This assignment is a project proposal which is the first step to the next assignment ( Project report). So first I need a good quantitative research project proposal on one of the topics (marketing, HR, accounting or management).
According to requirements, we can use minimum of 20 peer-reviewed articles for literature review but you can't use article data for analysis. we need raw data for analysis from government, companies annual or other valid reports. I attached the marking rubric and a best example on quantitative research according to requirements. You can use mining industry but you need to change the dependent and independent variables.Most improtantly, this proposel leads to main report so I need the same tutor for both assignments. This Proposal is 1750 words and main report is 3000 words. If you make a good proposal then its better for you to make main project report.
BUSN20019 ASSESSMENT 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. Title, background, definition, justification, aim and RQs 10% Entirely inconsistent and/or largely missing. Incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate for the topic OR too vague Incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate for the topic OR too vague Title, background, definition, justification, aim and RQs present; may be inconsistent but generally presented in an effective manner Title, background, definition & justification present; may be slightly inconsistent but generally presented in a convincing manner Title, background, definition, justification, aim and RQs present; generally consistent and presented in a highly competent manner Title, background, definition, justification, aim and RQs present; ALL are consistent and presented in a superior manner 2. Critical literature review 10% 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. Methods 20% Entire section or large parts thereof missing OR entirely unsuitable content. Somewhat incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate for the topic. No actual data collected or analysed. Slightly incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate for the topic. No actual data collected or analysed. Effective presentation of how the secondary material was identified and analysed; identification or analysis may be very superficial; basic methodological literature may be included Convincing presentation of how the secondary material was identified and analysed; both identification and analysis are addressed more than superficially Highly competent presentation of how the secondary material was identified and analysed; both identification and analysis are addressed in detail; some methodological literature included Superior presentation of how the secondary material was identified and analysed; both identification and analysis are addressed in detail to enable replication; excellent integration of methodological literature 4. Findings and Analysis 20% Missing OR insufficiently presents OR inappropriate for the study. Mostly insufficiently presents OR inappropriate for the study and/or overly basic analysis and/or unclear findings. Slightly insufficiently presents OR slightly inappropriate for the study and/or overly basic analysis and/or unclear findings. Effective presentation of findings; structure may be illogical, findings may not be fully consistent with aim and RQs and/or secondary sources may not be fully referenced Convincing presentation of findings; logical structure, generally consistent with aim and RQs and secondary sources are generally referenced Highly competent presentation of findings; very good structure; consistent with aim and RQs and secondary sources may not be fully referenced Superior presentation of findings; excellent structure; fully consistent with aim and RQs; excellent integration of fully referenced secondary sources 5. Discussion 10% Missing OR insufficiently presents OR inappropriate for the study. No clear discussion of findings in light of literature; no clear link back to the references from the LR. No clear discussion of findings in light of literature; no clear link back to the references from the LR. Effective discussion of findings with reference to the literature reviewed; incomplete discussion and/or illogical structure and/or may not be fully consistent; uncritical. Literature may not be referenced again. Convincing discussion of findings with reference to the literature reviewed; complete discussion and logical structure; generally consistent; may lack criticality; Some literature is referenced again. Highly competent and generally critical discussion of findings in light of the literature reviewed; complete discussion and logical structure; consistent. Literature is referenced again. Superior and critical discussion of findings in light of the literature reviewed; complete discussion and logical structure; highly consistent. Literature is referenced again. 6. Quality and coherence of introduction and conclusion 10% Missing OR insufficiently presents OR inappropriate for the study. Incomplete and/or highly inconsistent. Conclusion does not address the RQs from the introduction. Incomplete and/or inconsistent. Conclusion does not properly address the RQs from the introduction. Effective and reasonably clear introduction and conclusion; may ignore aspects of recommendation, limitation or further research; uncritical Convincing and clear introduction and conclusion; considers recommendation, limitation and further research; may lack criticality Highly competent and clear introduction and conclusion; integrates consistent recommendation, limitation and further research; generally critical Superior introduction and conclusion; excellent integration of consistent recommendation, limitation and further research; critical throughout 7. Written communication 10% 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. 8. Quality and appropriateness of references, and accuracy of referencing 10% 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 20 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; 20 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 20 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 20 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). BUSN20019 ASSESSMENT 2 – MARKING RUBRIC In case of high Turnitin similarity scores, m arkers 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 a nd/or the fact that you ma y have copied the assessment brief into your submission, no comments are made as you can find this infor mation out yourself by exploring the similarit y 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 an d 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. Title, background, definition, justification, aim and RQs 1 0% Entirely inconsistent and/or largely missing. Incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate for the topic OR too vague Incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate for the topic OR too vague Title, background, definition, justification, aim and RQs present; may be inconsistent but generally presented in an effective manner Title, background, definition & justification present; may be slightly inconsistent but generally presented in a convincing manne r Title, background, definition, justification, aim and RQs present; generally consistent and presented in a highly competent manner Title, background, definition, justification, aim and RQs present; ALL are consistent and presented in a superior manner 2. C ritical literature review 1 0% 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; ex cellent structure; critical throughout; clearly identifies gaps to be addressed 3. Methods 20% Entire section or large parts thereof missing OR entirely unsuitable content. Somewhat incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate for the topic. No actual data collected or analysed. Slightly incomplete OR insufficiently presented OR inappropriate for the topic. No actual data collected or analysed. Effective presentati on of how the secondary material was identified and analysed;