This assessment item involves you going through the process of applying for a real (not hypothetical) grant.  It does not require you to complete the application process through to submission however.  As a guide, aim for your application not to exceed 3000 words.  Students will be expected to, with guidance, identify a funding target for this assignment.  This choice of grant-giving source will require prior approval from the unit co-ordinator (by the end of Week 4).  

You will then be expected to complete the grant application to the point of submission. You are not expected to submit the application (unless you are planning to go through with the project that is the subject of the grant application). The grant application can be for either a social innovation, social enterprise, community project, a research project or a creative project. If the student is unable to identify a suitable target grant, you will be guided by the unit coordinator to a current or previous grant round.

Students should provide a separate document in their submission that pastes verbatim (here plagiarism is NOT an issue) what the assessment criteria given by the grant-giving body for the grant are. This aspect of your submission does not add to the overall word count.

See the Assessment Criteria for further guidance.

Overall, careful preparation, meticulous attention to detail, and evidence that you understand how your application will be reviewed (i.e. you have done research of the grant-giving body) are important in building a good grant application. Note that it is expected that students will not realistically be able to address all elements of the grant-giving body's application process. It is acceptable to 'make up' elements of your application (for example your experience, collaborating bodies) but these 'made up' elements should be realistic, not fanciful. Your grant application will be judged against the following criteria (for further detail, see the rubric provided on Moodle).

Overall Impact (30%)

Does your application make a persuasive case that it is worth funding?  Is the application crafted to fit the guidelines for fundable projects, set by the grant giver?  This criterion relates to the impact or value of the project in terms of what the grant-giving body is looking for--and needs to be understood in conjunction with the grant-giving body's own criteria. This criteria also relates to elements such as significance. innovation or creativity if these elements are appropriate to the grant-giving body's criteria.

Does the application persuasively make a case for funding, using evidence that is appropriate to the application? Does it adequately explain (for the grant assessors) included concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or intervention? Does the application suggest that the applicant is capable (in conjunction with the collaborators and context of the applicant) to complete the project? If the project has ethical implications, have these elements been recognised and addressed appropriately?  This criterion relates to the degree to which you've done your background research, demonstrated an understanding of the project, and assemble persuasive evidence to support your application. 

Quality (40%)

Is the application clearly, logically and efficiently laid out (e.g, sequenced correctly and without unnecessary repetition) in making its case? Is the application free of significant errors, including in the budget lay out, and are all elements required (as agreed previously with the unit coordinator) present? If evidence is presented, is this evidence clearly presented and linked to a source in a manner that enables the grant assessor to check that source?  This criterion relates to the professionalism of the application.  Professionalism is present in characteristics such as consistency, matching the administrative and style requirements set in the grant, including word limits included in the grant sub-sections, accuracy of budgets and other data included in the application, and correct referencing style.

Note that late penalties of 5% of the available marks per day or part thereof will be deducted for late submissions (without an approved extension).

This Assessment Item is due in Week 12, Friday the 4th of June, and requires the student to prepare and deliver a persuasive pitch related to gaining support or funding for either a social innovation or social enterprise (not for a fully commercial idea or enterprise).  The pitch will normally be presented live at one of the student workshops during the term, at a date set in consultation with the student.  All associated files should be uploaded on the Moodle site at the submission link by the due date. 

A pitch is not judged on its length, but a good pitch should make use of the time available efficiently, packing information in that is sufficiently clear, sufficiently plausible or backed by evidence, and sufficiently well structured that it can appeal to the target audience.   This assessment requires you to produce a pitch in video form that is a maximum of 15 minutes in length.  A few guidelines:  there should be no political agenda, no religious agenda, and not about meta-physics or spiritualism.  The pitch, regardless of the content, should be founded on good science and good evidence--not be illogical, obscure or clouded in mystery.  Further technical details will be explained on the Moodle site.

The assignment will be judged against the following criteria (for further details see the rubric in Moodle).

Engagement (30%)

Is the pitch interesting, compelling, amusing or otherwise engaging for its intended audience? Does the speaker make use of audio-visual opportunities, for example by including hand movements or multi-media elements to supplement and strengthen the message and engage the senses? Does the pitch include a compelling call to action, with a clear and realistic pathway for the intended audience to respond?  This criterion relates to the degree to which you demonstrate sensitivity to your audience, and deliver your information in a manner appropriate to an oral presentation.  Long complex sentences using highly formal language, for example, are difficult for an audience to comprehend.   This criterion also relates to the persuasiveness of the appeal, and the degree to which you are able to make your pitch meaningful to the audience.  

Believability (30%)

Does the pitch use the evidence included in a clear and believable way? Does the content address doubts or weaknesses that an intelligent and informed judge of the content might identify?  This criterion relates to the degree to which you have done (and are able to demonstrate) background research.  A well prepared student will be able to communicate a command of the topic they are discussing.  

Quality (30%)
Is the pitch developed with good pace and clarity, lack of clutter, clear and logical sequencing? Is there evidence that the presenter practiced the presentation so as to obtain optimal quality both in terms of delivery and recording? Is there evidence the producer/presenter attempted to reasonably eliminate errors, without creating a sense that the end-product is so over-produced or over-practiced as to be inauthentic?  This criterion relates to the degree of preparation you have put into the work.  Preparation will pay off in both accuracy, clarity, and authenticity in your presentation. 

Innovation (10%)

Is there something new, fresh, surprising, creative about your presentation? This criterion relates to the core idea presented in your pitch.  You can however, also demonstrate innovation in the examples you give in your presentation, or in other elements of your presentation (e.g. your visuals).

Note that late penalties of 5% of the available marks per day or part thereof will be deducted for late submissions (without an approved extension).