RECENT ASSIGNMENT

Family Name: ____________ First Name: ______
Student ID: __________________
________________ _____
Postgraduate Diploma in Business – Level 8
Business Project A – BUS8101 Assignment – 2 (PART B)
Semester 1 - 2019
You are expected to submit professionally presented word-processed assessment documents. This includes:
• A title page showing: ID number/s, name/s, lecturers’ name/s, and assessment title.
• Correct spelling and appropriate use of grammar.
• Pages numbered including a contents page.
• Stapled or bound (no paper clips/plastic folders or plastic sleeves).
• Questions correctly labelled and numbered with clear and consistent headings
• Line spacing no less than 1.5 and no greater than double. Main text using 12pt font size.
• A complete reference list should be included at the back of the assessment using Harvard AGPS style. of referencing with in-text citation.
Assessment Marks Weighting Issue Date Due Date
Assignment 2 100 70% 6th March 2019 22nd April 2019
Description : Written research proposal: Part B (Major literature review and discussion)
Learning Objectives : Applicable course objectives:
LO-1: Identify suitable research topic
LO-2: Undertake independent research
LO-3: Demonstrate appropriate communication skills LO-4: Report research outcomes
Word Limit : Maximum 4,000
Important Instructions
This assignment must be the expression of your own work. It is acceptable to discuss general course content with others to improve your understanding and clarify requirements, but solutions to this assignment question must be done on your own. You must not copy from anyone, including tutors and fellow students, nor provide copies of your work to others. Assignments that do not adhere to this requirement will be deemed as being the result of collusion or plagiarism.
Submission Guidelines on uPortal
Attach the Microsoft Word files (using any version from Word 2010 to current), and PDF report files using the naming convention below, to your online assignment submission link in the Assignment-1 area on the UUIS8008 study desk before or on the day the assignment is due.
1. [Student id] _ [Student First Name] _ [course code] _ Asg1.docx 1110011_John_UUMG8500_Asg1.docx).
2. [Student id] _ [Student First Name] _ [course code] _ Asg1.pdf (eg. StudentID _ John _ UUMG8500_Asg1.pdf).
Note: If any other format used resulting assignment files cannot be opened by the marker, it may be treated as late until a suitable replacement is received.
BS8101 Business Research Project Proposal
Assignment 2
Description Length Total marks Weighting Due date
Individual assignment 4000 words (+/-10%) (excluding list of references, figures and tables) 100 70% 22nd April
Tasks
This is an individual assignment. Your task is to synthesis and analyse the major literature in order to gain a deeper understanding and knowledge of the problem/situation. You are required to write a critical review of the literature on a chosen topic. The purpose of the review is to develop the ability to critically evaluate research, integrate knowledge of different research issues, identify the gaps and new problems to research, and to build rationale for the proposed research topic.
You are required to demonstrate the depth and breadth of your knowledge in the chosen field of topic. The questions below may be helpful in preparing your review.
• Are the currently available conceptual frameworks suitable? Are they adequate?
• Evaluate the concepts relative to existing knowledge in this area. Are there alternative concepts or framework that might be appropriate?
• Do the current frameworks adequately capture the key theoretical relationships?
• Are there alternative research designs or approaches that might be appropriate to test the existing theory or hypotheses proposed in the extant literature?
• Are the appropriate statistical tests conducted?
• Are the results generalisable? In what domain?
Assignment structure:
1. Title/Exec Overview/Synopsis (one page maximum)
2. Introduction
3. Relationship to Literature
4. Method
5. Conclusions
6. Recommendations and Evaluation based on Literature Review
7. References
8. Originality
9. Quality of Communication and presentation
10. Appendices
Note: For more details make sure you read the marking criteria which your assignment will be assessed against.
Referencing
The Harvard AGPS Style of referencing must be used.
Formatting:
Your assignment should be in Microsoft word format and to be submitted directly to the uPortal.
Plagiarism
Students are required to pay attention to the originality report upon submission on the uPortal. All assessments should be submitted to Turn-it-in. If the similarity percentage is = 20% and found to be plagiarised, UUNZ Academic Misconduct Policy will apply
Penalties
A 10% penalty of the available marks applies where the word length is exceeded by more than 10% of the required length.
Final PROPOSAL: Marking Criteria
BUS8101 Assessment Two (70%)(Individual)
Note: Students must pass each and every section to pass the BUS8101 proposal.
Section Marks Result
Title/Exec Overview/Synopsis (one page maximum)
• title indicates main content and scope
• the research problem or issue and the purpose of the study
• objectives of the study
• methodology of the study
• what the main recommendations are?
Marks are awarded as follows:
0-3 mark for no attempt or simplistic overview
4-5 marks for adequate attempt
6-7 marks for formulaic attempt
8-10 marks for good attempt
Half marks may be awarded at marker’s discretion within the maximum number of marks available.
10
Introduction
• background to the problem — context and scope
• understanding and knowledge of the problem/situation
• general summary of the main topic, definition of key terms
Marks are awarded as follows:
0-3 mark for no attempt or simplistic overview
4-5 marks for adequate attempt
6-7 marks for formulaic attempt
8-10 marks for good attempt
Half marks may be awarded at marker’s discretion within the maximum number of marks available.
10
Relationship to Literature
• review of the literature — theoretical background to the problem -justify models, theory, etc.
• demonstrate a sound understanding of the relevant literature in the field
• critical analysis eg., point to general agreements and disagreements in the literature
• display understanding of the concepts used in support of the research questions
• appropriate alternative theories/conceptual frameworks/theoretical thoughts or ideas are presented
• an adequate and appropriate range of literature sources is cited
• no significant work is ignored
• key sources are used
20
Section Marks Result
Marks are awarded as follows:
0-9 mark for no attempt or simplistic literature review and discussion
10-12 marks for adequate literature review and discussion 13-14 marks for formulaic literature review and discussion
15-16 marks for good literature review and discussion
17-20 marks for excellence literature review and discussion
Half marks may be awarded at marker’s discretion within the maximum number of marks available.
Method
• the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based has been well designed
• is the method clearly explained?
• is the method appropriate for the study? (Justify with references not older than 5 years)
• your thoughts about ethics and research, freedom of choice in participation; informed consent; anonymous; confidential; feedback to participants
• indicate a population
• the sampling method, sampling frame and the sample size
• the proposed data collection method
• the proposed methods of information processing (e.g., data analysis, content analysis, etc) (Justify with references)
• are there to be any secondary data sources, (if not explain why) have they been adequately described?
• how would you address reliability and validity, or accuracy and relevance (justify with references)
• have limitations been noted? A limited project is different from an inadequate project!
Marks are awarded as follows:
0-14 mark for no attempt or simplistic method discussion and justification
15-18 marks for adequate method discussion and justification 19-21 marks for formulaic method discussion and justification
22-25 marks for good method discussion and justification
26-30 marks for excellence method discussion and justification
Half marks may be awarded at marker’s discretion within the maximum number of marks available.
30
Conclusions
• sound conclusions are drawn and recommendations are made
• the conclusions adequately tie together with the other elements of the paper
Marks are awarded as follows:
0-1 mark for no attempt or a fair conclusion
2-3 marks for an adequate conclusion
4-5 marks for a good or excellent conclusion
Half marks may be awarded at marker’s discretion within the maximum number of marks available. 5
Section Marks Result
Recommendations/Evaluation based on Literature Review
• recommendations: feasible, how do they relate to client’s situation
• must be relevant in the clients situation, i.e. practical and the theory linked / related / referred to
• Are these recommendations consistent with the central idea and arguments of the paper
Marks are awarded as follows:
0-3 mark for no attempt or simplistic recommendations and discussion
4-5 marks for adequate recommendations and discussion
6-7 marks for formulaic recommendations and discussion
8-10 marks for good or excellent recommendations and discussion
Half marks may be awarded at marker’s discretion within the maximum number of marks available.
10
References
• at least 20 references not older than 5 years – 10 journal articles; 5 books; 5 websites or online articles
• Harvard APGS executed correctly in report and in reference list
Marks are awarded as follows:
0-1 mark for no attempt or fair completion
2-3 marks for adequate completion
4-5 marks for a good or excellent completion
Half marks may be awarded at marker’s discretion within the maximum number of marks available.
5
Originality:
• the paper contains new and significant information
• similarity index is low
Marks are awarded as follows:
0-1 mark for no attempt or lack of originality in discussion
2-3 marks for adequate originality in discussion 4-5 marks for good originality in discussion
Half marks may be awarded at marker’s discretion within the maximum number of marks available.
5
Quality of Communication and presentation
• the writer has paid attention to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.
• the paper is visually appealing with appropriate layout (including cover page, etc.)
• the paper is properly edited (free from spelling, grammatical, punctuation errors, etc.)
• the paper is appropriately organized (logical flow/use of headings)
5
Section Marks Result
Marks are awarded as follows:
0-1 mark for no attempt or lack of quality of communication and presentation
2-3 marks for adequate quality of communication and presentation
4-5 marks for good quality of communication and presentation
Half marks may be awarded at marker’s discretion within the maximum number of marks available
Total marks 100
Total marks: /70%
Comments: Date: