tep 2, worth 25% of total unit marks: Project proposal. For this assignment, due at the end of week 6 , you will be asked to use the feedback from step 1 to prepare a proposal detailing your proposed...

tep 2, worth 25% of total unit marks: Project proposal.

For this assignment,
due at the end of week 6, you will be asked to use the feedback from step 1 to prepare a proposal detailing your proposed project. The proposal is to be written in professional report format and contains the following:

• a short, preliminaryliterature review that places your project within the context of your profession;


• a focused research aim, and at least one research question; and


• a research plan, including: an overview of your proposedmethods of data collection and data analysis; Gantt chart schedule; and clear presentation of data sources.

The required length for this report is
1,750 words
(+/- 10%), excluding preliminaries, reference list and appendices. You are required to include
at least 10 suitablehigh-quality peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles.

Assessment criteria (please click
here
for a detailed marking rubric):

• Feasibility of project within time-frame
  


• Aim and objectives/research questions
  


• Preliminary
  critical
  literature review


• Organisation of the project
  


• Written communication
  

BUSN20019 ASSESSMENT 1 STEP 2 – MARKING RUBRIC In case of high Turnitin similarity scores, markers analyse the similarity score on a case by case basis and you will see relevant comments in your assignment, if necessary. If high similarity derived purely from reference lists and/or the fact that you may have copied the assessment brief into your submission, no comments are made as you can find this information out yourself by exploring the similarity score on your Turnitin report. Late submission penalties are being applied to this assignment as per the university regulations. Any students deemed to have conducted Academic Misconduct are being reported and will be informed of the outcome of the investigation and any related penalties via their student email address. Criteria 0 (Not Shown) 1 (Poor) 2 (Unsatisfactory) 3 (Satisfactory) 4 (Good) 5 (Very Good) 6 (Excellent) 1. Aim and research question(s) 10% Entirely unsuitable or irrelevant; or missing. Incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate for the topic OR too vague/too many Incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate for the topic OR too vague/too many Effective presentation of aim and objectives OR aim and RQs; may be inconsistent or somewhat unclear Convincing presentation of aim and RQs; may be slightly inconsistent or unclear Highly competent presentation of aim and RQs; consistent and clear Superior presentation of aim and RQs; entirely consistent and clear 2. Preliminary critical literature review 20% Incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate for the topic Work presented is not suitable as a LR and/or it is incomplete and/or inappropriate for the topic. Work presented is not suitable as a LR and/or it is incomplete and/or inappropriate for the topic. Effective review of a limited amount of suitable literature; effective structure; may be overly descriptive Convincing review of an acceptable amount of suitable literature; well structured; may not be critical throughout Highly competent review of a justifiably good amount of suitable literature; very well structured; generally critical and may clearly identify gaps to be addressed Superior review of a justifiably good amount of suitable literature; excellent structure; critical throughout; clearly identifies gaps to be addressed 3. Organisation of the project (research plan including: an overview of your proposed methods of data collection and data analysis; Gantt chart schedule; and clear presentation of data sources.) 20% Entire section or large parts thereof missing OR entirely unsuitable content. Somewhat incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate/ highly unrealistic for the topic Slightly incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate/ highly unrealistic for the topic Demonstrated ability to effectively organise the project; all aspects covered; may be somewhat unrealistic, unclear and/or inconsistent; lacks detail Demonstrated ability to convincingly organise the project; all aspects covered; generally realistic, clear and consistent; may lack detail Demonstrated ability to highly competently organise the project; all aspects covered; realistic, clear and consistent; may lack detail Demonstrated ability to organise the project in a superior manner; all aspects covered in appropriate detail; realistic, clear and consistent throughout 4. Feasibility of project within time-frame 10% Entirely unfeasible OR insufficient information to judge. Unfeasible but sufficient information to judge. Unfeasible but sufficient information to judge. This project may be feasible but requires greater focus. It looks like this project will be feasible in its current proposed format. Feasible project in its current proposed format. Certainly feasible project in its current proposed format. 5. Written communication 20% Incomprehensible OR entirely incorrect writing OR highly unprofessional presentation of written work. Very poor writing with only few sentences readable and/or unsuitable writing style and/or not proofread; OR very unprofessional presentation of written work. Poor writing with a majority of sentences unreadable and/or unsuitable writing style and/or not properly proofread; OR slightly unprofessional presentation of written work. Satisfactory writing that is reasonably readable and suitable for formal business communications; more proofreading required. Generally professional in presentation of work. Good writing that is generally readable and suitable for formal business communications; more proofreading required. Professional presentation of work. Very good writing that is readable and suitable for formal business communications; minor improvements are feasible. Very professional presentation of work. Superior writing that is highly readable and highly suitable for formal business communications; extensive proofreading completed. Very professional presentation of work. 6. Quality and appropriateness of references, and accuracy of referencing 20% No use of the APA referencing system in the assignment, or the reference list; OR no appropriate references used; OR highly inaccurate referencing. Very poor use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and/or in the reference list; OR mostly inappropriate references used. Unsatisfactory use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and/or in the reference list; OR a number of inappropriate references used. NOTE: submissions with less than 10 peer-reviewed articles will not achieve a pass grade on this criterion even if the referencing style is accurate. Satisfactory use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list; 10 peer-reviewed articles used; mistakes and/or omissions present. Competent use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list; generally correctly cited sources (of which 10 or more are peer-reviewed) but small omissions and/or errors of judgment may be present. Very good use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list with almost entirely correctly cited sources (of which 10 or more are peer-reviewed). Faultless use of the APA referencing system in the body of the assignment and in the reference list with completely correctly cited sources. Extensive body of peer-reviewed sources used (i.e. every claim is supported).