ICT5201 Research Methodology and Data Analysis

Assessment Overview

T1, 2025

Assessment Overview Table

Assessment Task	Type	Weight	Length	Due	ULO
Assessment 1: Research Plan	Individual Invigilated	10%	900 words	Week 4	ULO1, ULO4
Assessment 2: Structured Literature Review	Individual	20%	1300 words	Week 6	ULO1, ULO2, ULO3
Assessment 3: Research Design	Individual	25%	1800 words	Week 8	ULO2, ULO3
Assessment 4: Research Proposal Report	Individual	30%	2000 words	Week 12	ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4
Assessment 5: Research Proposal Presentation	Individual Invigilated	15%	10 minutes presentation (equiv. 1000 words)	Week 12	ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

Assessment 1: Research Plan

Due date: Week 4
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 900 words
Weighting: 10%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO4

Assessment 1 Detail

In this assessment, students need to identify the individual research problem based on his/her interest and then justify why the problems are worth pursuing and what benefits they expect to see as an outcome of the research. Students are also required to speculate about the methodology they would use to investigate the research problem.

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria

Marking Criteria	Excellent (85-100%)	Very Good (75-84%)	Good (65-74%)	Satisfactory (50-64%)	Not Satisfactory (0-49%)
Identification of Problem, Rationale & Significance (30 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 Outcome & Relevance of Cited Research (25 marks)	• Expected research outcome is presented and an excellent comparison to past findings is also provided • The research referred to in the report is the latest relevant research available	• Expected research outcome is presented and a very good comparison to past findings is also provided • The research referred to in the report is the latest relevant research available	• Expected research outcome is presented and a good comparison to past findings is also provided • The research referred to in the report is the latest relevant research available	• Expected research outcome is presented and an acceptable comparison to past findings is also provided • The research referred to in the report is the latest relevant research available	• Expected outcome is not presented and no comparison to past findings is not provided • The research referred to in the report is not the latest relevant research available
Proposed methodology (15 marks)	• The methodology is almost certain to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem	• The methodology is highly probable to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified Problem	• The methodology is most likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem	• The methodology is likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem	• The methodology is not likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the specified problem
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
Presenting 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 not match with citation under Reference list • Report is not formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines

Assessment 2: Structured Literature Review

Due date: Week 6
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 1300 words
Weighting: 20%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO2, ULO3

Assessment 2 Detail

This assessment requires students to conduct structured review of literature about the individual research problem in Assessment 1. Research studies journal articles, conference papers, thesis/desertion, government reports and/or industry reports may also be used a reference material. Your literature review should include at least 15 references.

Note: While ChatGPT or other AI tools are permissible for study purposes and to enhance your understanding of the subject, it is important to note that no AI-generated materials, including copied and edited text, are allowed in the final submission. Details on generative AI can be found from Academic Integrity Module in the page titled Generative AI: Guidelines for Students

Assessment 2 Marking Criteria

Marking Criteria	Excellent (85-100%)	Very Good (75-84%)	Good (65-74%)	Satisfactory (50-64%)	Not Satisfactory (0-49%)
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 question • 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 clearly guided by knowledge gap in the literature and the context is excellently described	• Questions are clear, researchable, and relevant to the problem or issue identified in Assessment 1 • Questions are guided by knowledge gap in the literature and the context is very well described	• Questions are researchable and relevant to the problem or issue identified in Assessment 1 • Questions are guided by knowledge gap in the literature and the context is well described	• 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 context is not well described	• Question does not reflect a problem related to Assessment 1 • Questions are not researchable • No or unclear description of the context • Questions are not guided by the knowledge gap in the literature and context is either not present or unclear
Conclusion on the literature review (10 marks)	• The conclusion on the literature review is assessed as excellent	• The conclusion on the literature review is assessed as very good	• The conclusion on the literature review is assessed as good	• The conclusion on the literature review is assessed as satisfactory	• The conclusion on the literature review is assessed as not satisfactory
Clarity of expression (20 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 (10 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 not match with citation under Reference list • Report is not formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines

Assessment 3: Research Design

Due date: Week 8
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 1800 words
Weighting: 25%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

Assessment 3 Detail

This assessment requires student to identify appropriate methodology and analysis techniques to address research questions identified in Assessment 2 to provide satisfactory solution with data analysis and to achieve research objectives. Students should include research ethics and proposed time frame in this assessment.

