COIT20249 Assessment Details Assessment item 3 Report

Objectives

Please refer to the course profile to see how this assessment item relates to the course learning outcomes.

This assignment is designed to stimulate critical thinking outside of the classroom by requiring students to write a formal academic report. You will need to follow the ARE process described in chapters 2 and 3 of Your Business Degree 2 (prescribed textbook for COIT20249) to analyse the assessment task, research relevant information and evaluate the information you find. This information should be used to write an academic report in which you present your findings or outcomes and make recommendations for future practice Professional writing and writing reports are described in chapters 4 and 5 of Your Business Degree 2. This assessment task will assess your skills in critical thinking, researching information, forming an opinion, academic writing, logical ordering of ideas and your ability to support your arguments with quotes from literature. These objectives will be measured by the ‘closeness of fit’ to meeting the assessment task, assessment requirements and assessment criteria listed below.

Please note that there is a wealth of material available on the Moodle course website that you should use to help you through the process of searching for and gathering relevant information, evaluating that information and writing your report.

General Assessment Criteria

Assessments provide the opportunity for students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills to achieve the required standard. To do this, assessment responses need to be both clear and easy to understand. If not, the University cannot determine that students have demonstrated their knowledge and skills. Assessments will, therefore, be marked accordingly including the potential for 0 (zero) marks where relevant.

The report must focus on the case study scenario given in the Assessment Task section. Any assessment items that do not address the case study scenario may be awarded 0 (zero) marks.

If you use Track Changes when writing your report you must ensure that the submitted document is the final and correct version of the document. That is, if your submitted report contains Track Changes or Comments or any other editing marks it may be awarded 0 (zero) marks. It is your responsibility to submit the final and correct version of your report.

The length of the report must be within the recommended range. If the report exceeds the maximum word count the marker will stop marking after 3500 words.

Files that are auto-submitted will not be reverted to draft status except in extenuating circumstances. It is your responsibility not to leave draft assessments in Moodle at the time of the original deadline if the files are not ready to be submitted for marking.

Assessment task

Students are required to write an academic report as per the format outlined in chapter 5 of the textbook. The report must follow the APA referencing style. Please note that the prescribed textbook uses APA referencing guidelines. See also the Referencing Style subsection below.

The report is to be based on the following case study scenario about the Internet of Things.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a term that was invented by Kevin Ashton in 1999 to describe a system where the Internet is connected to the physical world via sensors. In the last decade the concept of IoT has expanded to refer to situations where physical devices, vehicles, buildings and machines are embedded with electronics, sensors and software that support network connectivity which allow these objects to collect and exchange data. The IoT has been made possible by the use of cloud computing and networks of data-collecting sensors. Examples of the IoT include the recent trend of smartphones and wearable data collection devices being connected to each other and to the Internet. People wear devices which track physical activity and sleep patterns. Using Bluetooth this data is then synced to an application on a smartphone. The application on the smartphone then sends the data to a central database stored in the Cloud. This database could contain data collected from thousands of individuals.

The IoT has the potential to revolutionise how we live. Smart refrigerators could sense when you run out of groceries such as milk and cheese and create a shopping list for you. Sensors in the home could detect changes in the temperature and then turn on or turn off heaters and or air-conditioners to maintain a constant temperature. People with chronic illnesses could have sensors implanted that send data to a doctor who could then send back data to change the dose of medication being administered automatically by a medical device. There are also applications in business, in particular, manufacturing and production industries where sensors could detect low stock levels and reorder supplies or indicate when machines need to be repaired.

However, IoT could also bring significant risks. The IoT relies of the sharing of data which means that it is essential to ensure the security of that data both when it is being sent between devices and when it is being stored in the Cloud. A computer hacker could potentially intercept sensitive data and use that against an individual or an organisation. Alternatively the data could be corrupted when it is sent between devices or from the device to the Cloud which could lead to harm to an individual or an organisation.

You are the ICT manager of a small research and development company based in Melbourne. Your organisation is very interested in the potential applications of the IoT and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has asked you to research potential IoT applications that could be developed by your organisation. He is interested in finding at least two new IoT applications that your organisation could develop in the next five years. It is essential for the organisation’s survival that these new IoT applications have commercial potential both locally and globally. The CEO is also concerned about any possible negative impacts on your organisation. Hence your report should discuss data security and privacy issues for each potential IoT application. You are to write a report to be presented at the next executive meeting. The report should address the following tasks:

What are IoTs and how are they currently being used? You should explore a range of applications of IoT, for example, in areas such as healthcare, manufacturing and production.
Discuss at least two potential IoT applications that could be developed by your organisation in the next five years. You should explore ways that those two IoT applications could be used to provide opportunities to expand your business both locally and globally. Analyse potential options that could lead to recommendations at the end of your report.
Assess the advantages and disadvantages of IoTs. Consider the current IoT applications and the two potential IoT applications to be developed by your organisation (see tasks 1 and 2 above). Explore the ethical, social and legal considerations, and the potential positive and negative impacts your organisation should consider. These should lead to some recommendations at the end of your report.

Your report should conclude with a list of recommendations for your organisation with respect to the two potential IoT applications and the current and future use of IoT applications. Make sure that the specific recommendations at the end of your report have been evaluated as a part of your report discussion.

Please note that you will need to make some assumptions about the organisation in order to write this report. These assumptions should be incorporated in the introduction to your report when you describe the organisation and outline the problem to be solved. Relevant assumptions should be incorporated when addressing tasks 2 and 3 above. Do not make assumptions that are not relevant or will not be used in your report discussion.

Specifically your report should include the following (word count details are approximate guidelines only):

Title page: course code, assessment number, assessment title, student name, student number, email address, assessment due date, campus lecturer/tutor, course coordinator and word count. If applicable, add extension request ID and the new due date. Not counted in the word count.
Executive summary: should include the purpose of the report, the problem and how it was investigated, your findings and your recommendations. Should be approximately 300 words.
Table of Contents (ToC): should list the report topics using decimal notation. Needs to include the main headings and subheadings with corresponding page numbers, using a format that makes the hierarchy of topics clear. Because you are including a ToC the report pages should be numbered in the footer as follows: title page has no page number; and main text to have Arabic numerals commencing at 1. Create the ToC using MS Word’s ToC auto-generator rather than manually typing out the ToC. Instructions can be found here https://support.office.com/en-gb/article/Create-a-table-of-contents-or-update-a-table-of-contents-eb275189-b93e-4559-8dd9-c279457bfd72#__create_a_table. Not counted in the word count.
Introduction: provide a brief description of the organisation, a concise overview of the problem you have been asked to research, the objectives to be achieved by writing the report and how you investigated the problem. Provide an outline of the sections of the report. Note that you will have to make assumptions about what type of organisation you are working for in this case study. Should be approximately 400 words.
Body of the report (use appropriate headings in the body of the report.): Define key terms you will use in your report, such as what is meant by ‘IoT’. Present your ideas on the topic and discuss the information you found in your research that was relevant to the report’s objectives. Provide an analysis of the information that you gathered. Ensure that you explore the three tasks listed in the case study scenario. In your discussion, examine the issues from a global perspective as well as from the local perspective (of the fictional organisation that is the centre of this report).

Do NOT use ‘Body of the Report’ as a heading. Create meaningful headings that reflect the content of your report. Should be approximately 1600 words.

Conclusion: based on your research and analysis. Explain the significance of your findings and your discussion. State if your report has achieved its objectives. Should be approximately 300 words.
Recommendations: (must be based on your findings) what would your recommendations be to your CEO and the executive management team in this situation? Provide some guidelines for the organisation with respect to the development and use of IoT applications. Should be approximately 400 words.
Reference list. Not counted in the word count.
Appendices if necessary. Not counted in the word count.

Note: Additional information regarding this assignment may be placed on the course website as required. Check the course website at least once a week for further information relating to the report. Regular access to the course website is a requirement of this course.

Assessment Requirements

Your response should be structured as a report (chapter 5 of textbook), written in accordance with standard academic writing principles (chapter 4 of textbook). The report must be written using your own words with any in text citations clearly marked (see Referencing Style subsection below). You may discuss the assessment task with other students and the lecturing staff but you must WRITE the report YOURSELF in your own words.

You will need to conduct research to support your arguments using at least ten (10) references. Note that all the references you chose to use should have been evaluated using the Triple-R framework in the research stage of preparing your Report. One of the references could be your set textbook (if you reference the textbook you must include it in the reference list). You must have a minimum of ten (10) references in your reference list. At least six (6) of these references should be from refereed academic journals and books. All sources should be current that is, dated 2011 or later. You are encouraged to use more than the minimum requirements for a better quality outcome to your report.

The assignment should demonstrate a logical flow of discussion, be grammatically correct and free from typographical, spelling and grammatical errors. It should be prepared in MS-Word (or equivalent) using 12 point font, 1.5 line spacing and margins of 2.54 cm.

It is highly recommended that you Submit Your Coursework to the Academic Learning Centre AT LEAST ONE WEEK before the due date so that it can be checked for spelling and grammatical errors.

Referencing Style

References must be cited (in text) and a reference list provided in accordance with the APA referencing style.

Helpful information on referencing techniques and styles can also be found on CQU’s referencing webpage:

https://www.cqu.edu.au/student-life/services-and-facilities/referencing

Marks will be deducted for poor referencing or having less than ten (10) references or going under or over the word length.

Use quotation marks for direct quotes and you must include the author, date and page number(s) with the quote as per the referencing standards.

ALL assignments will be checked for plagiarism (material copied from other students and/or material copied from other sources) using TurnItIn. If you are found to have plagiarised material or if you have used someone else’s words without appropriate referencing, you will be penalised for plagiarism which could result in zero marks for the whole assignment. In some circumstances a more severe penalty may be imposed.

Useful information about academic integrity (avoiding plagiarism) can be found at:

https://www.cqu.edu.au/student-life/services-and-facilities/referencing

https://www.cqu.edu.au/student-life/services-and-facilities/referencing/cquniversity-referencing-guides

Guidelines with respect to self-referencing are available on the COIT20249 Moodle course website.

Submission

The report has to be submitted using the COIT20249 Moodle course website on or before the due date. The submission link can be accessed through the Assessment block.

Before submitting your assignment you should check it against the detailed assessment criteria in the following table to ensure that you have satisfactorily addressed all the criteria that will be used to mark your report.

Assessment criteria

This assessment is criterion referenced which means your work is assessed against the criteria in the marking rubric below.

Criteria	Quality
*Executive summary*	The executive summary contained: - a brief description of the purpose of the report - the definition of the problem and how it was investigated - a summary of what you found and what you concluded - your recommendations	The executive summary contained the proper sections but did not include enough detail.	The executive summary had sections which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.	The executive summary lacked clarity and has incomplete or missing sections. It did not clearly explain the problem, how it was investigated and your recommendations.	Entire sections of the executive summary are missing. There is a lack of detail and the problem is not well explained.
*Table of contents*	Lists the report topics using decimal notation. Includes the main headings and subheadings with corresponding page numbers. Format makes the hierarchy of topics clear. Auto generated using MS Word. Pages are numbered.	A few things missing from the table of contents. Pages are numbered.	Some things missing from the table of contents. Pages may not be numbered.	Includes the main headings only. Pages may not be numbered.	Table of contents missing. Pages not numbered.
*Introduction*	Set the scene for the report; gave some background information for the topic. Included a brief description of the organisation. Stated the objectives of the investigation. Include the problem you are addressing. Explained the research method used to gather information. Outlined the sections of the report.	The introduction contained the proper parts but did not include enough detail.	The introduction had parts which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.	The introduction lacked clarity and had incomplete or missing parts. It did not clearly introduce the report.	The introduction was missing or was a repeat of the executive summary. It did not clearly introduce the report.
*Body of report:* Selection and sequencing of subject material; including evidence.	Selected exact amount of relevant material that supports argument with no contradictions. Substantial, logical, & concrete development of ideas. Arguments were logical and clear. Assumptions were made explicit. Key terms were defined. Details were germane, original, and convincingly interpreted.	Selected large amount of relevant material. Offered solid development of ideas but less original reasoning. Assumptions were not always recognised or made explicit. Contained some appropriate details or examples.	Selected adequate amount of material. Some development of ideas; not much original reasoning. Assumptions are not always recognised or made explicit. Contains some appropriate details or examples.	Selected adequate amount of material not all of it relevant. Not much development of ideas. Very little original reasoning. Offered somewhat obvious support that may be too broad. Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to problem, or inappropriately repetitive.	Selected too little material or material that is irrelevant. No development of ideas or original reasoning. Offered simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic support for the ideas. Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact.
*Conclusion*	Problem restated clearly, main points and supporting arguments summarised. Stated the significance of the findings and that the objectives of the report had been met. No new material.	The conclusion contained the proper parts but did not include enough detail. No new material.	The conclusion had parts which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail. May have included some new material.	The conclusion lacked clarity and had incomplete or missing parts. It did not clearly conclude the report. May have included some new material.	The conclusion is missing or was a repeat of the executive summary. It did not clearly conclude the report. Included new material.
*Recommendations*	Suggested actions to address the problem. Actions were clearly based on the findings of the report.	Most suggested actions were relevant to the problem. Actions were based on the findings of the report.	Suggested actions were somewhat relevant to the problem. Not all actions were based on the findings of the report.	Suggested some actions. Not all actions were relevant to the problem. Not all actions were based on the findings of the report.	Recommendations missing or irrelevant to the problem and/or did not relate to the findings.
*Organisation:* of ideas/main points; structure of sentences and paragraphs.	Organisation fully supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report. Sequence of ideas was effective. Excellent sentence structure. Well-constructed paragraphs; clear linkages between paragraphs.	Organisation supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report. Sequence of ideas could be improved. Good sentence structure. Linkages between paragraphs were mostly appropriate.	Organisation supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report. Sequence of ideas did not always flow in a logical manner. Some good sentence structure. Linkages between paragraphs could be improved. Some brief, undeveloped paragraphs.	Some signs of logical organisation. May have had abrupt or illogical shifts and ineffective flow of ideas. Some awkward sentences; paragraphs not well linked. Paragraph structure not well integrated; contained extraneous information.	Unclear organisation or organisational plan was inappropriate to problem being addressed. Poorly worded sentences. No linkages between paragraphs. Showed minimal effort or lack of comprehension of the assignment.
*Presentation:* Title page Grammar, punctuation and spelling. Formatting	Title page contained all necessary information: course code, assessment number, assessment title, student name, student number, email address, assessment due date, campus lecturer/tutor, course coordinator, and word count. Written expression was clear and correct; evidence of thorough proof-reading. Observed professional conventions of written English and report format. Grammar excellent; correct use of punctuation; minimal or no spelling errors. Formatted using 12 point font, 1.5 line spacing and margins of 2.54 cm.	Title page contained all necessary information. A few errors in grammar (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, etc.). Made occasional problematic word choices or syntax errors. Observed professional conventions of written English and report format; made a few minor or technical errors. Grammar strong despite occasional lapses; a few spelling or punctuation errors. Formatted correctly.	Title page contained all necessary information. Some distracting grammatical errors (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, etc.). Little evidence of proof-reading. Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made numerous errors. Grammar could be improved; errors in punctuation and spelling. Some minor formatting errors.	Some necessary information was missing from the title page. Some major grammatical or proofreading errors (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, sentence fragments, word form errors, etc.). Language frequently weakened by inexact word choices. Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made repeated errors. Frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Major errors in formatting.	Title page missing or missing necessary information. Numerous grammatical errors which seriously detracted from understanding the writing. Evidence of poor planning and/or no serious revision of writing. Did not meet professional conventions of written English and report format. Frequent major errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Formatted incorrectly.
*References (1):* Evidence of research and analysis of the references based on the ARE framework. Selection and use of references based on the Triple R framework.	Thorough research indicated; clear well-thought out analysis clearly integrated into discussion. Analysed and evaluated information in great depth. Used references to support, extend, and inform, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas. Combined material from a variety of sources. Did not overuse quotes.	Research was generally thorough; analysis was generally well done; integrated into discussion. Analysed and evaluated information in considerable depth. Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas. Combined material from a variety of sources. Did not overuse quotes.	Some evidence of research; basic analysis; some integration into discussion. Analysed and evaluated information in reasonable depth, some description. Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas. Combined material from a few sources. Did not overuse quotes.	Basic research; weaknesses evident in analysis. Little evidence of analysis and evaluation of information; recounted and described. Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to topic, or inappropriately repetitive. Used relevant references but lacked in variety of references and/or the skilful combination of references. Combined material from a few sources. Quotations and paraphrases may be too long or not well integrated into the text.	Little or no evidence of research and analysis of information. Neglected important references. Simplistic or undeveloped support for the ideas. Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact. Overused quotations or paraphrasing to substitute writer’s own ideas. Possibly used source material without acknowledgement.
*References (2):* In-text citations and reference list.	At least ten current references. Thorough referencing. Citations and reference list accurate and consistent with APA referencing style.	At least ten current references. A few inaccuracies with APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list. All citations/references listed.	At least ten current references. Some errors in APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list. Some citations and/or references missing.	At least ten current references. Errors with APA referencing style. Incomplete reference list. References not cited properly in text.	Less than ten references. Inconsistent with APA referencing style. Problems with citations and references.
Length	Correct length (2500-3500 words)	Correct length (2500-3500 words)	Correct length (2500-3500 words)	Correct length (2500-3500 words)	Too long (>3500 words) or too short (<2500 words). Penalty of 5 marks. Words in excess of 3500 will NOT be marked.
Comprehension	If the content of the report is unable to be read and understood by the marker the report will be given 0 out of 30.

Criteria

Quality

High Distinction

(2.75-3.0 marks)

Distinction

(2.25-2.5 marks)

Credit

(1.75-2 marks)

Pass

(1.25-1.5 marks)

Fail

(0-1 marks)

Executive summary

The executive summary contained:

- a brief description of the purpose of the report

- the definition of the problem and how it was investigated

- a summary of what you found and what you concluded

- your recommendations

The executive summary contained the proper sections but did not include enough detail.

The executive summary had sections which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.

The executive summary lacked clarity and has incomplete or missing sections. It did not clearly explain the problem, how it was investigated and your recommendations.

Entire sections of the executive summary are missing. There is a lack of detail and the problem is not well explained.

Table of contents

Lists the report topics using decimal notation. Includes the main headings and subheadings with corresponding page numbers. Format makes the hierarchy of topics clear. Auto generated using MS Word.

Pages are numbered.

A few things missing from the table of contents. Pages are numbered.

Some things missing from the table of contents. Pages may not be numbered.

Includes the main headings only. Pages may not be numbered.

Table of contents missing. Pages not numbered.

Introduction

Set the scene for the report; gave some background information for the topic. Included a brief description of the organisation.

Stated the objectives of the investigation. Include the problem you are addressing.

Explained the research method used to gather information.

Outlined the sections of the report.

The introduction contained the proper parts but did not include enough detail.

The introduction had parts which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.

The introduction lacked clarity and had incomplete or missing parts. It did not clearly introduce the report.

The introduction was missing or was a repeat of the executive summary. It did not clearly introduce the report.

Body of report:

Selection and sequencing of subject material; including evidence.

Selected exact amount of relevant material that supports argument with no contradictions.

Substantial, logical, & concrete development of ideas. Arguments were logical and clear.

Assumptions were made explicit.

Key terms were defined.

Details were germane, original, and convincingly interpreted.

Selected large amount of relevant material.

Offered solid development of ideas but less original reasoning.

Assumptions were not always recognised or made explicit.

Contained some appropriate details or examples.

Selected adequate amount of material.

Some development of ideas; not much original reasoning.

Assumptions are not always recognised or made explicit.

Contains some appropriate details or examples.

Selected adequate amount of material not all of it relevant.

Not much development of ideas. Very little original reasoning.

Offered somewhat obvious support that may be too broad.

Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to problem, or inappropriately repetitive.

Selected too little material or material that is irrelevant.

No development of ideas or original reasoning.

Offered simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic support for the ideas.

Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact.

Conclusion

Problem restated clearly, main points and supporting arguments summarised.

Stated the significance of the findings and that the objectives of the report had been met.

No new material.

The conclusion contained the proper parts but did not include enough detail.

No new material.

The conclusion had parts which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.

May have included some new material.

The conclusion lacked clarity and had incomplete or missing parts. It did not clearly conclude the report.

May have included some new material.

The conclusion is missing or was a repeat of the executive summary. It did not clearly conclude the report.

Included new material.

Recommendations

Suggested actions to address the problem.

Actions were clearly based on the findings of the report.

Most suggested actions were relevant to the problem.

Actions were based on the findings of the report.

Suggested actions were somewhat relevant to the problem.

Not all actions were based on the findings of the report.

Suggested some actions. Not all actions were relevant to the problem.

Not all actions were based on the findings of the report.

Recommendations missing or irrelevant to the problem and/or did not relate to the findings.

Organisation: of ideas/main points; structure of sentences and paragraphs.

Organisation fully supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report.

Sequence of ideas was effective.

Excellent sentence structure. Well-constructed paragraphs; clear linkages between paragraphs.

Organisation supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report.

Sequence of ideas could be improved.

Good sentence structure. Linkages between paragraphs were mostly appropriate.

Organisation supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report.

Sequence of ideas did not always flow in a logical manner.

Some good sentence structure. Linkages between paragraphs could be improved. Some brief, undeveloped paragraphs.

Some signs of logical organisation.

May have had abrupt or illogical shifts and ineffective flow of ideas.

Some awkward sentences; paragraphs not well linked. Paragraph structure not well integrated; contained extraneous information.

Unclear organisation or organisational plan was inappropriate to problem being addressed.

Poorly worded sentences. No linkages between paragraphs.

Showed minimal effort or lack of comprehension of the assignment.

Presentation:

Title page

Grammar, punctuation and spelling.

Formatting

Title page contained all necessary information: course code, assessment number, assessment title, student name, student number, email address, assessment due date, campus lecturer/tutor, course coordinator, and word count.

Written expression was clear and correct; evidence of thorough proof-reading.

Observed professional conventions of written English and report format.

Grammar excellent; correct use of punctuation; minimal or no spelling errors.

Formatted using 12 point font, 1.5 line spacing and margins of 2.54 cm.

Title page contained all necessary information.

A few errors in grammar (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, etc.). Made occasional problematic word choices or syntax errors.

Observed professional conventions of written English and report format; made a few minor or technical errors.

Grammar strong despite occasional lapses; a few spelling or punctuation errors.

Formatted correctly.

Title page contained all necessary information.

Some distracting grammatical errors (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, etc.). Little evidence of proof-reading.

Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made numerous errors.

Grammar could be improved; errors in punctuation and spelling.

Some minor formatting errors.

Some necessary information was missing from the title page.

Some major grammatical or proofreading errors (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, sentence fragments, word form errors, etc.). Language frequently weakened by inexact word choices.

Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made repeated errors.

Frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Major errors in formatting.

Title page missing or missing necessary information.

Numerous grammatical errors which seriously detracted from understanding the writing.

Evidence of poor planning and/or no serious revision of writing.

Did not meet professional conventions of written English and report format.

Frequent major errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Formatted incorrectly.

References (1): Evidence of research and analysis of the references based on the ARE framework.

Selection and use of references based on the Triple R framework.

Thorough research indicated; clear well-thought out analysis clearly integrated into discussion.

Analysed and evaluated information in great depth.

Used references to support, extend, and inform, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas.

Combined material from a variety of sources.

Did not overuse quotes.

Research was generally thorough; analysis was generally well done; integrated into discussion.

Analysed and evaluated information in considerable depth.

Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas.

Combined material from a variety of sources.

Did not overuse quotes.

Some evidence of research; basic analysis; some integration into discussion.

Analysed and evaluated information in reasonable depth, some description.

Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas.

Combined material from a few sources.

Did not overuse quotes.

Basic research; weaknesses evident in analysis.

Little evidence of analysis and evaluation of information; recounted and described. Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to topic, or inappropriately repetitive.

Used relevant references but lacked in variety of references and/or the skilful combination of references.

Combined material from a few sources.

Quotations and paraphrases may be too long or not well integrated into the text.

Little or no evidence of research and analysis of information.

Neglected important references.

Simplistic or undeveloped support for the ideas.

Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact.

Overused quotations or paraphrasing to substitute writer’s own ideas.

Possibly used source material without acknowledgement.

References (2):

In-text citations and reference list.

At least ten current references.

Thorough referencing. Citations and reference list accurate and consistent with APA referencing style.

At least ten current references.

A few inaccuracies with APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list.

All citations/references listed.

At least ten current references.

Some errors in APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list. Some citations and/or references missing.

At least ten current references.

Errors with APA referencing style.

Incomplete reference list. References not cited properly in text.

Less than ten references.

Inconsistent with APA referencing style.

Problems with citations and references.

Length

Correct length (2500-3500 words)

Too long (>3500 words) or too short (<2500 words). Penalty of 5 marks.

Words in excess of 3500 will NOT be marked.

Comprehension

If the content of the report is unable to be read and understood by the marker the report will be given 0 out of 30.