Assessment Task 

Type 

Weight 

Length 

Due 

ULOs 

Assessed

Assessment 1: Research Problem  Identification  

Students are required to identify  suitable research problems for  

their applied project; justify why  

the problem is worth pursuing and  what are the benefits they expect  to see as an outcome of the  

research. This is an invigilated  

assessment and need to be  

conducted face-to-face in class.

Individual  

&  

Invigilated

20% 

10  

minutes 

presenta 

tion 

(equiv.  

1000 

words)

Week4 

Part (A) 

ULO1 

ULO4

Assessment 2: LiteratureReview Students are required to develop  literature review for the problem  which they have identified in  

Assessment 1; identify research gaps  and propose at least three research  questions.

Individual 

25% 

1500  

words

Week 6 

ULO1 

ULO2 

ULO4

Assessment 3: Research Design Students are required to Identify  appropriate research methodology  /design to address the research  

questions proposed in Assessment  2 that can help to achieve research objectives.

Individual 

20% 

1000 

words

Week 8 

ULO1 

ULO2 

ULO4

Assessment 4: Research  

Proposal:  

Students are required to develop  and write research proposal 

considering Assessment 1 to  

Assessment 3. 

Individual 

35% 

3000  

words

Week  

11

ULO1 

ULO2 

ULO3 

ULO4

Due date: 

Week 4

Group/individual: 

Individual & Invigilated

Word count/Time provided: 

10 mins maximum (equiv. 1000words)

Weighting: 

20%

Unit Learning Outcomes: 

ULO1, ULO4

Marking Criteria 

Excellent 

(85-100% of the criterion  mark)

Very Good 

(75-84% of the criterion  mark)

Good 

(65-74% of the criterion  mark)

Satisfactory 

(50-64% of the criterion mark)

Not Satisfactory  

(0-49% of the criterion mark)

Identification of Problem,  Rationale & Significance  (40 marks)

• Problems are clearly  

identified and are  

researchable.  

• Problems are relevant and  justified by excellently  

conducted needs  

assessment. 

• Research significance is  supported by excellent  

arguments with  

comparison to the latest  research.

• Problems are clearly  identified and are  

researchable.  

• Problems are relevant  and justified by well  

conducted needs  

assessment. 

• Research significance is  supported by very good  arguments with  

comparison to the  

latest research.

• Problems are clearly  identified and are  

researchable.  

• Problems are relevant  and justified by  

conducted needs  

assessment. 

• Research significance is  supported by good  

arguments with  

comparison to some  

relevant research.

• Problems are identified but  not likely to result into a  

researchable question.  

• Problems are justified with no  detail needs assessment. 

• Research significance is  

presented but not supported  by arguments with  

comparison to the latest  

research.

• Problems are poorly  

identified and are not  

researchable.  

• Problems are not relevant  and justified by needs  

assessment. 

• Research significance is not  presented 

Expected benefit &  

Relevance of Cited  

literature. 

(40 marks)

• Expected research benefit is presented and an  

excellent comparison to  past findings is also  

discussed. 

• The citation referred in  the presentation is the  

latest and relevant to the  research topic.

• Expected research  

benefit is presented and  a very good comparison  to past findings is also  provided. 

• The citation referred in  the presentation is the  latest and relevant to  

the research topic.

• Expected research  

benefit is presented and  a good comparison to  

past findings is also  

provided. 

• The citation referred in  the presentation is the  latest and relevant to the  research topic.

• Expected research benefit is  presented and an acceptable  comparison to past findings is  also provided. 

• The citation referred in the  presentation is somewhat  

latest, and some literature are not relevant.

• Expected research benefit is  not presented and no  

comparison to past findings  is not provided. 

• The citation referred to in the  presentation is not the  latest and not relevant to  the research topic.

Presentation Skill 

(20 marks)

• Presentation (narration)  was excellent and very  

engaging. 

• Tones, pitch, and clarity of  narration was excellent. 

• Narrated (presented) in a  professional manner with 

• Presentation  

(narration) was very  

good and engaging. 

• Tones, pitch, and  

the clarity of the narration was  very good.

• Presentation (narration)  was good and engaging. • Tones, pitch, and clarity  of narration was good. 

