BUSN20019 T3 2016 Late Supplementary Assessment

for Manpreet Singh Sandhu

The task:

In order to pass this assessment, you must…:

 … complete a small piece of research,

 … provide me (via email) with updates about your progress on a regular basis (see p.2 for
details), and
 … submit a final report within 4 weeks from 28/11/18.

The purpose of this assessment is for you to demonstrate that you are able to work independently
to complete a small piece of research and hopefully to demonstrate that have achieved the learning
outcomes of the unit. In order to pass the assessment (and the unit), you must send me weekly
update emails AND achieve a mark of 49.50 or more on the final report.

You are NOT to choose your own topic. Instead, I will provide you with an aim that your project
needs to address AND I will tell you what data to use (see p. 2 of this document).

Based on the given topic and data, you are required to:

 Articulate a specific Research Question suitable for the data and aim I have given you;
 Identify appropriate academic (peer-reviewed, scholarly) literature suitable for the topic
given;
 Collect the data that I have prescribed;
 Conduct thematic analysis on the data set you have collected;
 Write up your research in a professional report following the structure below:
1. Introduction
2. Critical Literature Review
3. Method*
4. Findings and Analysis
5. Discussion (in light of the literature)
6. Conclusion, Limitations and Areas of Further Research

Typical report format is required, which includes (as relevant): Title page, executive summary, table
of contents, list of tables/figures, references, appendices.

A minimum of 20 high-quality, academic, peer-reviewed references is required.

The report should be roughly 2,500 words in length (+/-10%).

*Since your original submissions referred to qualitative methods, you will be required to conduct a
qualitative piece of work here too.

1
Your project topic:

The aim of your project is to explore the soft skills that management graduates require in today’s
world of work.

The data will come from the following website: https://au.gradconnection.com/ - in specific, you
need to search for ‘Graduate Jobs’ in ‘Management’:

You may choose to filter by location but that is unlikely going to be required. As of today (27/11/18),
there are 33 search results. The CONTENT of each of these job adverts IS YOUR DATA – you need to
thematically analyse this content in accordance with the aim of the project and your specifically
chosen RQ.

**Hint** You should go to this site asap and copy all your data (i.e. job advert CONTENT) into a
Word document so you have access to all your data in one location.

**Hint** You do not have to analyse all 33 job adverts – you need to decide how many you need to
analyse based on your knowledge of qualitative research and based on the advice I have given in the
unit webinars and Moodle site.

Ongoing reporting on progress:

You are required to email me ONCE A WEEK between now and the deadline and provide a brief
overview of your progress.

The deadlines for each of these progress updates is as follows:

 Progress update 1: You need to email me before 11.59pm AEST on Wednesday 05/12/18
 Progress update 2: You need to email me before 11.59pm AEST on Wednesday 12/12/18
 Progress update 3: You need to email me before 11.59pm AEST on Wednesday 19/12/18

The update must contain brief bullet points of the work you have done on this assessment during
the preceding week (e.g. what you have read, what analysis you have done, what sections you have
worked on, etc.) AND you must attach a current draft of your final report as a Word document.

Please note that these updates are a compulsory requirement of the assessment: If you do not
email me updates (including the draft report) by the above deadlines, you will automatically fail
the task and the unit!!!

2
Marking Rubric and Assessment Criteria for the FINAL REPORT:
Criteria 0 (Not Shown)
1. Title, background, Entirely inconsistent and/or
definition, justification, largely missing.
aim and RQs
10%
2. Critical literature Incomplete OR insufficiently
review presented OR inappropriate
for the proposed aim,
10%
objective and/or data.
3. Methods Entire section or large parts
20% thereof missing OR entirely
unsuitable content.
4. Findings and Analysis Missing OR insufficiently
20% presents OR inappropriate
for the study.
5. Discussion Missing OR insufficiently
10% presents OR inappropriate
for the study.
6. Quality and coherence Missing OR insufficiently
of introduction and presents OR inappropriate
for the study.
conclusion
10%
7. Written communication Incomprehensible OR
10% entirely incorrect writing OR
highly unprofessional
presentation of written
work.
8. Quality and No use of the APA
appropriateness of referencing system in the
assignment, or the reference
references, and accuracy of
list; OR no appropriate
referencing references used; OR highly
10% inaccurate referencing.
1 (Poor)
Incomplete OR insufficiently
presented OR inappropriate for the
proposed aim, objective and/or
data OR too vague.
Work presented is not suitable as a
LR and/or it is incomplete and/or
inappropriate for the proposed aim,
objective and/or data.
Somewhat incomplete OR
insufficiently presented OR
inappropriate for the proposed aim,
objective and/or data. No actual
data collected or analysed.
Mostly insufficiently presents OR
inappropriate for the study and/or
overly basic analysis and/or unclear
findings.
No clear discussion of findings in
light of literature; no clear link back
to the references from the LR.
Incomplete and/or highly
inconsistent. Conclusion does not
address the RQs from the
introduction.
Very poor writing with only few
sentences readable and/or
unsuitable writing style and/or not
proofread; OR very unprofessional
presentation of written work.
Very poor use of the APA
referencing system in the body of
the assignment and/or in the
reference list; OR mostly
inappropriate references used.
2 (Unsatisfactory)
Incomplete OR insufficiently
presented OR inappropriate for
the proposed aim, objective
and/or data OR too vague.
Work presented is not suitable
as a LR and/or it is incomplete
and/or inappropriate for the
proposed aim, objective and/or
data.
Slightly incomplete OR
insufficiently presented OR
inappropriate for the proposed
aim, objective and/or data. No
actual data collected or
analysed.
Slightly insufficiently presents
OR slightly inappropriate for
the study and/or overly basic
analysis and/or unclear
findings.
No clear discussion of findings
in light of literature; no clear
link back to the references from
the LR.
Incomplete and/or inconsistent.
Conclusion does not properly
address the RQs from the
introduction.
Poor writing with a majority of
sentences unreadable and/or
unsuitable writing style and/or
not properly proofread; OR
slightly unprofessional
presentation of written work.
Unsatisfactory use of the APA
referencing system in the body
of the assignment and/or in the
reference list; OR a number of
inappropriate references used.
NOTE: submissions with less
than 20 peer-reviewed articles
will not achieve a pass grade
on this criterion even if the
referencing style is accurate.
3
3 (Satisfactory)
Title, background, definition,
justification, aim and RQs
present; may be inconsistent
but generally presented in an
effective manner.
Effective review of a limited
amount of suitable literature;
effective structure; may be
overly descriptive.
Effective presentation of how
the secondary data was
identified and analysed;
identification or analysis may be
very superficial; basic
methodological literature may
be included.
Effective presentation of
findings; structure may be
illogical, findings may not be
fully consistent with aim and
RQs and/or secondary sources
may not be fully referenced.
Effective discussion of findings
with reference to the literature
reviewed; incomplete
discussion and/or illogical
structure and/or may not be
fully consistent; uncritical.
Literature may not be
referenced again.
Effective and reasonably clear
introduction and conclusion;
may ignore aspects of
recommendation, limitation or
further research; uncritical.
Satisfactory writing that is
reasonably readable and
suitable for formal business
communications; more
proofreading required.
Generally professional in
presentation of work.
Satisfactory use of the APA
referencing system in the body
of the assignment and in the
reference list; 20 peer-reviewed
articles used; mistakes and/or
omissions present.
4 (Good)
Title, background, definition &
justification present; may be
slightly inconsistent but
generally presented in a
convincing manner.
Convincing review of an
acceptable amount of suitable
literature; well structured; may
not be critical throughout.
Convincing presentation of how
the secondary data was
identified and analysed; both
identification and analysis are
addressed more than
superficially.
Convincing presentation of
findings; logical structure,
generally consistent with aim
and RQs and secondary sources
are generally referenced.
Convincing discussion of
findings with reference to the
literature reviewed; complete
discussion and logical structure;
generally consistent; may lack
criticality; Some literature is
referenced again.
Convincing and clear
introduction and conclusion;
considers recommendation,
limitation and further research;
may lack criticality.
Good writing that is generally
readable and suitable for formal
business communications; more
proofreading required.
Professional presentation of
work.
Competent use of the APA
referencing system in the body
of the assignment and in the
reference list; generally
correctly cited sources (of which
20 or more are peer-reviewed)
but small omissions and/or
errors of judgment may be
present.
5 (Very Good)
Title, background, definition,
justification, aim and RQs
present; generally consistent
and presented in a highly
competent manner.
Highly competent review of a
justifiably good amount of
suitable literature; very well
structured; generally critical and
may clearly identify gaps to be
addressed.
Highly competent presentation
of how the secondary data was
identified and analysed; both
identification and analysis are
addressed in detail; some
methodological literature
included.
Highly competent presentation
of findings; very good structure;
consistent with aim and RQs
and secondary sources may not
be fully referenced.
Highly competent and generally
critical discussion of findings in
light of the literature reviewed;
complete discussion and logical
structure; consistent. Literature
is referenced again.
Highly competent and clear
introduction and conclusion;
integrates consistent
recommendation, limitation and
further research; generally
critical.
Very good writing that is
readable and suitable for formal
business communications;
minor improvements are
feasible. Very professional
presentation of work.
Very good use of the APA
referencing system in the body
of the assignment and in the
reference list with almost
entirely correctly cited sources
(of which 20 or more are peer-
reviewed).
6 (Excellent)
Title, background, definition,
justification, aim and RQs
present; ALL are consistent and
presented in a superior manner.
Superior review of a justifiably
good amount of suitable
literature; excellent structure;
critical throughout; clearly
identifies gaps to be addressed.
Superior presentation of how
the secondary data was
identified and analysed; both
identification and analysis are
addressed in detail to enable
replication; excellent
integration of methodological
literature.
Superior presentation of
findings; excellent structure;
fully consistent with aim and
RQs; excellent integration of
fully referenced secondary
sources.
Superior and critical discussion
of findings in light of the
literature reviewed; complete
discussion and logical structure;
highly consistent. Literature is
referenced again.
Superior introduction and
conclusion; excellent
integration of consistent
recommendation, limitation and
further research; critical
throughout.
Superior writing that is highly
readable and highly suitable for
formal business
communications; extensive
proofreading completed. Very
professional presentation of
work.
Faultless use of the APA
referencing system in the body
of the assignment and in the
reference list with completely
correctly cited sources.
Extensive body of peer-
reviewed sources used (i.e.
every claim is supported).
Submission:

Deadlines for weekly update emails: see p. 2 above. Send me an email (s.macht@cqu.edu.au) with
a brief bullet point update of your work AND the current draft of your report. Non-compliance with
this requirement results in a fail grade for the assessment.

Deadline for final report = Wednesday, 26/12/2018, 11.59pm AEST. Report to be submitted as a
Word document.

Submission of final report: Send it to me (s.macht@cqu.edu.au) via email BEFORE the deadline.
Submission after the deadline will result in an automatic fail grade.

Turnitin: I will upload your report to Turnitin for similarity check after the deadline. Should you wish
to also receive a similarity report on an earlier draft, please email me the draft before COB on Friday
21/12/18 and I will send you the similarity report before the deadline.

Return and feedback: I will present the results of your assessment to the Appeals Committee within
10 working days of the assessment being submitted. You should receive the outcome soon after
that. I will provide some feedback to you then.

Questions, support and consultations:

You should use the materials from BUSN20016 (Research in Business) and BUSN20019 (Professional
Project) to help you complete this assignment.

You may ask me to clarify the task or specific elements of it, but there will be NO in-depth
consultations or discussions; this includes email consultations.

I wish you all the best with this assessment!

Steffi

Dr. Stephanie Macht

Unit coordinator BUSN20019 (Professional Project) from T3 2016

s.macht@cqu.edu.au