Key Criteria

High Distinction
84.5–100%

Distinction
74.50–84.49%

Credit
64.50–74.49%

Pass
49.50–64.49%

Fail
<49.5%

TOTAL

Introduction and conclusion
(10%)

(10–8.5)

The essay has a clear and succinct introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides excellent background information and outlines the direction of the essay, and the conclusion succinctly summarises the key points and is written using the student’s own words.

(8.4–7.5)

The essay has a clear introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides good background information and outlines the direction of the essay, and the conclusion summarises most key points and is written using the student’s own words.

(7.4–6.5)

The essay has an adequate introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides some background information and outlines the direction of the essay, and the conclusion summarises some key points and is written using the student’s own words.

(6.4–5)

An essay and conclusion have been attempted. The introduction provides limited background information and an outline of the essay’s direction, and the conclusion has a few key points and is written using the student’s own words.

(4.9–0)

The introduction has significant errors and/or omissions of aims and direction of content or the introduction is not provided. The logical direction of the essay is unclear and/or is not written in the student’s own words. The conclusion does not summarise the assessment or is omitted.

Definitions of research paradigms
(10%)

(10–8.5)

The essay has a clear and succinct definition of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms and is written using the student’s own words. No content is omitted in the definitions of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Consistently and accurately integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(8.4–7.5)

The essay has a clear definition of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms with one incident of content omission and is written using the student’s own words. Consistently integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(7.4–6.5)

The essay adequately defines qualitative and quantitative research designs with two incidents of content omission and is written using the student’s own work. Frequently integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(6.4–5)

A definition of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms has been attempted however there are four incidents of content omission. The assessment is written using the student’s own work. Integrates some valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(4.9–0)

The definition of qualitative and/or quantitative research has significant errors and/or omissions of content and/or is not written in the student’s own words. Minimal or no integration of valid and/or relevant references are provided to support discussion.

Knowledge of major research paradigms
(60%)

(60–50.5)

Concise and comprehensive discussion and analysis that demonstrates advanced understanding of fundamental differences between qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Consistently and accurately integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(50.4–44.6)

Comprehensively discusses and analyses many fundamental differences between qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Consistently integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(44.4–38.7)

A mostly concise discussion and analysis that demonstrates a sound understanding of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Frequently integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(38.6–30)

Some relevant discussion and some analysis provided demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Integrates some valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(29.5–0)

Insufficient or omitted discussion and/or analysis provided that demonstrates limited understanding of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Minimal or no integration of valid and/or relevant references are provided to support discussion.

Professional writing and presentation
(10%)

(10–8.5)

Content is students own work, clear, accurate, and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The language of the discipline is comprehensively used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 8 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles for Part A and 8 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles for Part B. Formatting requirements applied without error. Adheres to the word count.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is students own work, frequently clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. The language of the discipline is frequently used. The assessment is substantiated with 7 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles for Part A and 7 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles for Part B. Formatting requirements applied with 1 error. Adheres to the word count.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is students own work, mostly clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. The language of the discipline is mostly used. The assessment is substantiated with 6 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles for Part A and 6 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles for Part B. Formatting requirements applied with 2 errors. Adheres to the word count.

(6.4–5)

Content is students own work, frequently clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. The language of the discipline is used. The assessment is substantiated with 5 contemporary peer-reviewed mostly appropriate journal articles for Part A and 5 contemporary peer-reviewed mostly appropriate journal articles for Part B. Formatting requirements applied with 3 errors. Adheres to the word count.

(4.9–0)

Content is not students own work, consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. The language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. The assessment is substantiated with ≤4 contemporary peer-reviewed, appropriate journal articles for Part A and/or ≤4 contemporary peer-reviewed, appropriate journal articles for Part B. Formatting requirements applied with ≥4 errors. Deviates +/- 10% of the word count.

Referencing
(10%)

(10–8.5)

Acknowledges all sources and meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with no errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(8.4–7.5)

Acknowledges majority of sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 1 error. The majority of literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.  

(7.4–6.5)

Acknowledges most sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 2 errors. Most literature cited has been published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(6.4–5.0)

Acknowledges sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(4.9–0)

Multiple sources not acknowledged and/or ≥4 APA (7^th Edition) referencing errors or references not provided. Some literature cited is published ≥5 years and/or not sourced from the CQUniversity library.

TOTAL:

MARKER:

Marker’s feedback:

Key Criteria

High Distinction
84.5–100%

Distinction
74.50–84.49%

Credit
64.50–74.49%

Pass
49.50–64.49%

Fail
<49.5%

TOTAL

Introduction and conclusion
(10%)

(10–8.5)

The essay has a clear and succinct introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides excellent background information and outlines the direction of the essay, and the conclusion succinctly summarises the key points and is written in the student’s own words.

(8.4–7.5)

The essay has a clear introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides good background information and outlines the direction of the essay, and the conclusion summarises most key points and is written in the student’s own words.

(7.4–6.5)

The essay has an adequate introduction and conclusion. The introduction provides some background information and outlines the direction of the essay, and the conclusion summarises some key points and is written in the student’s own words.

(6.4–5)

An essay and conclusion have been attempted. The introduction provides limited background information and an outline of the essay’s direction, and the conclusion has a few key points and is written in the student’s own words.

(4.9–0)

The introduction has significant errors and/or omissions of aims and direction of content or the introduction is not provided. The logical direction of the essay is unclear and/or is not written in the students own words. The conclusion does not summarise the assessment or is omitted.

Relevance of research topic to work environment
(10%)

(10–8.5)

The research topic is clearly stated. Relevance of the research topic to the specialty practice is concisely and comprehensively articulated and justified. Consistently and accurately integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(8.4–7.5)

The research topic is clearly stated. Relevance of the research topic to the specialty practice is comprehensively articulated and justified. Consistently integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(7.4–6.5)

The research topic is adequately stated. Relevance of the research topic to the specialty practice is articulated and justified. Frequently integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(6.4–5)

The research topic is stated. Relevance of the research topic to the specialty practice is articulated, however there are gaps in some discussion and/or justification. Integrates some valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(4.9–0)

The research topic is insufficiently stated or omitted. Relevance of the research topic to the specialty practice is insufficiently articulated or omitted. Justification of the significance of the research topic to the specialty practice is insufficiently articulated or is omitted. Minimal or no integration of valid and relevant references provided to support discussion.

Construction of research questions
(30%)

(30–25.5)

The three research questions are very clearly presented and, in the student’s, own words. The questions comprehensively explore the key issues of the topic. The content is comprehensively substantiated with logic, examples, and scholarly literature.

(25.4–22.4)

The three research questions are clearly expressed and, in the student’s, own words. The questions clearly explore the key issues of the topic. The content is substantiated with logic, examples, and scholarly literature.

(22.3–19.4)

The three research questions are mostly clearly expressed and, in the student’s, own words. The questions mostly explore the key issues of the topic. The content is mostly substantiated with logic, examples, and scholarly literature.

(19.3–15)

The three research questions are expressed with some clarity and in the student’s own words. The questions partially explore the key issues of the topic. The content is at times substantiated with logic, examples, and scholarly literature.

(14.9–0)

The three research questions are not clearly expressed and/or are not written using the student’s own words. The questions do not explore the key issues of the topic. The content is not substantiated with logic, examples, and scholarly literature.

Justification of design approach
(30%)

(30–25.5)

The justification of the three research design approaches and methods is comprehensive. The alignment between the research questions and the designs are clear and the advantages and disadvantages of each approach are discussed clearly and succinctly. The data collection method is very appropriate for the research design approaches and is supported by valid and relevant research.

(25.4–22.4)

The justification of the three research design approaches and methods is clear. The alignment between the research questions and the designs are apparent and the advantages and disadvantages of each approach are discussed well. The data collection method is appropriate for the research design approaches and is supported by valid and relevant research.

(22.3–19.4)

The three research design approaches and methods are justified. The alignment between the research questions and the designs are mostly apparent, and the advantages and disadvantages of each approach are discussed. The data collection method is mostly appropriate for the research design approaches and is supported by valid and relevant research.

(19.3–15)

The three research design approaches and methods are somewhat justified. The alignment between the research questions and the designs lacks clarity and the advantages and disadvantages of each approach are mentioned. The data collection method is stated for the research design approaches and is supported by valid and relevant research.

(14.9–0)

There is minimal discussion of the three research design approaches and methods. The alignment between the research questions and the designs are not apparent. The advantages and disadvantages are not mentioned. The data collection method is not appropriate for the research design approaches or is omitted and/or is not supported by valid and relevant research.

Professional writing and presentation
(10%)

(10–8.5)

Content is students own work, clear, accurate, and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The language of the discipline is comprehensively used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 15, appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied without error. Adheres to the word count.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is students own work, frequently clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. The language of the discipline is frequently used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 13 or 14 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 1 error. Adheres to the word count.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is students own work, mostly clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. The language of the discipline is mostly used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 11 or 12 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 2 errors. Adheres to the word count.

(6.4–5)

Content is students own work, frequently clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. The language of the discipline is used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 10 or 11 contemporary peer-reviewed mostly appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 3 errors. Adheres to the word count.

(4.9–0)

Content is not students own work, consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. The language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. The assessment is substantiated with ≤10 contemporary peer-reviewed, appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with ≥4 errors. Deviates +/- 10% of the word count.

Referencing
(10%)

(10–8.5)

Acknowledges all sources and meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with no errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(8.4–7.5)

Acknowledges majority of sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 1 error. The majority of literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.  

(7.4–6.5)

Acknowledges most sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 2 errors. Most literature cited has been published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(6.4–5.0)

Acknowledges sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(4.9–0)

Multiple sources not acknowledged and/or ≥4APA (7^th Edition) referencing errors or references not provided. Some literature cited is published ≥5 years and/or not sourced from the CQUniversity library.

TOTAL:

MARKER:

Marker’s feedback:

Key Criteria

High Distinction
84.5–100%

Distinction
74.50–84.49%

Credit
64.50–74.49%

Pass
49.50–64.49%

Fail
<49.5%

TOTAL

Background, aims and conclusion
(15%)

(15–12.75)

The proposal has a clear and succinct background and conclusion. The background provides current and comprehensive contextual information on the topic, the aims are clearly stated, and the conclusion summarises the key points and is written in the student’s own words.

(12.74–11.25)

The proposal has a clear background and conclusion. The background provides current contextual information on the topic, the aims are stated, and the conclusion summarises most key points and is written in the student’s own words.

(11.24–9.75)

The proposal has an adequate background and conclusion. The background provides some contextual information on the topic, the aims are stated, and the conclusion summarises some key points and is written in the student’s own words.

(9.74–7.5)

A background and conclusion have been included. The background attempts to provide contextual information on the topic and the conclusion has a few key points and is written in the student’s own words.

(7.4–0)

The proposal does not have a clear and succinct background and conclusion and/or is not written in the student’s own words. The background does not provide adequate contextual information on the topic. The conclusion does not summarise the key points.

Significance and Impact
(10%)

(10–8.5)

The descriptions of the significance and impact of the project are logical, comprehensive, and convincing and is written in the student’s own words.

(8.4–7.5)

The descriptions of the significance and impact of the project are logical and convincing and is written in the student’s own words.

(7.4–6.5)

The descriptions of the significance and impact of the project are convincing and is written in the student’s own words.

(6.4–5)

The descriptions of the significance and impact of the project are somewhat convincing and is written in the student’s own words.

(4.9–0)

The descriptions of the significance and impact of the project are not convincing and/or is not written in the student’s own words.

Literature review
(10%)

(10–8.5)

The literature review is a concise and thorough overview of the key existing research on the topic. Consistently and accurately integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(8.4–7.5)

The literature review is a thorough overview of the existing research on the topic. Consistently integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(7.4–6.5)

The literature review overviews some existing research on the topic. Frequently integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(6.4–5)

The literature review inconsistently overviews the existing research on the topic. Integrates some valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(4.9–0)

The literature review does not provide an overview of the existing research on the topic. Minimal or no integration of valid and/or relevant references provided to support discussion.

Methodology and methods
(30%)

(30–25.5)

The planned research methodology, methods, data collection and analysis for the project are very clearly outlined and convincingly justified. A very clear plan is included that discusses the instruments, sampling type to be used, and participants and their recruitment. Consistently and accurately integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(25–22.5)

The planned research methodology, methods, data collection and analysis for the project are clearly outlined and justified. A clear plan is included that discusses the instruments, sampling type to be used, and the participants and their recruitment. Consistently integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(22–19.5)

The planned research methodology, methods, data collection and analysis for the project are mostly outlined and justified. A plan is included that discusses the instruments, sampling type to be used, and the project participants and their recruitment. Frequently integrates valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(19–15)

The planned research methodology, methods, data collection and analysis for the project are adequately outlined and justified.

A plan is included that discusses some aspects of the instruments, sampling type to be used and the participants and their recruitment. Integrates some valid and relevant references to support discussion.

(14.5–0)

The planned research methodology, methods, data collection and analysis for the project are not outlined or justified. The plan does not cover the instruments, sampling type to be used, project participants or their recruitment. Minimal or no integration of valid and/or relevant references provided to support discussion.

Ethics
(10%)

(10–8.5)

The ethical considerations relevant to the project are comprehensively and concisely outlined.

(8.4–7.5)

The ethical considerations relevant to the project are concisely outlined.

(7.4–6.5)

The ethical considerations relevant to the project are clearly outlined.

(6.4–5)

The ethical considerations relevant to the project are mostly outlined.

(4.9–0)

The ethical considerations relevant to the project are not outlined.

Professional writing and presentation
(10%)

(10–8.5)

Content is students own work, clear, accurate, and presented in a logical, succinct order demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. There are no errors in English grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The language of the discipline is comprehensively used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 15, appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied without error. Adheres to the word count.

(8.4–7.5)

Content is students own work, frequently clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a good understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 1 error. The language of the discipline is frequently used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 13 or 14 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 1 error. Adheres to the word count.

(7.4–6.5)

Content is students own work, mostly clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a sound understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 2 errors. The language of the discipline is mostly used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 11 or 12 appropriate contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 2 errors. Adheres to the word count.

(6.4–5)

Content is students own work, frequently clear, correct, and presented in a logical order demonstrating a reasonable understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have 3 errors. The language of the discipline is used. The assessment is substantiated with a minimum of 10 or 11 contemporary peer-reviewed mostly appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with 3 errors. Adheres to the word count.

(4.9–0)

Content is not students own work, consistently unclear or incorrect and is disorganised demonstrating insufficient understanding of the topic. English grammar, spelling, and punctuation conventions have ≥4 errors. The language of the discipline is infrequently or incorrectly used. The assessment is substantiated with ≤10 contemporary peer-reviewed, appropriate journal articles. Formatting requirements applied with ≥4 errors. Deviates +/- 10% of the word count.

Referencing
(10%)

(10–8.5)

Acknowledges all sources and meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with no errors. Literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(8.4–7.5)

Acknowledges majority of sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 1 error. The majority of literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(7.4–6.5)

Acknowledges most sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 2 errors. Most literature cited has been published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(6.4–5.0)

Acknowledges sources and/or meets APA (7^th Edition) referencing standards with 3 errors. Some literature cited is published in the last 5 years and sourced from the CQUniversity library.

(4.9–0)

Multiple sources not acknowledged and/or ≥4 APA (7^th Edition) referencing errors or references not provided. Some literature cited is published ≥5 years and/or not sourced from the CQUniversity library.

TOTAL:

MARKER:

Marker’s feedback: