2) RMCT-Assignment (112023-SIL)
2) RMCT-Assignment (112023-SIL)
A. LEARNING OUTCOME:
CLO1 Revise the appropriate research techniques of the proposed research (C5, PLO2)
CLO2 Investigate the Design Science concepts in designing an artefact to solve current
business or societal problems (C4, PLO2)
CLO3 Present Design Science concepts in the investigation of current business or societal
problems (A2, PLO5)
B. ASSIGNMENT DETAILS:
C. YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
A research concept paper acts like a proposal and enables a student to define and communicate a
research/project topic to broader audience. A well-constructed concept paper should capture the
interest of the reader and provide a clear indication of what the students intends to do, how they
intend to do it and the justification for doing so. For the purposes of this assessment, you will be
writing a research concept paper which acts as a proposal using the template provided.
Your paper should set out the central issues or questions that you intend to address, as well as It
outline the general area of study within which your research falls, referring to the current state of
knowledge and any recent debates on the topic. It should also demonstrate the originality of your
proposed research (system) and the potential contribution.
Research Contribution:
Your work will make a worthwhile contribution to the field if it fulfils one or more of the
following:
i. It proposes a new solution to a new problem (Invention),
ii. It proposes a new solution to a known (established) problem (Improvement), or
iii. Applies a known solution to a new problem.
D. ASSIGNMENT REQUIREMENTS:
PART 1: PROJECT PROPOSAL (INTRODUCTION) 40%
1.2 Methodology
Describe your proposed methods in sufficient detail so that the reader is clear about the following:
What kind of information will you be using?
From what sources will the information be obtained?
What resources will you require?
What methodology will you be using?
Why have you selected this approach?
What ethical and safety issues have you identified and how do you propose to proceed?
1.3 References
List all publications cited in your proposal. Use the style recommended by the school or your
supervisor. You should use the APA referencing system (see the library webpage of APU). Use
current and reliable references from journal articles, conference proceedings, books, theses, etc. it is
recommended to use a reference manager (such as EndNote, Mendeley, etc) to help you in
formatting the references and save your time.
E. REPORT GUIDELINES:
i. Part 1: Project Proposal (Introduction)
Submission : Week 8
Format : Follow paper template provided (refer page 7)
Word count : Maximum of 3000 words excluding references.
Line spacing : 1.0 lines
Font Size : 12 (titles and headings should be Bold)
Font Type : Times New Roman
Submission : Week 12
Format : Follow paper template provided (refer page 8)
Word count : Maximum of 3500 words excluding references.
Line spacing : 1.0 lines
b) Part 3: Presentation
Starting on Week 9
Slides required.
Plagiarism
Basically, 'plagiarism' means representing someone else's work as if it is your own. This is a very
serious academic offence for all students within the University regulations and is particularly
reprehensible for a researcher. Please do not even consider it. The proposal will be submitted online
via Moodle, due to that the Turnitin Software will run automatically for the plagiarism checking.
Remember that accidental plagiarism (or the appearance of it) may be avoided by referencing your
work properly. This gains you credit, not loses it! The simple rule is that you must not represent the
ideas of other people (whether they are published works or the work of other students) as your own.
The golden rule on plagiarism is DO NOT DO IT!
Title
Author
Email
Abstract— Provide a clear and concise This should clearly explain the main
abstract here. conclusions of the work highlighting its
importance and relevance.
Index Terms
References
Enter key words or phrases in alphabetical References here in APA format:
order, separated by commas.
1. Introduction
This section should be succinct, with no
subheadings. This heading should be Times
New Roman 12-point boldface, initially
capitalized, flush left, with one blank line
before.
2. Problem Statement
The study show that there is a gap …….
3. Research Aims
This section may each be divided by
subheadings or may be combined
4. Research Objectives
This section may each be divided by
subheadings or may be combined
5. Research Questions
6. Research Significance
8. Conclusion
Title
Index Terms
1. Introduction
This section should be succinct, with no
subheadings. This heading should be Times
New Roman 12-point boldface, initially
capitalized, flush left, with one blank line
before.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Domain 1
2.2 Domain 2
2.3 Domain 3
2.4 Similar system
3. Methodology
3.1 Target user
3.2 Sampling method
3.3 Data collection method
4. Conclusion
This should clearly explain the main
conclusions of the work highlighting its
importance and relevance.
5. References
References here in APA format:
Comments:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
80 - 100 70 - 79 60 - 69 50 - 59 40 - 49 0 - 39
Excellent and Clear and consistent Generally good Writing is not very Poor, grammar Falls far below the
professional writing, writing, with few writing, some good, but still sometimes makes standard for
few grammatical or grammatical or errors, inconsistent understandable, meaning difficult to submission and is
spelling mistakes. spelling errors. spellings. Citations with some errors interpret, frequently difficult
There is full, Sources are are mostly done, and inconsistencies. Inconsistent to follow. Very poor
Grammar, accurate, and generally cited and references are References and spelling, or citations, references,
formatting, professional correctly, the up to date, but there citations are grammar. and format.
citation, references citations of very majority of are some outdated acceptable, but lack Inadequate citations
(10%) recent sources and references are recent and non-reliable of high quality and of sources, outdated
reliable references and reliable, and sources, suitable professional and unreliable
with correct format. format is mostly format. sources, acceptable references, poor for-
correct. format with some mat with many
mistakes. mistakes.
Outstanding Very careful Evidence of Incomplete and not Fails to identify Little or no
evidence of sys- reviewing, sys- reviewing, possibly systematic, but enough of the evidence of a
tematic review tematic complete, and using adequate to identify literature to yield an systematic
using multiple combinations of appropriate part of the literature. informative review. approach, incom-
searches and data- search terms. The approaches. The The significance The significance plete review.
bases. The significance and significance and and scope of the and scope of the Significance and/or
Abstract & Key significance and scope of the re- scope of the research is study is described, scope of the study is
scope of the search is clear but research is clear, but moderately clear, by but it is not clear or missing or contain
terms (10%)
research is clearly could be written there is a lack of weak support from supported by any irrelevant
described. The better. The research strong support by references. reference. description, without
research is strongly is justified and reliable references. any reference.
justified and supported by
supported by reli- reliable references.
able references.
Part 1: Project
Proposal
(Introduction) Distinction Merit Pass Fail
[40%]
80 - 100 70 - 79 60 - 69 50 - 59 40 - 49 0 - 39
The research The research The research The research The research The research
problem is clearly problem is clear and
problem is problem is un- problem is not clear problem is not
defined, and relevant, and sup-moderately clear derstandable, but or relevant to the understandable and
relevant to the ported by LR, but and relevant, but it not very clear and programme of relevant. RQs are
programme of could be written is not strongly relevant to the study. It is not not designed well,
study. PS supported better. RQs are clear
supported by LR, programme of supported by LR. or not significant,
Problem Statement, by very recent and relevant to PS,
and need some study. It is not RQs are not related and relevant to the
Aim & Objectives references. RQs are but need some adjustments. RQ sufficiently to the PS, and PS. Aim, objectives
very clear and minor corrections.could be written supported by LR. should be are missing or so
(10%)
relevant to the PS. Aim and objectivesbetter. Aim and RQ need to be revamped. Aim and poorly written
Aim and objectives are well selected.objectives are modified. Aim and objectives are de- meaning is unclear
are concisely Clearly relevant identified and Objectives are scribed in broad
elaborated. Original ROs are determined.
mostly relevant to described clearly, terms only. ROs
and highly relevant project. Relevant but not biased from outlined but lacking
ROs are clearly ROs outlined but PS. in clarity or focus.
articulated. could be tighter in
their focus.
Creative and highly Methodology is well Methodology is An appropriate The methodology is Missing
appropriate argued and justified. explained and methodology is either not methodology part or
Research significance methodology is appropriate for the broadly outlined, appropriate for the not relevant
& Overview of clearly articulated project. but details are not project or is poorly information is
and justified. always clear articulated given.
