COIT20249 Assessment Details
Assessment item 3—Report
Due date:
|
11.55 pm AEST, Friday, Week 10
|
ASSESSMENT
|
Weighting:
|
30%
|
3
|
Length:
|
2500 words +/- 250 words
|
Objectives
Please refer to the Unit Profile to see how this assessment item relates to the Unit Learning Outcomes.
This assignment is designed to stimulate critical thinking outside of the classroom by requiring students to write a formal academic report. You will need to follow the ARE process described in chapters 2 and 3 of
Your Business Degree
2
(prescribed
textbook for COIT20249) to analyse the assessment task, research relevant information and evaluate the information you find. This information should be used to write an academic report in which you present your findings or outcomes and make recommendations for future practice. Professional writing and writing reports are described in chapters 4 and 5 of
Your Business Degree
2. This assessment task will assess your skills in critical thinking, researching information, forming an opinion, academic writing, logical ordering of ideas and your ability to support your arguments with quotes from literature.
These objectives will be measured by the ‘closeness of fit’ to meeting the assessment task, assessment requirements and marking criteria.
Please note that there is a wealth of material available on the Moodle Unit website that you should use to help you through the process of searching for and gathering relevant information, evaluating that information and writing your report.
General Assessment Criteria
Assessments provide the opportunity for students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills to achieve the required standard. To do this, assessment responses need to be both clear and easy to understand. If not, the University cannot determine that students have demonstrated their knowledge and skills. Assessments will, therefore, be marked accordingly including the potential for
0 (zero) marks
where relevant.
The report
must
focus on the case study scenario given in the Assessment Task section. Any assessment items that do not address the case study scenario
may
be awarded
0 (zero) marks.
If you use Track Changes when writing your report you must ensure that the submitted document is the
final
and correct
version
of the document. That is, if your submitted report contains Track Changes or Comments or any other editing marks it
may
be awarded
0 (zero) marks. It is
your responsibility
to submit the final and correct version of your report.
The length of the report
must
be within the recommended range. If the report exceeds the maximum word count the marker will
stop marking after 2750 words.
Moodle auto-submits draft files that are in Moodle at the originally set deadlines. Files that are auto-submitted will
not
be reverted to draft status except in extenuating circumstances (evidence required). It is your responsibility
not
to leave draft assessments in Moodle at the due date and time if the files are
not
ready to be submitted for marking. However, late submissions may attract penalties.
Assessment Task
Students are required to write an academic report as per the format outlined in chapter 5 of the textbook. The report must follow the
CQU APA referencing style
.
See the American Psychological Association (APA) abridged guide updated Term 1 2018 available from:
https://www.cqu.edu.au/student-life/services-and-facilities/referencing/cquniversity-referencing-guides. Please note that the prescribed textbook uses APA referencing guidelines. See also the
Referencing Style
subsection below.
The report is to be based on the following case study scenario about 3D Printing technology.
Three Dimensional (3D) Printing Technology is a process where materials are joined together under the control of a computer to make a physical object. Typically the object is printed by laying down many thin layers of a material that join together to create a 3D object. The technology began in the 1980s with the construction of cost-effective prototypes of product designs that allowed designers to test their creations before manufacturing the final product. Over the last decade the uses and applications have grown astronomically. Today people refer to it as being a disruptive technology. That is, it has the potential to change the way we do things by opening up new avenues and possibilities. It could make people’s lives better in many ways, for example, in creating artificial limbs for people and bone replacements.
You are the Head of ICT in a medium-sized manufacturing organisation that was established around 10 years ago. The Head Office of your organisation is based in an industrial suburb of Melbourne in Victoria. Currently your organisation has both retail and corporate clients, and has various retail branches within Victoria and is just starting to move into online business operations. At the moment the organisation is mainly producing computers and printers for businesses in Victoria. The organisation is now exploring options to expand the business in the next five years to other States of Australia and to the Oceania region, as well as expand its e-commerce (on-line) activities. As a part of their expansion plans the organisation wants to look at the prospect of expanding into the use of 3D printing to create products cheaply and effectively. They feel that is a way that the business could expand without the need to create a large amount of infrastructure in other locations across Australia and in the Oceania region. They are concerned about the security, authentication and other technology problems that it may face as it looks to expand its business.
The CEO of your organisation has recently heard about 3D Printing Technology and its various uses in manufacturing. She has asked you to investigate the technology and types of applications that use 3D Printing Technology with the prospect of deciding if 3D Printing Technology would be an efficient and effective way to expand the business. You have to complete this investigation in the next three weeks and draft a report with some recommendations for the next Executive Management meeting.
Your research and the subsequent report should cover the following tasks:
1. Definition of 3D Printing Technology and the most up to date developments in the field. This investigation must consider
at least five different types
of applications that use 3D Printing Technology. You should investigate examples from various industries within Australia and other parts of the world. Especially investigate the current uses in both the manufacturing and medical industries. You could also include examples from other industries. Your report should not just focus on generic use of 3D Printing Technology but must identify actual examples of uses in the current market.
2. Based on the findings from the previous section,
propose three 3D Printing Technology based applications
your organisation could use to expand its business in the next five years. As a part of this analysis, consider the potential advantages and disadvantages of the applications you have investigated in the previous section, and the various risks (positive and negative) with respect to the solution/s you propose. These three applications should also form part of your recommendations at the end of the report. The recommendation section should provide suggestions for actions to address the organisation’s current problem.
3. When considering the potential advantages and disadvantages of the applications you have proposed make sure that you specifically explore them from an ethical, social and legal point of view. Also, ensure that your recommendations address some of these issues.
Your analysis and proposed solutions in tasks 2 and 3 should provide three to five recommendations at the end of your report. Make sure that the specific recommendations at the end of your report have been evaluated as a part of your report discussion.
The report should be at a strategic level and must not consist of highly technical or operational details as some of your Executive Managers are not from an information technology background.
Please note that you will need to make some assumptions about the organisation in order to write this report. These assumptions should match the information in the case study and not contradict with the objectives of the report. They should be incorporated in the introduction of your report when you describe the organisation and outline the problem to be solved
.
Relevant assumptions should be incorporated when addressing tasks 2 and 3 above. To avoid loss of marks, do not make assumptions that are not relevant or contradictory, or will not be used in your report discussion.
Specifically your report should include the following (word count details are approximate guidelines)
:
1. Title page: Unit code and name, assessment number, Report title, assessment due date, word count (actual), student name, student number, CQU email address, campus lecturer/tutor, and Unit Coordinator. If applicable, add extension request ID and the new due date. Must be formatted to a standard required for a professional/business report. Check week 6 materials for example of a professionally formatted title page. Not included in the word count.
2. Executive summary: should include the purpose of the report, the problem including key issues considered and how they were investigated, your findings, and overview of your recommendations. This part should be approximately three quarters of an A4 page but must not be longer than one (1) A4 page. Not included in the word count.
3. Table of Contents (ToC): should list the report topics using decimal notation. Need to include the main headings and subheadings with corresponding page numbers, using a format that makes the hierarchy of topics clear. Because you are including a ToC the report pages should be numbered in the footer as follows: title page has no page number; and main text to have Arabic numerals commencing at 1. Create the ToC using MS Word’s ToC auto-generator rather than manually typing out the ToC. Instructions can be found here
https://support.office.com/en-gb/article/Create-a-table-of-contents-or-update-a-table-of-contents-eb275189-b93e-4559-8dd9-c279457bfd72#__create_a_table. Not included in the word count.
4. Introduction: provide a brief description of the organisation as given in the case scenario including any assumptions, a concise overview of the problem you have been asked to research, the main aims/purpose of the report, the objectives to be achieved by writing the report (include the tasks outlined in the case study) and how you investigated the problem. Provide an outline of the sections of the report. Should be approximately 250 words.