• Narrated (presented) in  a professional manner  

with good body language 

• Presentation (narration) was  adequate. 

• Tones, pitch, and clarity of  narration was adequate. 

• Narrated (presented) in  somewhat in professional 

• Presentation (narration)  was not adequate. 

• Tones, pitch, and clarity of  narration was not  

adequate- spoke too quickly  or too slowly making it  

difficult to understand.

good body language and  appropriate attire and  

look. 

• No dependent on slide  and/or additional notes 

• Excellent eye contact with  the audience.

• Narrated (presented) in  a professional manner  with good body  

language and  

appropriate attire and  look. 

• Dependent on slides  and/or additional notes  is very minimal.

but not in an appropriate  attire and look. 

• Dependent on slide  

and/or additional notes  are somewhat present. 

• Adequate level of eye  contact with the  

audience.

manner but not in an  

appropriate attire and look. • Dependent on slide and/or  additional notes is  

prominent. 

• Minimum level of eye contact  with the audience.

• Narrated (presented) is not  in a professional manner  but not in an appropriate  attire and look. 

• Heavily dependent on slide  and/or additional notes for  narration 

• No eye contact with the  audience. 

• Looked disinterested and  disengaged. 

Due date: 

Week 6

Group/individual: 

Individual

Word count/Time provided: 

1,500 words

Weighting: 

25%

Unit Learning Outcomes: 

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3

Marking Criteria 

Excellent 

(85-100% of the criterion  mark)

Very Good 

(75-84% of the criterion  mark)

Good 

(65-74% of the criterion  mark)

Satisfactory 

(50-64% of the criterion  mark)

Not Satisfactory  

(0-49% of the criterion mark)

Literature Review  

(30 marks)

• Literature review cites  comprehensive  

research and  

theoretical knowledge  of the field in the way  relevant to the  

contextual needs.  

• Literature review is  purposefully and  

excellently synthesized.  • Literature review is excellently organized  

around Assessment 1 

• All literature is  

reviewed in the context  of the Problem  

identified in  

Assessment 1

• Literature review cites  comprehensive  

research and  

theoretical knowledge  of the field in the way  relevant to the  

contextual needs.  

• Literature review is  very well synthesized.  • Literature review is  very well organized  

around Assessment 1 

• All literature is  

reviewed in the context  of the Problem  

identified in  

Assessment 1

• Literature review cites  major research and  

theoretical knowledge of  the field in the way  

relevant to the  

contextual needs.  

• Literature review is well  synthesized.  

• Literature review is well  organized around  

Assessment 1 

• Most of the literature is  reviewed in the context  of the Problem identified  in Assessment 1

• Literature review cites  some of the major  

theories and research in  the field in the way  

relevant to the contextual  needs.  

• Literature review is  

satisfactorily written but  not well synthesized. 

• Literature is marginally  linked to Assessment 1

• Literature review doesn’t cite  relevant theories.  

• Literature review is not  written in the way that can  guide the development of  research questions. 

• Literature is not linked  

Assessment 1 

• Literature does not reflect  the context of Assessment 1

knowledge gap in the  

Literature 

(10 marks)

• The knowledge gap  identified in the  

literature review is  

assessed as excellent. 

• The knowledge gap  identified in the  

literature review is  

assessed as very good. 

• The knowledge gap  

identified in the  

literature review is  

assessed as good. 

• The knowledge gap  

identified in the literature  review is assessed as  

satisfactory. 

• The knowledge gap identified  in the literature review is  

assessed as not satisfactory. 

Research questions. 

(20 marks)

• Questions are clear,  excellent, relevant, 

researchable and could  potentially resolve a  

clearly identified  

problem or issue from  Assessment 1.

• Questions are clear,  researchable, and  

relevant to the problem  or issue identified in  

Assessment 1. 

• Questions are guided  by knowledge gap in 

• Questions are  

researchable and  

relevant to the problem  or issue identified in  

Assessment 1.  

• Questions are guided by  knowledge gap in the 

• Questions are somewhat  researchable and relevant  to the problem or issue  

identified in Assessment 1 • Questions are somewhat  guided by knowledge gap  in the literature, but the 

• Question does not reflect a  problem related to  

Assessment 1 

• Questions are not  

researchable.  

• No or unclear description of  the context. 

• Questions are clearly  guided by knowledge  

gap in the literature  

and the context is  

excellently described

the literature and the  context is very well  

described

literature and the context  is well described.

context is not well  

described.

• Questions are not guided by  the knowledge gap in the  

literature and context is  

either not present or unclear. 

Summary on proposed  

research 

(10 marks)

• The summary is  

assessed as excellent 

which clearly mention  research title and  

objectives

• The summary is  

assessed as very good which clearly mention  research title and  

objectives

• The summary is assessed  as good which clearly  

mention research title  

and objectives

• The summary is assessed  as satisfactory, but title is  somewhat vague, and  

objectives are not so clear.

• The summary is assessed as  unsatisfactory; title and  

objectives missing.

Clarity of expression 

(15 marks)

• The writing is fluent  and coherent with  

excellent structure and  presentation exhibiting  grammatically correct  sentences that are  

appropriately  

punctuated with no  

minor spelling or typing  error. 

• The writing perceives a  sense of the wider  

context of the ideas.

• The writing is fluent  and coherent with  

good structure  

exhibiting  

grammatically correct  sentences that are  

appropriately  

punctuated with  

minor spelling or  

typing error.

• The writing is fluent and  coherent with very good  structure exhibiting  

grammatically correct  

sentences that are  

appropriately punctuated  with few spellings or  

typing error. 

• The writing is used to  support the main ideas  and convince the reader  of the argument who is  left in no doubt of the  

purpose

• . The writing is satisfactory  and exhibits majority of  grammatically correct  

sentences that are  

appropriately punctuated  with some spelling or  

typing errors. 

• The writing does not go  far enough in expanding  key issues/ concepts. 

• The writing requires  

further information to  

clarify main arguments

• The writing is poor with no  logical flow and has  

grammatical errors.  

• Information is limited,  

unclear and the depth is not  adequately developed.  

• The idea is a simple  

restatement of the topic.  

• Demonstration of a limited  sense of purpose or theme  • Insufficient understanding of  the topic. 

Presentation and referencing (15 marks)

• The writing shows  

excellent application of  the recommended style  of referencing (APIC  

Harvard style) with no  error in referencing. 

• Report is formatted  and presented exactly  as per the APIC  

Assessment 

• The writing shows very  good application of the  recommended style of  referencing (APIC  

Harvard style) with few  errors in referencing. 

• Report is well  

formatted but not  

presented exactly as  

per the APIC  

Assessment 

• The writing shows good  application of the  

recommended style of  

referencing (APIC  

Harvard style) with some  errors in referencing. 

• Report is formatted and  presented as per the  

APIC Assessment  

presentation guidelines  to large extent. 

• The writing shows  

inconsistent application of  the recommended style of  referencing (APIC Harvard  style) 

• In-text citation match with  the citation under  

Reference list 

• Report is formatted and  presented as per the APIC 

• The writing shows  

insufficient application of the  recommended style of  

referencing (APIC Harvard  style) 

• The writing shows no in-text  citation. 

• In-text citation does to  

match with citation under  Reference list

presentation  

guidelines.

presentation  

guidelines.

Assessment presentation  guidelines to some extent.

• Report is not formatted and  presented as per the APIC  Assessment presentation  

guidelines.

Due date: 

Week 8

Group/individual: 

Individual

Word count/Time provided: 

1,000 words

Weighting: 

20%

Unit Learning Outcomes: 

ULO2, ULO3

Marking Criteria 

Excellent 

(85-100% of the criterion  mark)

Very Good 

(75-84% of the criterion  mark)

Good 

(65-74% of the criterion  mark)

Satisfactory 

(50-64% of the criterion  mark)

Not Satisfactory  

(0-49% of the criterion mark)

Justification of the proposed  research design and methods. (30 marks)

• The justification of the  proposed research  

design and methods are assessed as excellent.

The justification of the  proposed research design  and methods is assessed  as very good.

The justification of the  

proposed research design  and methods are assessed as  good.

The justification of the  

proposed research design  and methods are assessed as  satisfactory.

The justification of the  

proposed research design and  methods are assessed as not  satisfactory.