System (10%)
suggesting deficits
in understanding.
Part 2: Project
Proposal (Literature
Review & Distinction Merit Pass Fail
Methodology)
[45%]
80 - 100 70 - 79 60 - 69 50 - 59 40 - 49 0 - 39
Excellent and Clear and consistent Generally good Writing is not very Poor, grammar Falls far below the
professional writing, writing, with few writing, some good, but still sometimes makes standard for
few grammatical or grammatical or errors, inconsistent understandable, meaning difficult to submission and is
spelling mistakes. spelling errors. spellings. Citations with some errors interpret, frequently difficult
There is full, Sources are are mostly done, and inconsistencies. Inconsistent to follow. Very poor
Grammar, accurate, and generally cited and references are References and spelling, or citations, references,
formatting, professional correctly, the up to date, but there citations are grammar. and format.
citation, references citations of very majority of are some outdated acceptable, but lack Inadequate citations
(5%) recent sources and references are recent and non-reliable of high quality and of sources, outdated
reliable references and reliable, and sources, suitable professional and unreliable
with correct format. format is mostly format. sources, acceptable references, poor for-
correct. format with some mat with many
mistakes. mistakes.
Outstanding Very careful Evidence of Incomplete and not Fails to identify Little or no
evidence of sys- reviewing, sys- reviewing, possibly systematic, but enough of the evidence of a
tematic review tematic complete, and using adequate to identify literature to yield an systematic
using multiple combinations of appropriate part of the literature. informative review. approach, incom-
searches and data- search terms. The approaches. The The significance The significance plete review.
bases. The significance and significance and and scope of the and scope of the Significance and/or
Literature Review significance and scope of the re- scope of the research is study is described, scope of the study is
scope of the search is clear but research is clear, but moderately clear, by but it is not clear or missing or contain
(25%)
research is clearly could be written there is a lack of weak support from supported by any irrelevant
described. The better. The research strong support by references. reference. description, without
research is strongly is justified and reliable references. any reference.
justified and supported by
supported by reli- reliable references.
able references.
80 - 100 70 - 79 60 - 69 50 - 59 40 - 49 0 - 39
Methodology is Methodology is The methodology is The methodology is The methodology is The methodology is
clearly defined, and clear and relevant, moderately clear understandable, but not clear or relevant not understandable
relevant to the and supported by and relevant, but it not very clear and to the programme of and relevant with
Methodology (15%) programme of study LR, but could be is not strongly relevant to the study. It is not unclear flow.
and clearly articu- written better. written programme of supported by
lated. study. citation
Slides Quality (5%) The presentation The presentation The presentation Slides were Slides were poor No slides or very
used excellent used very good used good slides, in satisfactory, but and most of feature poor slides
slides, in terms of slides, in terms of terms of content, slides are not to show a prepared.
layout, content, layout, content, but some features of prepared in a good satisfactory
consistency of consistency of a professional slides manner in terms of presentation were
formatting, order of formatting, order of are not provided, or content/Inconsistency not included in
The student was The student was The student was The student was able The student was not The student did not
able to interpret able to interpret able to interpret to interpret correctly able to interpret answer or was not
correctly the correctly the correctly the some questions and many questions able to interpret the
questions and questions and questions and answer accordingly. correctly, and majority of
answer accordingly answer accordingly. answer accordingly. Responses to responses were not I questions, and
and very Responses to Responses to most questions were correct depth and responses were not
confidently. questions were at of questions were at mainly at the correct appropriate to the correct or in an
Responses to the correct depth, the correct depth, depth, and in an question. A low appropriate
Questions and questions were at and in an and in an appropriate language level of knowledge language.
Answers (5%) the correct depth, appropriate appropriate given the audience. and understanding
and in an language given the language given the Knowledge of the of topic is
appropriate audience. A audience. A subject area was demonstrated by the
language given the knowledge and knowledge and satisfactory. student.
audience. A deep understanding of the understanding of the
knowledge and subject area was subject area was
understanding of the demonstrated. mostly
subject area was demonstrated.
demonstrated.