5. Body of the report (use appropriate headings in the body of the report.): Define key terms you will use in your report that are directly related to the problem and the technology considered. Then present your ideas on the topic and discuss the information you found in your research that was relevant to the report’s objectives. Provide an analysis of the information that you gathered. Ensure that you explore the tasks listed in the case study scenario. In your discussion, examine the issues from a global perspective as well as from the local perspective (of the fictional organisation that is the centre of this report).
Do NOT use generic words such as ‘Body, Body of the Report, Tasks’ as section headings.
Create meaningful headings and subheadings that reflect the topic and content of your report. Should be approximately 1850 words.
6. Conclusion: restate the purpose of the report and key issues investigated and the related findings based on your research and analysis. Explain the significance of your findings for addressing the problem stated in the case scenario and any limitations. State how your report has achieved its objectives and any future work to be considered. Should be approximately 250 words.
7. Recommendations: 3 to 5 recommendations required. The recommendations must be based on your findings and proposed solutions discussed in the body of the report. Provide some guidelines for the organisation with respect to the future directions for your organisation based on your discussions. Format according to the Report Writing Guidelines discussed in the Unit. Should be approximately 150 words.
8. Reference list. Not included in the word count.
9. Appendices if necessary. Not included in the word count.
Note:
Additional information regarding this assignment may be placed on the Moodle Unit website as required.
Check the
Moodle Unit
website at least once a week for further information relating to the report.
Regular access to the Moodle Unit website is a requirement of this Unit.
Other Assessment Requirements
Your response should be structured as a report (chapter 5 of textbook), written in accordance with standard academic writing principles (chapter 4 of textbook). The report must be written
using your own words
with any in text citations clearly marked (see
Referencing Style
subsection below). You may discuss the assessment task with other students and the lecturing staff but you must
WRITE the report YOURSELF in your own words.
You will need to conduct research to support your arguments using
at least ten (10) but no more than 15 current
references. Note that all the references you choose to use should be evaluated using the Triple-R framework in the research stage of preparing your Report (do NOT include this evaluation in the Report). You must have a minimum of ten (10) current references in your reference list. At least six (6) of these references should be from refereed academic journals and books.
Other references could be sourced from industry websites and magazines. All sources should be current that is, dated 2013 or later. Minimum requirements relate to a Pass mark. You are encouraged to use more than the minimum requirements for a better quality outcome to your report through improving the quality of your analysis.
The assignment should demonstrate a logical flow of discussion, and be free from typographical, spelling and grammatical errors. It should be prepared in MS-Word (or equivalent) using 12 point font, 1.5 line spacing and margins of 2.54 cm.
It is highly recommended that you submit your assignment to the
Academic Learning Centre
(ALC)
AT LEAST ONE WEEK
before the due date. The ALC can check your report for correct structure, referencing, paragraphing and some language issues.
Referencing Style
Your report must include in-text referencing and a correctly cited list of references ordered alphabetically by surname of first author, in accordance with the
CQU APA referencing style
of referencing as referred to in the
American Psychological Association (APA) abridged guide updated Term 1 2018
available from:
https://www.cqu.edu.au/student-life/services-and-facilities/referencing/cquniversity-referencing-guides.
The report must be written using your own words with any in text citations clearly acknowledged using the
CQU APA referencing style.
Helpful information on referencing techniques and styles can also be found on CQU’s referencing webpage:
https://www.cqu.edu.au/student-life/services-and-facilities/referencing
Marks will be deducted for poor referencing, falsifying references, having less than ten (10) recent references, or for significant variations to the required word length.
Use quotation marks for direct quotes and you must include the author, date and page number(s) with the quote as per the referencing standards.
Academic Integrity
Students must write the Report themselves. You may be asked to prove that you have written the Report. You should keep evidence that you have written the Report yourself, for example, early drafts of your Report, and annotated copies of references and notes of using the Triple R technique to evaluate the references.
ALL assignments will be checked for plagiarism (material copied from other students and/or material copied from other sources) using TurnItIn. If you are found to have plagiarised material or if you have used someone else’s words without appropriate referencing, you will be penalised for plagiarism which could result in zero (0) marks for the whole assignment. If you falsify references you will also be penalised. In some circumstances a more severe penalty may be imposed such as having a plagiarism incident raised.
The University’s
Academic Misconduct Procedure
is available in the policy portal
https://www.cqu.edu.au/policy.
Useful information about academic integrity (avoiding plagiarism) can be found in the ALC resources on the Moodle Unit website and at:
https://www.cqu.edu.au/student-life/services-and-facilities/referencing
https://www.cqu.edu.au/student-life/services-and-facilities/referencing/cquniversity-referencing-guides
Guidelines with respect to self-referencing are available on the COIT20249
Moodle website.
Submission
The report has to be submitted using the COIT20249 Moodle Unit website on or before the due date. The submission link can be accessed through the Assessment block.
Before submitting your assignment you should check it against the detailed assessment criteria in the following table to ensure that you have satisfactorily addressed
all the criteria
that will be used to mark your report.
It is your responsibility to ensure that your report is
submitted
for grading. At the due date of the assessment Moodle will auto-submit files that have been uploaded and left as drafts. However, any files uploaded after the due date
must be manually submitted.
This means that
if you have been granted an extension or are uploading a late assessment (after the due date) you must complete the Moodle submission process. Further details on completing the submission process are available via the ‘Moodle Help for Students’ link in the Support block of your Moodle website.
If your report is left as a draft in Moodle after the due date it will accrue a late penalty. Late submissions attract a penalty of 5% per day of the total available mark for the individual assessment item. See the
Assessment Policy and Procedure – Higher Education Coursework
in the policy portal
https://www.cqu.edu.au/policy.
Note: if your Report is auto-submitted the submission will not be reverted to draft unless there are extenuating circumstances. Any request is to go to the Unit Coordinator and must be supported by evidence.
Marking Criteria
This assessment is criterion referenced which means your work is assessed against the criteria in the marking rubric below.
Criteria
|
Quality
|
High Distinction
|
Distinction
|
Credit
|
Pass
|
Fail
|
Executive summary
(3 marks)
|
The executive summary contained:
|
The executive summary contained the proper sections but did not include enough detail.
|
The executive summary had sections which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.
|
The executive summary lacked clarity and has incomplete or missing sections. It did not clearly explain the problem, how it was investigated and your recommendations.
|
Entire sections of the executive summary are missing. There is a lack of detail and the problem is not well explained.
|
- a brief description of the purpose of the report
|
- the definition of the problem, key issues explored, and how they were investigated
|
- a summary of what you found and what you concluded
|
- overview of your recommendations
|
- meets recommended length
|
Table of contents
(1 mark)
|
Lists the report topics using decimal notation. Includes meaningful main headings and subheadings with corresponding page numbers. Format makes the hierarchy of topics clear. Auto generated using MS Word.
|
A few things missing from the table of contents.
Pages are numbered.
|
Some things missing from the table of contents.
Pages may not be numbered.
|
Includes the main headings only.
Pages may not be numbered.
|
Table of contents missing.
Pages not numbered.
|
Pages are numbered.
|
Introduction
(3 marks)
|
Set the scene for the report; gave some background information for the topic. Included a brief description of the organisation.
|
The introduction contained the proper parts but did not include enough detail.
|
The introduction had parts which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.
|
The introduction lacked clarity and had incomplete or missing parts. It did not clearly introduce the report.
|
The introduction was missing or was a repeat of the executive summary. It did not clearly introduce the report.
|
Stated the objectives of the investigation. Included the problem you are addressing and the key issues to be explored.
|
Explained the research method used to gather information.
|
Outlined the sections of the report.
|
Body of report:
Selection and sequencing of subject material; including evidence.
(8 marks)
|
Selected exact amount of relevant material that supports argument with no contradictions.
|
Selected large amount of relevant material.
|
Selected adequate amount of material.
|
Selected adequate amount of material not all of it relevant.
|
Selected too little material or material that is irrelevant.
Some or all Information based on falsified references.
|
Substantial, logical, & concrete development of ideas. Arguments were logical and clear.
|
Offered solid development of ideas but less original reasoning.
|
Some development of ideas; not much original reasoning.
|
Not much development of ideas. Very little original reasoning. Only a few tasks were addressed.
|
No development of ideas or original reasoning. Minimal addressing of tasks related to the report topic.
|
All tasks in the specifications addressed.
|
Most of the tasks in the specifications were addressed.
|
Some of the tasks in the specifications were addressed.
|
Offered somewhat obvious support that may be too broad.
|
Offered simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic support for the ideas.
|
Assumptions were made explicit. Key terms were defined.
Details were germane, original, and convincingly interpreted.
|
Assumptions were not always recognised or made explicit. Key terms were defined.
Contained some appropriate details or examples.
|
Assumptions are not always recognised or made explicit. Most Key terms were defined.
Contains some appropriate details or examples.
|
Some Key terms defined.
Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to problem, or inappropriately repetitive.
|
No Key terms defined.
Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact.
|
Conclusion
(2 marks)
|
Problem restated clearly, main points and supporting arguments summarised.
|
The conclusion contained the proper parts but did not include enough detail.
|
The conclusion had parts which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.
|
The conclusion lacked clarity and had incomplete or missing parts. It did not clearly conclude the report.
|
The conclusion is missing or was a repeat of the executive summary. It did not clearly conclude the report.
|
Stated the significance of the findings and that the objectives of the report had been met.
|
No new material.
|
May have included some new material.
|
May have included some new material.
|
Included new material.
|
No new material.
|
|
|
|
|
Recommendations
(2 marks)
|
Suggested specific actions to address the problem.
|
Most suggested actions were relevant to the problem.
|
Suggested actions were somewhat relevant to the problem.
|
Suggested some actions. Not all actions were relevant to the problem.
|
Recommendations missing or irrelevant to the problem and/or did not relate to the findings.
Not formatted correctly.
|
Actions were clearly based on the findings of the report.
|
Actions were based on the findings of the report.
|
Not all actions were based on the findings of the report.
|
Not all actions were based on the findings of the report.
|
Correctly formatted recommendations based on report writing guidelines.
|
Correctly formatted recommendations.
|
Recommendations not presented effectively in line with the report writing guidelines.
|
Descriptions of possible actions but no specific actions proposed or not formatted in line with the report writing guidelines.
|
Organisation and structure:
- ideas/main points;
- grammar, punctuation and spelling; and
- structure of sentences; and paragraphs.
(3 marks)
|
Organisation fully supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report.
|
Organisation supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report.
|
Organisation supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report.
|
Some signs of logical organisation.
|
Unclear organisation or organisational plan was inappropriate to problem being addressed.
|
Sequence of ideas was effective.
|
Sequence of ideas could be improved.
|
Sequence of ideas did not always flow in a logical manner.
|
May have had abrupt or illogical shifts and ineffective flow of ideas.
|
Poorly worded sentences. No linkages between paragraphs.
|
Excellent sentence structure. Well-constructed paragraphs; clear linkages between paragraphs.
|
Good sentence structure. Linkages between paragraphs were mostly appropriate.
|
Some good sentence structure. Linkages between paragraphs could be improved. Some brief, undeveloped paragraphs.
|
Some awkward sentences; paragraphs not well linked. Paragraph structure not well integrated; contained extraneous information.
|
Showed minimal effort or lack of comprehension of the assignment.
|
Written expression was clear and correct; Grammar excellent; correct use of punctuation; minimal or no spelling errors; and evidence of thorough proof-reading.
|
A few errors in grammar (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, etc.). Made occasional problematic word choices or syntax errors. A few spelling or punctuation errors.
|
Some distracting grammatical errors (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, etc.). Errors in punctuation and spelling. Little evidence of proof-reading.
|
Some major grammatical or proofreading errors (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, sentence fragments, word form errors, etc.). Language frequently weakened by inexact word choices. Spelling errors
|
Numerous major grammatical and spelling errors which seriously detracted from understanding the writing; or incomprehensible.
|
Observed professional conventions of written English and report format.
|
Observed professional conventions of written English and report format; made a few minor or technical errors.
|
Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made numerous errors.
|
Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made repeated errors.
|
Did not meet professional conventions of written English and report format.
|
Evidence of poor planning and/or no serious revision of writing.
|
Report Layout:
-
Title page; and
- length and formatting.
(2 marks)
|
Title page contained all necessary information: unit code, assessment number, report title, assessment due date, word count, student name, student number, email address, campus lecturer/tutor, and unit coordinator.
|
Title page contained all necessary information.
|
Title page contained all necessary information.
|
Some necessary information was missing from the title page.
|
Title page missing or missing necessary information.
|
Correct length (close to 2500 words)
|
Mostly correct length (2250-2750 words)
|
Reasonable length
|
Length just outside the 10% of required length (2500 words)
|
Too short (2750 words).
|
Tidy final version - including no, track changes or unnecessary spacing or indentations, correct alignment of sections.
|
Mostly tidy final version
|
Tidy final version
|
Can improve the final version appearance.
|
Extensive improvements need to ensure good layout.
|
Formatted using 12 point font, 1.5 line spacing and margins of 2.54 cm.
|
Formatted correctly.
|
Some minor formatting errors.
|
Major errors in formatting.
|
Formatted incorrectly.
|
References (1):
Evidence of research and analysis of the references based on the ARE framework.
Selection and use of references based on the Triple R framework.
(3 marks)
|
Thorough research indicated; clear well-thought out analysis clearly integrated into discussion.
|
Research was generally thorough; analysis was generally well done; integrated into discussion.
|
Some evidence of research; basic analysis; some integration into discussion.
|
Basic research; weaknesses evident in analysis.
|
Little or no evidence of research and analysis of information.
|
Analysed and evaluated information in great depth.
|
Analysed and evaluated information in considerable depth.
|
Analysed and evaluated information in reasonable depth, some description.
|
Little evidence of analysis and evaluation of information; recounted and described. Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to topic, or inappropriately repetitive.
|
Neglected important references.
Simplistic or undeveloped support for the ideas.
|
Used references to support, extend, and inform, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas.
|
Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas.
|
Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas.
|
Used relevant references but lacked in variety of references and/or the skilful combination of references.
|
Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact.
|
Combined material from a variety of sources.
|
Combined material from a variety of sources.
|
Combined material from a few sources.
|
Combined material from a few sources.
|
Overused quotations or paraphrasing to substitute writer’s own ideas.
|
Did not overuse quotes.
All references conformed to the Triple R framework and recent (within the last 5 years).
|
Did not overuse quotes.
Most references conformed to the Triple R framework and all were recent (within the last 5 years).
|
Did not overuse quotes.
Most references conformed to the Triple R framework and recent (within the last 5 years).
|
Quotations and paraphrases may be too long or not well integrated into the text.
Most of the references did NOT conform to the Triple R framework or were NOT recent (older than the last 5 years).
|
Possibly used source material without acknowledgement.
Selected references did NOT conform to the Triple R framework or were much older than the last 5 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Some or all references were falsified.
|
References (2):
In-text citations and reference list.
(3 marks)
|
More than ten current references (up to 15) including more than six academic references;
|
More than ten current (up to 13) references including at least six academic references.
|
At least ten current references including at least six academic sources.
|
At least ten current references
Less than six academic references.
|
Less than ten current references.
None or only one or two academic references.
|
Thorough referencing. Citations and reference list accurate and consistent with APA referencing style.
|
A few inaccuracies with APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list.
|
Some errors in APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list.
|
Errors with APA referencing style.
|
Inconsistent with APA referencing style.
|
All citations/references listed.
|
All citations/references listed.
|
Some citations and/or references missing.
|
Incomplete reference list. References not cited properly in text.
|
Problems with citations and references.
|
COMPREHENSION
|
The content of the report was unable to be read and understood by the marker and an independent reviewer. Therefore, given 0 marks without further marking or feedback.
|
0 out of 30
|