Industry Research Project

BUSN7003-2022-DT2 Industry Research Project
Assessment Guide
Assessment 1 – IRP
Assessment type: Presentation (video blog)
Weight: 10%
Length: 5 minutes
Due: Monday 21 March, 11.59 pm
Instructions
In this assessment, you will create a 5-minute video blog to explain what you understand by research. Use an example of a project that you
would like to undertake in this unit to illustrate your understanding (10 marks). Note that projects in this unit must investigate a problem using
secondary data only.
Advice
The presentation (video blog) can make use of up to five Powerpoint slides with audio. The following clip from YouTube provides you with a
brief introduction on how to record audio to a PowerPoint presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlVC4f-fBrI
If you cannot use the audio feature in PowerPoint, you can write your talking points (script) in the notes section in your PowerPoint
presentation. Please ensure that your video blog is clear, concise, and well-presented (as style and substance go hand in hand).
Assessment 1 – IRP
Rubric (Presentation – video blog)

Fail	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction	Marks
Explanation of research using an example.	Not done, or the attempt fails to articulate an understanding of research using a relevant example.	An acceptable attempt that shows an understanding of research that is supported by a relevant example. The presentation, however, is limited in its scope or superficial.	A solid effort that demonstrates a clear understanding of research that is supported by a relevant example. Good use of Powerpoint.	A commendable effort that demonstrates a clear understanding of the research that is supported by a relevant example. Good use of Powerpoint with commendable delivery. The slides are well-written	An excellent effort that demonstrates a clear understanding of research that is supported by a relevant example. Excellent slides and delivery using Powerpoint. The presentation is well written and delivered within five minutes.	10

AssignmentTutorOnline

Assessment 2 – IRP
Assessment type: Written review and PowerPoint presentation
Weight: 40%
Length: 2,000 words and a 15-minute PowerPoint presentation
Due: Monday 25 April, 11.59 pm
Instructions
This assessment is comprised of two parts.
In the first part, you will prepare a written review/synthesis of the academic and professional literature (including grey literature) relating to a
problem of interest that you intend to investigate in this unit. The literature review should be comprised of the following parts:
• Project objective (i.e., clearly write your research question) (10 marks).
• Institutional context (i.e., the literature review/synthesis) (10 marks).
In the second part, you are to prepare a PowerPoint presentation with audio of up to 15 minutes summarising the details of your proposed
project. The presentation (a maximum of 15 slides) must contain the following sections:
• Title slide – 1 side;
• Introduction – up to 5 slides (5 marks);
• Previous studies – up to 5 slides (5 marks); and
• Proposed data and empirical strategy – up to 4 slides (10 marks).
Advice – Part I
When preparing your written review/synthesis, your institutional context section should consist of two sections:
• The first section should discuss previous research (i.e., the academic and professional literature) that is directly relevant to your project
(and not every single paper written on the topic).
• The second section should explain your proposed contribution in a little more detail. How does your approach differ from what has been
done below? Is it new data? A new model? Are you answering a question more broadly/specifically? In this section, you should think
creatively about external validity issues: are your findings relevant for a population/institutional environment that is different from
previous work, and could this be why your findings differ?
Please ensure that your written review/synthesis is clear, concise, and well-presented (as style and substance go hand in hand).
Advice – Part II
When preparing your PowerPoint presentation, please take into account the following:
• The introductory section must contain a statement of the research question and its significance along with any relevant background;
• The previous studies section must contain a review of relevant past work and your contribution to the literature; and
• The proposed data and empirical strategy section must contain an overview of the proposed data source and the empirical approach that
you will use to address the research question.
Please ensure that your PowerPoint presentation with audio of up to 15 minutes is clear, concise, and well-presented (as style and substance go
hand in hand). The following clip from YouTube provides you with a brief introduction on how to record audio to a PowerPoint presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlVC4f-fBrI
If you cannot use the audio feature in PowerPoint, you can write your detailed talking points (script) in the notes section in your PowerPoint
presentation.
Assessment 2 – IRP
Rubric (Written review & 15 Minute PowerPoint Presentation)
PART I – WRITTEN REVIEW

Fail	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction	Marks
Project objective	Is absent or does not articulate the research question.	An acceptable attempt that states the research question. However, the question lacks clarity or precision (e.g., terms not clearly defined).	A solid effort that articulates the research question. The question is clear and precise.	A commendable effort that clearly articulates the research question. The question is precise, and key terms are defined. The section is well-written.	An excellent effort that clearly articulates the research question. The question is precise with clear boundaries, and key terms are defined. The section is well-written and presented.	10
Institutional context – previous studies	Is absent or does not review previous studies that are of direct relevance to the research question.	An acceptable attempt the reviews the relevant literature. However, the review is somewhat limited or superficial.	A solid effort that reviews the relevant literature directly related to the project.	A commendable effort that reviews the relevant literature directly related to the project. The section is well-written and critically assesses the relevant literature.	An excellent effort that reviews the relevant literature directly related to the project. The section is well-written and presented. The literature is critically assessed and provides unique insights.	5
Institutional context – contribution to the literature	Is absent or does not highlight the contribution to the literature.	An acceptable attempt that highlights the contribution to the literature. However, the section is somewhat limited or superficial.	A solid effort that explains the contribution to the literature.	A commendable effort that clearly explains the contribution to the literature. The section is well-written.	An excellent effort the clearly explain the contribution to the literature and broader implications of the project. The section is well-written and presented.	5

Assessment 2 – IRP
Rubric (Written review & 15 Minute PowerPoint Presentation)
PART II – POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

Fail	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction	Marks
Introduction	Is absent or does not contain a statement about the research question and its significance.	An acceptable attempt that provides an introduction. However, the slides and accompanying audio is somewhat limited or superficial.	A solid effort that provides an introduction. The slides and accompanying audio (script) outline the research question and its significance.	A commendable effort that provides an introduction. The slides and accompanying audio (script) are clear and concise. The slides are well-written and clearly detail the research question and its significance.	An excellent effort that provides an introduction. The slides and accompanying audio (script) are clear and concise. The slides are well-written and presented and clearly conveys the research question and its significance (along with relevant supporting background material).	5
Previous studies	Is absent or does not review previous studies that are of direct relevance to the research question.	An acceptable attempt the reviews the relevant literature. However, the slides and accompanying audio (script) is somewhat limited or superficial.	A solid effort that reviews the relevant literature directly related to the project. The slides and accompanying audio (script) outline relevant previous studies.	A commendable effort that reviews the relevant literature directly related to the project and its contribution. The slides and accompanying audio (script) are clear and concise. The slides and well-written.	An excellent effort that reviews the relevant literature directly related to the project and its contribution to the literature. The slides and accompanying audio (script) are clear and concise. The slides and well-written and presented.	5

Assessment 3 – IRP
Assessment type: Final report
Weight: 50%
Length: 6,000 words
Due: Monday 30 May, 11.59 pm
Instructions
Prepare a written final report based on your completed project. The final report must be structured as follows:
• Introduction (i.e., the research question that was investigated and why it is important) (5 marks);
• Institutional context (i.e., a review of the relevant literature) (10 marks);
• Data source and empirical approach (i.e., the data source used and analytical approach adopted) (10 marks);
• Results (i.e., a clear and concise presentation of the key results) (10 marks);
• Discussion (i.e., a summary of the findings and whether the findings are consistent with other studies) (10 marks); and
• Conclusion (i.e., the implication of the findings) (5 marks).
Advice
Please ensure that your final report is clear, concise, and well-presented (as style and substance go hand in hand).
Please note that the inclusion of tables and charts do not count towards the total word limit.
Assessment 3 – IRP
Rubric (Final Report)

Fail	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction	Marks
Introduction	Introduction is absent or does not identify key parts of the report.	Attempts to orient the report and/or define key terms; identifies and lists some key parts; lacks focus.	Good attempt to orient the report and define key terms; identifies and lists most key parts; limited or inadvertent presentation of evidence or findings.	Orients the report; defines key terms; identifies and lists key parts; does not present evidence or findings.	Orients the report and defines key terms within this context; creatively identifies and lists key parts; does not present evidence or findings.	5
Institutional context	Institutional context (i.e., literature review) is absent or does not cover the relevant key literature.	Attempts to cover the salient literature but are somewhat limited or superficial.	A solid effort at covering the salient literature and its limitations.	A commendable effort that covers the salient literature and its limitations. Links the literature to the research question being investigated. This section is well written.	An excellent effort that covers the salient literature and its limitations. Links the literature to the research question being investigated and its contribution to the literature. The section is well-written and presented.	10
Data source and empirical approach	Is absent or does not cover the data source and empirical approach adopted.	An acceptable attempt that describes the data source and empirical approach, but it is somewhat limited or superficial.	A solid effort that described the data source and empirical approach. Identifies limitations with the data source and empirical approach.	A commendable effort that describes that data source and empirical approach. Articulates how it will address the research question. Highlights potential problems in using this approach. The section is well-written	An excellent effort that describes the data source and empirical approach. Articulate how it will address the research question. Highlights potential problems in using this approach and potential caveats when interpreting the results. The section is well written and presented.	10

 

Fail	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction	Marks
Results	Is absent or does not present the results.	An acceptable attempt that presents the results. However, the presentation and associated interpretation are somewhat limited or superficial.	A solid effort that provides a summary of the results with appropriate use of charts and tables. However, the interpretation of the results may lack clarity.	A commendable effort the provides a summary of the key results with the appropriate use of charts and tables. The interpretation of the key findings is clear and concise. The section is well-written.	An excellent effort that provides a summary of the key results with the appropriate use of charts and tables. The interpretation of the key findings is clear and concise. Any caveats when interpreting the results has been identified. The section is well written, and any charts and tables and well presented.	10
Discussion	Is absent or does not discuss the results and their associated implications.	An acceptable attempt that summarises the principal findings and their associated limitations. The discussion is, however, somewhat limited or superficial.	A solid effort that summarises the principal findings, their limitations, and implications for the decision-makers. The discussion, however, may lack focus or clarity.	A commendable effort that summarises the principal findings, their limitations, and implications for decision-makers. Discusses whether the findings are consistent with existing empirical evidence. The section is well-written.	An excellent effort that summarises the principal findings, their limitations, and implications for decision-makers. Discusses whether the findings are consistent with existing empirical evidence. It also identified areas for future work and offers practical recommendations. The section is well-written and presented.	10

 

Fail	Pass	Credit	Distinction	High Distinction	Marks
Conclusion	Conclusion not presented or does not follow academic writing conventions.	Conclusion is included; refers to the report purpose but is limited in depth, breadth and length	Reviews the key parts of the report in a minimum of two to three sentences; some evidence of reflection upon the impact of these findings.	Highlights the report’s main points; does not introduce any new information; is appropriately reflective; at least three sentences in length.	Persuasively highlights key points and evidence for these in the context of report purpose/introduction; does not introduce any new information; contains a short reflection on the significance and impact of the findings.	5