Description on proposed data  collection tools and methods. (15 marks)

• The description on  

proposed data  

collection tools and  

methods are assessed as  excellent. 

• The description on  

proposed data  

collection tools and  

methods are assessed as  very good. 

• The description on  

proposed data collection  tools and methods is  

assessed as good. 

• The description on  

proposed data collection  tools and methods is  

assessed as satisfactory. 

• The description on proposed  data collection tools and  

methods are assessed as not  satisfactory. 

Description on proposed data  analysis techniques. 

(15 marks)

• The description on  

proposed data analysis  techniques is assessed  as excellent.

• The description on  

proposed data analysis  techniques is assessed  as very good.

• The description on  

proposed data analysis  techniques is assessed  

as good.

• The description on  

proposed data analysis  

techniques is assessed as  satisfactory.

• The description on proposed  data analysis techniques is  assessed as not satisfactory.

Conclusion on the proposed  data collection and analysis.  (10 marks)

• The conclusion on the  proposed data  

collection and analysis  is assessed as  

excellent. 

• The conclusion on the  proposed data  

collection and analysis  is assessed as very  

good. 

• The conclusion on the  proposed data collection  and analysis is assessed  as good. 

• The conclusion on the  proposed data collection  and analysis is assessed  

as satisfactory. 

• The conclusion on the  

proposed data collection  

and analysis is assessed as  not satisfactory. 

Clarity of expression 

(15 marks)

• The writing is fluent  and coherent with  

excellent structure and  presentation exhibiting  grammatically correct  sentences that are  

appropriately  

punctuated with no  

minor spelling or typing  error.

• The writing is fluent  and coherent with  

good structure  

exhibiting  

grammatically correct  sentences that are  

appropriately  

punctuated with minor  spelling or typing  

error.

• The writing is fluent and  coherent with very good  structure exhibiting  

grammatically correct  

sentences that are  

appropriately punctuated  with few spellings or  

typing error. 

• The writing is used to  support the main ideas  and convince the reader 

• . The writing is satisfactory  and exhibits majority of  grammatically correct  

sentences that are  

appropriately punctuated  with some spelling or  

typing errors. 

• The writing does not go  far enough in expanding  key issues/ concepts.

• The writing is poor with no  logical flow and has  

grammatical errors.  

• Information is limited,  

unclear and the depth is not  adequately developed.  

• The idea is a simple  

restatement of the topic.  

• Demonstration of a limited  sense of purpose or theme 

• The writing perceives a  sense of the wider  

context of the ideas.

of the argument who is  left in no doubt of the  

purpose

• The writing requires  

further information to  

clarify main arguments

• Insufficient understanding of  the topic. 

Presentation and referencing (15 marks)

• The writing shows  

excellent application of  the recommended style  of referencing (APIC  

Harvard style) with no  error in referencing. 

• Report is formatted  and presented exactly  as per the APIC  

Assessment  

presentation  

guidelines.

• The writing shows very  good application of the  recommended style of  referencing (APIC  

Harvard style) with few  errors in referencing. 

• Report is well  

formatted but not  

presented exactly as  

per the APIC  

Assessment  

presentation  

guidelines.

• The writing shows good  application of the  

recommended style of  

referencing (APIC  

Harvard style) with some  errors in referencing. 

• Report is formatted and  presented as per the  

APIC Assessment  

presentation guidelines  to large extent. 

• The writing shows  

inconsistent application of  the recommended style of  referencing (APIC Harvard  style) 

• In-text citation match with  the citation under  

Reference list 

• Report is formatted and  presented as per the APIC  Assessment presentation  guidelines to some  

extent.

• The writing shows  

insufficient application of the  recommended style of  

referencing (APIC Harvard  style) 

• The writing shows no in-text  citation. 

• In-text citation does to  

match with citation under  Reference list 

• Report is not formatted and  presented as per the APIC  Assessment presentation  

guidelines.

Due date: 

Week 11

Group/individual: 

Individual

Word count/Time provided: 

3,000 words

Weighting: 

35%

Unit Learning Outcomes: 

ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

Marking Criteria 

Excellent 

(85-100% of the criterion  mark)

Very Good 

(75-84% of the criterion  mark)

Good 

(65-74% of the criterion  mark)

Satisfactory 

(50-64% of the criterion  mark)

Not Satisfactory  

(0-49% of the criterion mark)

Introduction 

(Problem definition &  

objective) 

(15 marks)

• Excellent linking of the  proposed research  

with the stated  

specific problem and  

research objectives. 

• The author describes  how the research is to  be approached in a  

logical and succinct  

manners.  

• Research timeline is  presented excellently. • Motivation is  

excellently presented 

• Very good linking of  the proposed research  with the stated  

specific problem and  

research objectives 

• The author describes  how the research is to  be approached in a  

logical manner.  

• Research timeline is  very well presented.  

• Motivation is very well  presented 

• Good linking of the  

proposed research with  the stated specific  

problem and research  

objectives 

• The author’s description  of research approach is  good and logical  

manners. 

• Research timeline is well  presented.  

• Motivation is well  

presented.

• Acceptable linking of the  proposed research with  the stated specific  

problem and objectives 

• The author’s description  of the research approach  is limited.  

• Research timeline is  

adequately presented.  

• Motivation is somewhat  presented.

• Insufficient linking of the  proposed research and the  stated specific problem and  objectives 

• The author does not  

describe how the research is  approached.  

• Research timeline is not well  presented. 

• Motivation is not evident.

Background  

(Literature and Previous Work) (15 marks)

• Synthesis of previous  research in forming  

background of the  

proposed study is  

excellently presented. • Previous research 

were excellently  

critiqued  

• Research gaps were  identified and  

discussed in the study. • Research discussed  and critiqued are  

entirely related to the  present research topic

• Synthesis of previous  research in forming  

background of the  

the proposed study is very  well presented. 

• Previous research  

were very well  

critiqued  

• Research gaps were  identified and  

discussed in the study. • Research discussed  and critiqued are  

entirely related to the  present research topic.

• Synthesis of previous  research in forming  

background of the  

proposed study is well  

presented. 

• Previous research were  well critiqued  

• Discussion on research  gaps is limiting. 

• Research discussed and  critiqued are mostly  

related to the present  

research topic.

• Synthesis of previous  

research in forming  

background of the  

proposed study  

somewhat presented. 

• Previous research were  not critiqued  

• Research gap identified  but no discussion  

presented. 

• Research discussed and  critiqued are somewhat  related to the present  

research topic.

• Synthesis of previous  

research in forming  

the background of the proposed  study is not presented. 

• Previous research were not  critiqued 

• Research gap neither  

identified nor discussed. 

• Majority of research  

discussed are not related to  the present research topic.

Significance & Broader Impact  (Impact of Proposed Research) (10 marks)

• Excellent discussion on  significance and  

broader impact of the  study 

• Very good discussion  on significance and  

broader impact of the  study

• Good discussion on  

significance and broader  impact of the study

• Discussion on significance  and broader impact of  

the study is somewhat  

presented

• Neither significance nor the  impact of the study is  

presented.

Research Design and  

Methods (Proposed  

Methodology, including  

research ethics) 

(20 Marks)

• The methodology is  almost certain to  

provide a satisfactory  solution to the  

specified problem.  

• The research design is  well thought and is  

most appropriate to  

the research project  

and questions.  

• Conceptual or  

theoretical framework  provides the basis of  

the data collection and  analysis in a succinct  

manners.  

• The author has  

presented a range of  

suitable tools to carry  out the data analysis.  

• Ethical considerations  were discussed.

• The methodology is  highly probable to  

provide a satisfactory  solution to the  

specified Problem.  

• The research design is  most appropriate to  

the research project  

and questions. 

• Conceptual or  

theoretical framework  in the report provides  the basis of the data  

collection and analysis.  • The author has  

proposed a range of  

tools and techniques  

to carry out the data  

analysis.  

• Ethical considerations  were discussed.

• 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. 

• Conceptual or  

theoretical framework in  the report provides the  basis of the data  

collection and analysis.  • The author has  

proposed limited range  of tools and techniques  to carry out the data  

analysis.  

• Ethical considerations  were mentioned.

• The methodology is likely  to provide a satisfactory  solution to the specified  problem.  

• The research design is  adequate. 

• Conceptual or theoretical  framework requires  

further work.  

• The author has proposed  limited range of tools and  techniques to carry out  

the data analysis.  

• Ethical considerations  were limited.

• The methodology is not  likely to provide a  

satisfactory solution to the  specified problem.  

• The research design is  

limited. 

• No conceptual or theoretical  framework in the report. 

• The author has not  

proposed sufficient tools  

and techniques to carry out  the data analysis.  

• Ethical considerations were  missing.

Results & Communication  (Expected outcomes) 

(10 marks)

• Expected outcome of  the proposed research  were excellently  

discussed with its  

wider applicability. 

• Suitable avenues of  research result 

• Expected outcome of  the proposed research  were very well  

discussed with its  

wider applicability. 

• Suitable avenues of  research result 

• Expected outcome of  the proposed research  

were well discussed with  its wider applicability. 

• Suitable avenues of  

research result  

dissemination has been  discussed.

• Expected outcome of the  proposed research were  somewhat discussed but  discussion on its wider  

applicability is not  

evident. 

• Suitable avenues of  

research result 

• Nether expected outcome  of the proposed research or  its wider applicability is  

presented. 

• No suitable avenues of  

research result  

dissemination have  

discussed.

dissemination have  

been discussed.

dissemination have  

been discussed.

dissemination have  

marginally discussed.

Timeframe  

(5 marks)

• Excellent presentation  of tentative timeline  

for completing the  

research project

• Very good presentation  of tentative timeline for  completing the  

research project

• Good presentation of  tentative timeline for  

completing the research  project

• Satisfactory presentation  of tentative timeline for  completing the research  project

• Unsatisfactory presentation  of tentative timeline for  

completing the research  

project.  

• Timeline is missing

Clarity of expression 

(10 marks)

• The writing is fluent  and coherent with  

excellent structure and  presentation exhibiting  grammatically correct  sentences that are  

appropriately  

punctuated with no  

minor spelling or typing  error. 

• The writing perceives a  sense of the wider  

context of the ideas. 

•

• The writing is fluent  and coherent with  

good structure  

exhibiting  

grammatically correct  sentences that are  

appropriately  

punctuated with minor  spelling or typing error.

• The writing is fluent and  coherent with very good  structure exhibiting  

grammatically correct  

sentences that are  

appropriately punctuated  with few spellings or  

typing error. 

• The writing is used to  support the main ideas  and convince the reader  of the argument who is  left in no doubt of the  

purpose

• . The writing is satisfactory  and exhibits majority of  grammatically correct  

sentences that are  

appropriately punctuated  with some spelling or  

typing errors. 

• The writing does not go  far enough in expanding  key issues/ concepts. 

• The writing requires  

further information to  

clarify main arguments

• The writing is poor with no  logical flow and has  

grammatical errors.  

• Information is limited,  

unclear and the depth is not  adequately developed.  

• The idea is a simple  

restatement of the topic.  

• Demonstration of a limited  sense of purpose or theme  • Insufficient understanding of  the topic.  

•

Presentation and referencing (15 marks)

• The writing shows  

excellent application of  the recommended style  of referencing (APIC  

Harvard style) with no  error in referencing. 

• Report is formatted  and presented exactly  as per the APIC  

Assessment  

presentation  

guidelines.

• The writing shows very  good application of the  recommended style of  referencing (APIC  

Harvard style) with few  errors in referencing. 

• Report is well  

formatted but not  

presented exactly as  

per the APIC  

Assessment 

• The writing shows good  application of the  

recommended style of  

referencing (APIC  

Harvard style) with some  errors in referencing. 

• Report is formatted and  presented as per the  

APIC Assessment  

presentation guidelines  to a large extent. 

• The writing shows  

inconsistent application of  the recommended style of  referencing (APIC Harvard  style) 

• In-text citation match with  the citation under  

Reference list 

• Report is formatted and  presented as per the APIC 

• The writing shows  

insufficient application of the  recommended style of  

referencing (APIC Harvard  style) 

• The writing shows no in-text  citation. 

• In-text citation does to  

match with citation under  Reference list

presentation  

guidelines.

Assessment presentation  guidelines to some extent.

• Report is not formatted and  presented as per the APIC  Assessment presentation  

guidelines.