIGNATED DATE AS INDICATED ON CANVAS.

PART B: YOU MUST UPLOAD YOUR POWERPOINT SLIDES TO CANVAS WITHIN 24 HOURS OF YOUR PRESENTATION.

Marking Criteria

Please refer to the attached rubric for marking criteria and standards of performance. Constructive feedback will be provided within a timely manner in accordance with AIHE Assessment Procedure.

This assessment is not redeemable unless otherwise specified.

Limits for Assessments

Written submissions that exceed the word limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point at which that limit is exceeded.

Time limits for in-person or video presentations that exceed the allocated time limit by more than 10% will cease to be marked from the point at which that limit is exceeded, and Lecturers may ask students to cease their presentation.

Assessment Variation and Special Consideration

Students may be eligible for a variation to assessment arrangements when unexpected or extenuating circumstances impact on their performance or their ability to complete their assessment tasks by or on the specified date. Students must complete the Application to Vary Assessment with evidence.

Students with identified, special or specific needs may apply for variations to assessment in the subject. Students are required to contact the Student Support Officer or Student Learning Advisor to discuss their specific needs

Late assignment submission penalties

An assessment task is late for submission when it is not submitted by the due date and time as indicated on Canvas, or by an agreed extension date and time as confirmed by the subject lecturer.

Late assessment tasks will be penalised at the rate of 5% of maximum possible marks, per calendar day (i.e. 24 hours or part thereof). After seven (7) calendar days, assignments will attract zero (0) marks. Assignments submitted at any stage within the first 24 hours after the deadline will be considered to be one day late and therefore subject to the associated penalty.

For further detail see: AIHE Assessment Procedure.

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is an essential quality for higher education and is a fundamental part of learning and teaching. AIHE is committed to promoting academic integrity and ethical behaviour. The reputation of AIHE and its graduates, and the academic standing of its qualifications rests with its ability to promote academic integrity and manage academic misconduct fairly and consistently.

All students must become familiar with, and understand the meaning and consequences of plagiarism, cheating in exams and tests, unauthorised use of artificial intelligence, collusion, contract cheating and other academic offences under the AIHE Academic Integrity Policy.

Marking Rubric & Standards of Performance – PART A: Research Report

CRITERIA

High Distinction Level

(HD) 85 – 100

Distinction Level (D)

75 – 84

Credit Level (C)

65 – 74

Pass Level (P)

50 – 64

Fail Level (F)

0 – 49

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.