MCRIT012 is a project-based subject, in which the students are expected to complete a professional report presenting IT industry specific research that is practical and relevant to the needs of targeted stakeholders.
The students should choose a topic from the list provided below and determine the context of the research. In this project the students need to focus intensely on a professional or industry management problem/issue/opportunity and this may apply to a single organization (private or government), an industry OR a sector, OR society broadly. The research should only use SECONDARY DATA (publicly available. No primary data collection is allowed.
You will work under close supervision of your tutor (supervisor) and submit the project in 3 stages namely Assessment 1 (Research Proposal), Assessment 2 (Research Report) and Assessment 3 (Research Presentation)
Please choose ONE the research topic from the list below:
No
Topic
1
Generative AI in Business System
2
AI Driven Cybersecurity
3
Digital Transformation (AI powered & Business Optimisation)
4
Workforce Upskilling
5
Governance in the AI Era
6
Quantum Computing in Business
7
Human-AI Collaboration
8
IT Strategy and Digital Excellence
Assessment 1 – Research Proposal
Due date: Week 5
Group/individual: Individual
Word count / Time provided: 2000 words
Weighting: 30%
Subject Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2 and ULO3
Task Description
Students are required to prepare a research proposal based one of the topics from the list provided. The proposal should clearly identify what is being investigated and why is it important to investigate this topic as well as how the research design of the investigation
Suggested structure of the proposal:
- Research Background
- Research Questions and Objectives
- Preliminary Literature Review
- Research Design
Marking Criteria
Criteria
Weighting
Research Background
20
Research Questions and Objectives
20
Literature Review
30
Research Design
20
Report Organisation
10
Total
100
Scale down to 30%
Marking Rubric Assessment 1 - Research Proposal (30%)
Research Background (20 marks)
Fail
Pass
Credit
Good
Excellent
The background, reasons for undertaking the research, and potential implications require significant development.
A background of organization and industry has been provided but requires further development. Some reasons for undertaking the research have been included but require justification. Some potential implications of the research have been outlined but require further clarifying.
Background of organization and industry generally contextualizes the research. Reasons for undertaking the research are mostly justified, including considerations regarding ethics and sustainability . Potential implications of the research have been outlined.
Background of organization and industry is relevant and contextualizes the research. Reasons for undertaking the research are justified including considerations regarding ethics and sustainability. The potential implications of the research are appropriate and have been explained.
Background of organization and industry is highly relevant and strongly contextualizes the research. Reasons for undertaking the research are comprehensively justified, including considerations regarding ethics and sustainability. The potential implications of the research are appropriate and have been thoroughly explained.
Research Questions and Objectives (20 marks)
Fail
Pass
Credit
Good
Excellent
An IT related problem of suitable scale and scope has not been clearly identified through the research question. Research question may require significant development.
An IT related problem has been identified through the research question, but rethinking may be required to ensure it is of suitable scale and scope. Research question may require some refinement.
An IT related problem of mostly suitable scale and scope has been identified through the research question. Research question is appropriate, and connects to elements of the literature review.
An IT related problem of suitable scale and scope has been identified through the research question. Research question is clear, appropriate, and aligned to the literature review.
A relevant and innovative IT related problem of suitable scale and scope has been identified through the research question. Research question is clear, appropriate, well-written, and strongly aligned to the literature review.
Preliminary Literature Review (30 marks)
Fail
Pass
Credit
Good
Excellent
The literature review requires significant work in order to support development of the research topic
A basic literature review is provided that summarizes key concepts and shows some understanding of the topic. Work is required to align the review more closely to the research topic, question and objectives. Some elements of the review may be irrelevant or require clarification.
The literature review is a summary of the literature, providing an indication of what is known about the topic. The review is mostly coherent with the research topic, question and objectives. The literature review supports development of research topic
The literature review is a synthesis of the literature and coherent with the research topic, question and objectives. The literature review clearly supports development of research topic.
The literature review is a comprehensive synthesis of the literature, demonstrating deep understanding of the topic. Review is coherent with the research topic, question and objectives. The literature review clearly enhances development of research topic.
Research Design (20 marks)
Fail
Pass
Credit
Good
Excellent
Information on the research design has been presented or requires significant development.
Information on the research design has been presented, including the data collection method and techniques. Several elements require development and explanation.
Information on the research design has been presented, including the data collection method and techniques. One or two elements require development or further explanation.
Information on the research design has been presented and explained, including the data collection method and techniques.
The research design is clear, explained, and justified, including the data collection method and techniques.
Report Organisation (10 marks)
Fail
Pass
Credit
Good
Excellent
The report is disorganised. Significant work is required to address errors in elements such as referencing, table of contents, headings, formatting, and expression.
The report is somewhat organised, but not always consistent or accurate. Some work is required to address errors in elements such as referencing, table of contents, headings, formatting, and expression.
Most elements of the report are complete and labelled. Some elements contain errors. The report includes: Mostly accurate referencing according to APA conventions. Mostly consistent formatting. Mostly clear written expression: may contain some ambiguities or confusing passages or sentences.
All elements of the report are complete and labelled, with a few minor errors, and include: Accurate referencing according to APA conventions. Accurate table of contents Consistent headings. Consistent formatting. Clear written expression, may contain one or two minor ambiguities or incorrect sentences.
All elements of the report are complete and clearly labelled, and include: Accurate and consistent referencing according to APA conventions. Accurate and well-structured table of contents Consistent headings Consistent formatting Clear written expression, with no ambiguities or confusing passages or sentences.
Assessment 2 – Research Report
Due date: Week 10
Group/individual: Individual
Word count / Time provided: 3500 words
Weighting: 40%
Subject Learning Outcomes: ULO4, ULO5 and ULO6
Task Description
Students are required to present their outcome of the research in the format of Research Report (3500 words)
Suggested structure of the report:
- Title Page: including a title (short and explanatory) and the student (author’s) details.
- Executive Summary: A summary or overview of the research proposal explains precisely what the research is about. It must be clear, succinct and understandable to experts and lay readers.
- Table of Content
- Background: This section clarifies the significance of the research and describes the broader historical, theoretical, social and intellectual background and context. A discussion of relevant ethical considerations should be included.
- Literature Review : A directed search of published works, including periodicals and books that discuss theory and present empirical results relevant to the topic. The literature review is used to determine whether or not others may have addressed the same research problem(s).
- Research Design: describes research methodology and method(s) that are proposed and fully justifies their use. It will include details of sample size, data collection and analysis methods proposed. This section may also describe the theoretical or conceptual approach of the study.
- Findings and Discussions: The full set of data collected should be available as a supporting document. This section may summarise the most important data. Analysis should identify any trends and any anomalies.
- Conclusion and Recommendations: An explanation of what your findings mean for your research question, plus any recommendations for future application of the topic research if relevant. In general, there should be no new information presented here. It should be a synthesis of information that you’ve already discussed.
- Future Directions: A brief explanation of the next logical steps to increase knowledge relating to the question(s) posed.
- Reference List: Formatted using APA style
Marking Criteria
Criteria
Weighting
Demonstrate thorough understanding of the field of research
10
Evidence of the ability to carry out formal research project
20
Familiarity with relevant literatures
20
Proper use of Methodology and its justification
15
Quality of the analysis and findings
15
Contribution to the body of knowledge
10
Ability to clearly and concisely communicate the research findings
10
Total
100
Scale down to 40
Marking Rubric Assessment 2 – Research Project Report (40%)
Demonstrated thorough understanding of the field of research (10 marks)
Fail (0 – 49%)
Pass (50 – 64%)
Credit (65 – 74%)
Distinction (75 – 84%)
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
Inaccurate, inappropriate or insufficient use of literature to establish a thorough understanding of the field of research. .
Minimum number of sources, not all current or relevant. Weak demonstration of understanding of the field of research. Paraphrasing used but not always accompanied by original explanations. Theory not always linked to analysis.
Good selection of theory from a range of appropriate sources to build and adequately justify analysis on the basis of understanding research field. Paraphrasing used but accompanied by original explanations.
Insightful and appropriate selection of theory from a good range of current and relevant sources to systematically build and justify analysis on the basis of understanding research field.
Integration and originality in the selection and handling of relevant theory to then build and justify well developed analysis on the basis of understanding research field. Wide range of current and relevant sources integrated in systematic way to support that analysis.
Evidence of ability to carry out formal research through the design & implementation of a focused analytical research study (20 marks)
Fail (0 – 49%)
Pass (50 – 64%)
Credit (65 – 74%)
Distinction (75 – 84%)
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
Disjoint logic in presenting the research process, data findings and conclusion.
Report presented with framework yet weak overall logical development from context of knowledge available from former researchers in the field, research method, data analysis, conclusions drawn.
Report presented with framework and good overall logical development from context of knowledge available from former researchers in the field, research method, data analysis, conclusions drawn.
Report presented with framework and sound overall logical development from context of knowledge available from former researchers in the field, research method, data analysis, conclusions drawn.
Report presented with framework and overall logical development from context of knowledge available from former researchers in the field, research method, data analysis and conclusions appropriate for offer for presentation in reputable academic journal
Familiarity with the relevant research literature, as evident in the Literature Review, of previous research in the field and the linkages between the research and the group's study (20 marks)
Fail (0 – 49%)
Pass (50 – 64%)
Credit (65 – 74%)
Distinction (75 – 84%)
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
Inadequate determination of hypotheses for testing by quantitative study or development of ‘story’ as directed by supervisor from former researchers in the field. Referencing is absent / not systematic / incorrect
Adequate determination of hypotheses for testing by quantitative study or development of ‘story’ as directed by supervisor from former researchers in the field with only minimal support evident for those hypotheses or story told from those sources. Some attempt at referencing but obvious errors
Well-supported logical determination of hypotheses for test in quantitative study or development of ‘story’ as guided by supervisor in three or more sub-topic areas from the research contribution of previous researchers in the field. This presented in articulate manner as presentable to a high-level management committee without plagiarism and with largely accurate referencing throughout
Development of hypotheses for quantitative testing or ‘story’ as guided by supervisor in three or more sub-topic areas from the research contribution of previous researchers in the field to internal publishable standard without plagiarism and with correct referencing throughout
Development of hypotheses for quantitative testing or ‘story’ as guided by supervisor in three or more sub-topic areas from the research contribution of previous researchers in the field without plagiarism and to publishable standard for offer to reputable academic publishers
Proper use and justification of methodologies, techniques and or processes employed (15 Marks)
Fail (0 – 49%)
Pass (50 – 64%)
Credit (65 – 74%)
Distinction (75 – 84%)
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
Inadequate, inaccurate, and lacking sufficient attention to detail in presentation of research method engaged
Correct presentation of research method engaged yet weak on attention to detail
Correct presentation of research method engaged
Comprehensive and correct presentation of research method engaged with justification relevant to the research conducted
Comprehensive and correct presentation of research method engaged to level appropriate for offer to reputable academic publishers
Quality of analysis of findings in reaching useful findings (15 Marks)
Fail (0 – 49%)
Pass (50 – 64%)
Credit (65 – 74%)
Distinction (75 – 84%)
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
Few or no conclusions made / no justification. Conclusions reached are not supported or are inaccurate
Some conclusions made yet poorly linked to the results of statistical analysis of survey data or appropriate analysis of interviews undertaken.
Trends from statistical analysis or interview data to reach conclusions useful to academic and/or business environment. Justified conclusions drawn.
Literature review used as foundation for hypotheses for testing or interview questionnaire then trends from data used to reach conclusions useful to academic and/or business environment. Soundly justified conclusions drawn.
Literature review used as foundation for hypotheses for testing or interview questionnaire then trends from data used in an insightful way to reach conclusions useful to academic and/or business environment.
A contribution to a body of knowledge, policy and/or professional practice in accountancy, administration or management (10 marks)
Fail (0 – 49%)
Pass (50 – 64%)
Credit (65 – 74%)
Distinction (75 – 84%)
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
Inadequate application of research method in delivering knowledge original and of value to the education and/or business sectors.
Research method delivers unsubstantiated (i.e. doubtful evidence of research gap) original knowledge of value as explained for the education and/or business sectors.
Research method delivers original knowledge of value as explained for the education and/or business sectors.
Research method delivers original knowledge of value as explained for the education and/or business sectors. Result achieved in consultation with education or business sector.
Research method delivers original knowledge of value as explained for the education and/or business sectors. Of merit for offer to publish in refereed academic journal.
Ability to clearly and concisely communicate. - includes grammar, spelling; - diagrammatic representation as needed/useful; - overall quality of layout, appearance & intuitive navigation; within allowed word count (10 marks)
Fail (0 – 49%)
Pass (50 – 64%)
Credit (65 – 74%)
Distinction (75 – 84%)
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
Poor articulation of research findings and conclusions drawn
Acceptable presentation – obvious errors demonstrating lack of attention to detail.
Good presentation overall but some obvious errors.
Professional presentation – minor errors in some elements.
Highly professional presentation – satisfies all presentation elements to a standard able to be offered to a reputable academic publication
Total mark out of 100
Comments:
Assignment 3 – Research Presentation
Due date: Week 11 (Monday) to be presented at Week 11 OR Week 12
Group/individual: Individual Assessment
Word count / Time provided: 5 minutes presentation
Weighting: 30%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1 to ULO6
Task Description
Students must present their research and findings and other key aspects of the research. The presentation should be no more than 5 minutes. Appropriate visual aids should be used to enhance the presentation.
Suggested structure of the presentation:
- Research Questions and Objectives
- Findings and Discussion
- Conclusion and Recommendation
- Limitation of the Research and Future Direction
Marking Criteria
Criteria
Weighting
Presentation skills
25
Knowledge of the topic
25
Organisation of the presentation
25
Visual Aids
25
100
Scale down to 30%
Marking Rubric Assessment 3 – Presentation Research Outcome (30%)
Presentation skills (25 marks)
Fail (0 – 49%)
Pass (50 – 64%)
Credit (65 – 74%)
Distinction (75 – 84%)
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
Minimal eye contact by more than one member. Members read from screen or notes. The audience was not engaged. Majority of presenters spoke too quickly or quietly making it difficult to understand. Inappropriate/disinterested body language. Body language was distracting.
Members focused on only part of audience. Sporadic eye contact by more than one presenter. Speakers could not be easily heard by the audience. Most members spoke to majority of audience; steady eye contact. The audience was engaged by the presentation. Majority of presenters spoke at a suitable volume. Some fidgeting by member(s).
Regular/constant eye contact. The audience was engaged, and presenters held the audience’s attention. Appropriate speaking volume & body language. Enthusiastic.
Regular/constant eye contact. The audience was engaged, and presenters held the audience’s attention. Appropriate speaking volume & body language. Professional fault free presentation from enthusiastic presenters.
Knowledge of topic (25 marks)
Fail (0 – 49%)
Pass (50 – 64%)
Credit (65 – 74%)
Distinction (75 – 84%)
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
Presenters didn’t demonstrate understanding of the topic. Majority of questions answered by only one member or not at all. Responses incorrect.
Group showed general understanding of topic - lack of understanding of some parts of topic evident in some but not all members of the group. Only some members accurately answered questions.
Most showed a good understanding of topic. Some members not able to answer audience questions
Group members uniformly showed a strong understanding of topic. All members able to answer most of audience questions.
Extensive knowledge of topic. Members showed complete understanding of assignment. Accurately answered all questions posed.
Organisation / evidence of preparation (25 marks)
Fail (0 – 49%)
Pass (50 – 64%)
Credit (65 – 74%)
Distinction (75 – 84%)
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
Unbalanced presentation or tension resulting from over/under-helping. Multiple group members not prepared. Evident lack of preparation /rehearsal. Disorganised and disjointed
Significant controlling by some members with others only minimally contributing. Primarily prepared but with some confusion – timing issues Some disorganisation and strong reliance on notes.
Slight domination of one presenter or one member less prepared. Members helped each other. Well prepared. Some reliance on reading from notes
All presenters knew the information, participated equally, and helped each other as needed. Well prepared and rehearsed – only minor errors.
All presenters knew the information, participated equally, and helped each other as needed. Extremely prepared and rehearsed. Highly professional presentation
Visual Aids (25 marks)
Fail (0 – 49%)
Pass (50 – 64%)
Credit (65 – 74%)
Distinction (75 – 84%)
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
PowerPoint only used but not well or no visual aids prepared. Many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Slides difficult to read and too much information copied onto them. No visual appeal.
PowerPoint only used. Some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on several slides. Acceptable but unimaginative visual appeal.
PowerPoint predominant – one or two additional aids used, poorly managed in places. Some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on two or more slides. Some imagination used to improve visual appeal.
PowerPoint mainly used with some additional appropriate visual aids used effectively. No errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. Visually appealing/engaging.
Imaginative and creative choice of visual aids. No errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. Highly visually appealing/engaging.
Total mark out of 100
Comments: