Recent Question/Assignment

Assessments
Assessment Information
Assessment Title: Assessment 3 – Presentation
Weighting: 25%
Length: Maximum of 15 slides (+- 10%) and 1000 words review report (+- 10%)
(excluding references)
Due Date: Week 12 Sunday at 11.59pm
COURSE: Master of Business (Research)
Unit: Foundational Skills for Academic Research
Unit Code: BUS600
Type of Assessment: Assessment 3 – Presentation
Unit Learning Outcomes addressed: a) Analyse and reflect critically on a range of materials and sources presented in written, spoken, visual and numerical format.
b) Describe and discuss the key features, constituent process and constraints of academic research.
c) Communicate ideas and concepts in language and structure appropriate to an academic research context.
d) Articulate and express ideas and information in academic format as specified by the Excelsia College minimum academic standards, including appropriate use of the APA referencing style.
e) Understand the personal, intellectual and practical requirements for successful research at a postgraduate level.
Criteria for Assessment: • Understanding of the journal article
• Evidence of analysis
• Organisation and Use of visual aids
• Non-verbal & Verbal delivery
Assessment Task: Each student is required to select one empirical, peer-reviewed journal article and prepare power point slides to be submitted online in week 12. This should be a different paper from the one used for assessment one and two. You are required to record your voice whiles presenting and submit via the lecturer’s email address. Maximum 15 slides. Your PPT slides should be centered on the following:
1. Problem of the study (The reason behind the study)
2. Theoretical basis (Theories used by the author(s))
3. Logical reasoning
4. Methodology used in the paper (Quantitative, qualitative or mixed and the analytical tools used)
5. Findings of the study
6. Limitations and future research direction
7. Opinion about the study (Focus on a. whether the study achieved its intended objectives. b. relevance of the theory used. c.
appropriateness of the methodology)
Submission Date: Week 12
Total Mark & Weighting: 25 marks | 25%
Marking criteria
criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Understanding of the
project
5 marks Builds convincing argument showing how all key points are integrated
together
Uses examples to elaborate the key
points and theory
5-4 marks Builds convincing argument showing how key issues, analysis and
recommendations
are integrated together
3- 2.9 marks Includes all issues, analysis and
recommendations
but with little
elaboration
Not integrated with
theory or are not
justified
2.8-2.1 marks Includes some issues but analysis glossed over
Team seemed uncomfortable to go beyond key facts.
2-1.9 marks Key points left out
No grasp of issues that faced the client. Over reliance on notes
1.0-0.0 marks
Evidence of analysis
10 marks Able to use references to back up claims and recommendations made
Recommendations clearly come from the analysis of the project.
8.5 – 10 marks
Evidence of extensive research and analysis: journals, prescribed text, other books, verified websites,
primary research
Used references to
justify analysis
7.5 - 8.4 marks Background research and analysis of this is
clearly identifiable
Steps used are shown and some rationale for the development of
recommendations
provided
6.5 - 7.4 marks Steps used in analysis shown but little justification why or how these are used to develop
recommendations
5.0 - 6.4 marks No references to any sources
Suggestions/recommendations just seem appear.
0-4.9 marks
Organisation and Use of
visual aids
5 marks Ideas are clearly organised so audience can follow easily. The purpose of the presentation is clear in all stages and there is
seamless Main ideas are presented in logical manner. Flow of presentation is smooth between speakers.
Main ideas are presented in logical manner. Flow of presentation may be awkward. Group members demonstrate that they have worked on presentation as a Ideas are not focused. Audience may have difficulty following argument. Main points are difficult to identify. There is no transition between key points. There is awkward No structure to the presentation
Audience cannot follow sequence
No introduction or conclusion
Apparent that group is not working well together
transition between speakers.
Graphics and text are well integrated into the presentation. Text is appropriate for the content and room size.
Visual
presentation
complements
rather than
dominates
presentation
5-4 marks Shows that the group has worked
collaboratively
Text clearly summarises the key points. Graphics and text do not distract attention from the speaker or content. Use of visual aids are consistent across entire presentation.
3- 2.9 marks whole. All group members take equal share in presentation.
Group uses graphics but often differs from verbal presentation. Not summarised so presenters end up reading off board.
Differing styles with differing speakers.
2.8-2.1 marks transition between speakers.
Presentation appears to be done by individuals rather than group.
Group uses graphics but are not supported by text or presentation. Text is too dense – too much info on slide.
Differing styles with
differing speakers
2 marks-1.9
Group members missing
(without valid reason) or not
contributing
Presents content with no
PowerPoint or overhead slides
1-0.0 marks
Non-verbal
delivery
5 marks & Verbal Constantly looks at
audience
Shows enthusiasm for their own work and how this will help the client
All group members use a clear voice Generally, presenter looks at audience during presentation
Shows expression consistent with
presentation
Uses gestures to point out or highlight Occasionally looks at audience during
presentation
Voice is generally clear
Generally, speaks
directly to audience
Only focuses attention on one particular part of the audience, does not
scan audience
Voice is low
Does not attempt to look at audience at all, reads notes the entire time
Distracting gestures (fidgeting) while presenting or waiting to present
Excessive use of filler words
(e.g. um, er, ah, like)
and correct,
precise pronunciation of terms so that all audience
members can hear
Acts in a very
professional
manner
5-4 marks presentation
materials
All voices are clear
3- 2.9 marks Some reading off the board
Some group members difficult to understand because
of rushed speech
2.8-2.1 marks Constantly talks to the board not the
audience
Some use of filler
words
Audience members have difficulty
hearing
2 marks-1.9
Use of offensive language
Use of slang
1-0.0 marks

Looking for answers ?


Recent Questions