Assessment 3 Marking Criteria

Marking Criteria	Excellent (85-100%)	Very Good (75-84%)	Good (65-74%)	Satisfactory (50-64%)	Not Satisfactory (0-49%)
Justification of the proposed research design and methods (30 marks)	• The justification of the proposed research design and methods is 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 is assessed as good	• The justification of the proposed research design and methods is assessed as satisfactory	• The justification of the proposed research design and methods is assessed as not satisfactory
Description on proposed data collection tools and methods (15 marks)	• The description on proposed data collection tools and methods is assessed as excellent	• The description on proposed data collection tools and methods is 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 is 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 with research ethics and proposed time frame (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 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 not match with citation under Reference list • Report is not formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines

Assessment 4: Research Proposal Report

Due date: Week 12
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 2000 words
Weighting: 30%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

Assessment 4 Detail

This assessment requires student to develop a two-page paper with IEEE format based on previous three assessments. It is expected that student will use this idea for further develop their Capstone research project (Applied Research Project) in ICT6001. Students are recommended to develop their assessment in the following order:

Introduction (Problem definition & objective): State the research problem clearly (research questions), provides motivation for undertaking the research; provide succinct, clear, logical description of the objectives and plan of action
Background (Literature and Previous Work): Discuss the objectives, methodologies and findings of relevant previous research that provides a background for your research topic. The aim is to provide a critique of existing work and identify gaps in knowledge and / or methodological weaknesses in existing research.
Significance & Broader Impact (Impact of Proposed Research): Discuss the potential value of solution or contribution to the research problem within and outside the area/field of study. Also discuss broader implications of the proposed research. Broader impacts may include social, economic, technical, ethical, translational, clinical, pharmaceutical, technological, or business aspects.
Research Design and Methods (Proposed Methodology): Discuss research methods/tools to solve the defined problem. This should include what type of data will be used, how data will be collected and analyse, what could be possible ethical issues and how that will be addressed. In addition, discuss why the methodology and methods you have selected is suitable to address the research question(s).
Results & Communication (Expected outcomes): Discuss what are the potential output of the proposed results and how the same will be disseminated to wider audience.
Conclusion: Summarize the key points from your proposal and reiterate the significance of the proposed research, why it is worth undertaking and what benefits it would have. End this with positive note so that your proposal will be considered for research.
References: Include bibliographic detail of all in-text citations in IEEE format. Websites, blogs, personal communications are generally not viewed as a trusted source of reference.

Assessment 4 Marking Criteria

Marking Criteria	Excellent (85-100%)	Very Good (75-84%)	Good (65-74%)	Satisfactory (50-64%)	Not Satisfactory (0-49%)
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 manner • 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 manner • 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 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 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) (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 question • Conceptual or theoretical framework provides the basis of the data collection and analysis in a succinct manner • 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 question • 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 dissemination have been discussed	• Expected outcome of the proposed research were very well discussed with its wider applicability • Suitable avenues of research result dissemination have been discussed	• Expected outcome of the proposed research were well discussed with its wider applicability • Suitable avenues of research result dissemination have 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 dissemination have marginally discussed	• Nether expected outcome of the proposed research or its wider applicability is presented • No suitable avenues of research result dissemination have discussed
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 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 not match with citation under Reference list • Report is not formatted and presented as per the APIC Assessment presentation guidelines

Assessment 5: Research Proposal Presentation

Due date: Week 12
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 1000 words (equivalent)
Weighting: 15%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

Assessment 5 Detail

This assessment requires student to orally present the summary of their Assessment 4 (two page paper in Research Proposal section). A typical presentation should include:

Proposed research title: What would be the title of your research?
Abstract: short overview of the entire paper
Background and Justification: What is this research, why this research is important and what motivates this research?
Research questions & objectives: Specific Research question(s) and research objectives
Methodology & Methods: What methodology and methods will be used to address the research question & why the proposed methodology is suitable?
Expected Result & Communication: What would be the result of the proposed research and how that will be disseminated to the wider audience?
Conclusion: summary of the paper
References: Bibliographic detail of all references that is used in preparing the presentation slides. The style of referencing should be IEEE format. Websites, blogs, personal communications are generally not viewed as a trusted source of reference.

Assessment 5 Marking Criteria

Marking Criteria	Excellent (85-100%)	Very Good (75-84%)	Good (65-74%)	Satisfactory (50-64%)	Not Satisfactory (0-49%)
Visual Appeal (20 marks)	• Proposed research title and author is prominently presented • Excellent visual appeal; no cluttered • Colours, font size and type enhance readability • Excellent organization of text content with no spelling and grammar errors • Excellent use of graphics (e.g., Table, figures, etc.)	• Proposed research title and author is well presented • Very good visual appeal; no cluttered • Colours, font size and type enhance readability • Very good organization of text content with no spelling and grammar errors • Very good use of graphics (e.g., Table, figures, etc.)	• Proposed research title and author is well positioned • Good visual appeal; some cluttered presents but colours, font size and type enhance readability • Good organization of text content with few spelling and grammar errors • Good use of graphics (e.g., Table, figures, etc.)	• Proposed research title and author is not so well presented • Visual appeal is adequate; somewhat cluttered • Colours, font size and type enhance somewhat detract from readability • Adequate organization of text content with some spelling and grammar errors • No use of graphics (e.g., Table, figures, etc.)	• Proposed research title and author is missing • Not very visual appealing; and cluttered • Colours, font size and type hinder readability • Content organization is poor and confusing and does not assist viewer in understanding without narration • Presents spelling and grammar errors • No use of graphics (e.g., Table, figures, etc.)
Topic Knowledge/content (40 marks)	• Presenter showed an extensive knowledge of topic by answering all questions put forward by moderator • Presentation was comprehensive and included all relevant information and very good discussion on the content of the presentation • Comprehensive and complete coverage of information	• Presenter showed very good understanding of topic by answering almost all questions put forward by the moderator • The presentation was a very good summary of the research proposal • Almost all-important information covered; presentation contain little irrelevant information	• Presenter showed good understanding of topic by answering most of the questions put forward by the moderator • The presentation was a good summary of the research proposal • Major information covered; presentation contain some irrelevant information	• Presenter showed adequate understanding topic by answering half of the questions put forward by the moderator • The presentation was informative, but several elements went unanswered • Much of the information irrelevant; coverage of some of major points	• Presenters didn't show understand of the topic and failed to answer questions adequately put forward by the moderator • The presentation was a brief look at the topic, but many questions were left unanswered • Majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out
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 good body language and appropriate attire and look • No dependent on slide and/or additional notes • Excellent eye contact with the audience	• Presentation (narration) was very good and engaging • Tones, pitch, and clarity of narration was very good • Narrated (presented) in a professional manner with good body language and appropriate attire and look • Dependent on slide and/or additional notes is very minimal • Very good eye contact with the audience	• Presentation (narration) was good and engaging • Tones, pitch, and clarity of narration was good • Narrated (presented) in a professional manner with good body language but not in an appropriate attire and look • Dependent on slide and/or additional notes is somewhat present • Adequate level of eye contact with the audience	• Presentation (narration) was adequate • Tones, pitch, and clarity of narration was adequate • Narrated (presented) in somewhat in professional 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	• 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 • 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
Preparedness (15 marks)	• Presented on scheduled time • Excellent use of media • Very well prepared and rehearsed presentation	• Presented on scheduled time • Very good use of media • Well prepared and rehearsed presentation	• Presented on scheduled time • Good use of media • Good demonstration of preparedness but not well rehearsed	• Presented on scheduled time • Use of media is adequate • Preparedness is somewhat demonstrated but not rehearsed	• Presentation was not on a scheduled time • Use of media is very poor • No evidence of preparedness and not rehearsed
Documentation of Sources (5 marks)	• Cited all data obtained from other sources • APIC-Harvard citation style is accurate	• Cited most data obtained from other sources • APIC-Harvard citation style is accurate	• Cited some data obtained from other sources • APIC-Harvard citation style is accurate	• Cited some data obtained from other sources • APIC-Harvard citation style is either inconsistent or incorrect	• Sources are not cited

Need Help with Your Research Methodology Assignment?

Our expert writers can help you create high-quality academic papers on research methodology topics.

Price Calculator Contact Us