CQUniversity Unit Profile.

Key Criteria

High Distinction
100–85%

Distinction
84.9–75%

Credit
74.9–65%

Pass
64.9–50%

Fail
<49.9%

TOTAL

Abstract
(5%)

(5–4.25)

Concise and comprehensive summary of proposal which is exceptionally structured and written using the student’s own words.

(4.2–3.8)

Concise summary of proposal which is very well structured and written using the student’s own words. Some very minor points missing or incomplete.

(3.75–3.55)

Mostly concise summary of proposal which is well structured and written using the student’s own words. Some minor points missing or incomplete.

(3.50–2.5)

A satisfactory summary of proposal; however, is not concise and/or not comprehensive. The structure and writing are satisfactory but somewhat confusing and is written in the student’s own words. Some points are missing or incomplete.

(2.45–0)

The abstract does not satisfactorily summarise the proposal. The content is verbose and/or difficult to comprehend. The structure and writing are unsatisfactory and/or are not written in the student’s own words. Numerous points are missing or incomplete.

Introduction
(10%)

(10–8.5)

The introduction very clearly, convincingly, and succinctly provides the background, context, an overarching research statement, rationale and/or justification and the importance of the study in the student’s own words.

(8.4–7.5)

The introduction clearly, convincingly, and succinctly provides the background, context, an overarching research statement, rationale and/or justification and the importance of the study in the student’s own words.

(7.4–6.5)

The introduction is mostly clear, convincing, and succinct and provides the background, context, and overarching research statement, rationale and/or justification and the importance of the study and is written in the student’s own words.

(6.4–5)

The introduction provides the background, context, an overarching research statement, rationale and/or justification and the importance of the study; however, it lacks clarity. It is written in the student’s own words.

(4.9–0)

The introduction is not complete and/or is not written in the students own words. It does not include one of the following: background, context, an overarching research statement, rationale and/or justification; the importance of the study.

Project Question, Aim and Objectives
(10%)

(10–8.5)

Project question is very clearly focused, relevant, and specifically indicates the type of data required. Aim and objectives are very clearly stated and align with research question/topic.

(8.4–7.5)

Project question is clearly focused and relevant and indicates the type of data required. Aim and objectives are clearly stated and align with research question/topic.

(7.4–6.5)

Project question is mostly focused and relevant and indicates the type of data required. Aim and objectives are stated and in the most part align with research question/topic.

(6.4–5)

Project question lacks some clarity in focus and/or relevance but mostly indicates the type of data required. Aims and objectives are ambiguous and do not completely align with the research question/topic.

(4.9–0)

Project question is not focused and/or relevant and does not indicate the type of data required. Aim and objectives are unclear, inappropriate and do not align with research question/topic.

Literature Review
(10%)

(10–8.5)

The literature review comprehensively supports the project by pointing to a solution to the problem identified and/or a gap in the literature in relation to the problem.

(8.4–7.5)

The literature review concisely supports the project by pointing to a solution to the problem identified and/or a gap in the literature in relation to the problem.

(7.4–6.5)

The literature review is mostly concise in supporting the project by pointing to a solution to the problem identified and/or a gap in the literature in relation to the problem.

(6.4–5)

The literature supports the project by pointing to a solution to the problem identified. There are some gaps in this review.

(4.9–0)

The literature review does not clearly support the project as it does not point to a solution to the problem identified and/or a gap in the literature in relation to the problem.

Research Design
(15%)

(15–12.75)

The appropriateness of the research methodology and research methods to the research question is very clearly explained and justified. The link between methodology and methods is clearly evident. It is highly feasible and realistic.

(12.74–11.25)

The appropriateness of the research methodology and research methods to the research question is clearly explained and justified. The link between methodology and methods is largely evident. It is feasible and realistic.

(11.24–9.75)

The appropriateness of the research methodology and research methods to the research question is somewhat clearly explained and justified. The link between methodology and methods is somewhat evident, however feasibility needs to be considered more thoroughly.

(9.74–7.5)

The appropriateness of the research methodology and research methods to the research question is explained and justified. The link between methodology and methods is somewhat evident, however it does not appear feasible or realistic for the timeframe provided.

(7.4–0)

The appropriateness of the research methodology and research methods to the research question is not explained and justified or is unclear; and/or the link between methodology and methods is not explained or is very unclear. It is neither feasible to conduct nor realistic.

Timelines
(5%)

(5–4.25)

Timelines provided include a comprehensive list of the actions required to complete the project. The timelines proposed are realistic and achievable.

(4.2–3.8)

Timelines provided include a complete list of the actions required to complete the project. The timelines proposed are realistic.

(3.75–3.55)

Timelines provided include a mostly complete list of the actions required to complete the project. The timelines proposed are realistic.

(3.50–2.5)

Timelines provided include an adequate list of the actions required to complete the project. The timelines proposed are realistic.

(2.45–0)

Timelines provided do not include the actions required to complete the project. The timelines proposed are not realistic.

Ethical Considerations
(25%)

(25–21.25)

Ethical considerations specific to chosen method are identified and explained very clearly in the student’s own words. Discussion very clearly outlines and discusses how these ethical considerations will be managed.

(21.24–18.75)

Ethical considerations specific to chosen method are identified and explained clearly in the student’s own words. Discussion clearly outlines and discusses how these ethical considerations will be managed.

(18.74–16.25)

Ethical considerations specific to chosen method are identified and explained somewhat clearly in the student’s own words. Discussion outlines and discusses how these ethical considerations will be managed in most cases.

(16.2–12.5)

Ethical considerations specific to chosen method are identified and explained in the student’s own words. There is some lack of clarity. Discussion outlines how these ethical considerations will be managed but does not discuss all aspects entirely.

(12.4–0)

Ethical considerations specific to chosen method are not identified and explained or the explanation is confusing and/or is not written using the student’s own words.

Limitations
(5%)

(5–4.3)

Limitations are explained with a very convincing argument as to why they do not negate the proposed project.

(4.2–3.8)

Limitations are explained with a largely convincing argument as to why they do not negate the proposed project.

(3.75–3.55)

Limitations are explained with a somewhat convincing argument as to why they do not negate the proposed project.

(3.50–2.5)

Limitations are explained and it is argued why they do not negate the proposed project. Argument is not always logical.

(2.45–0)

Limitations are not explained and/or it is not argued why they do not negate the proposed project.

Conclusion
(5%)

(5–4.25)

Conclusions are insightful, very well supported and flow logically from work presented.

(4.2–3.8)

Conclusions are sound, well supported and flow logically from work presented.

(3.75–3.55)

Conclusions are logical, mostly supported, and linked to the work presented.

(3.50–2.5)

Conclusions are satisfactory. They are somewhat supported with limited links to the work presented.

(2.45–0)

Conclusions are unsatisfactory. They are not supported or have weak links to the work presented.

Ability to write and present effectively and complete required task
(5%)

(5–4.25)

Exemplary effort. Professional approach with no or very minor gaps. Attention to detail is without fault and all requirements of task have been met. Exemplary writing standard. Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation. Content is students own work. Workplace approval letter is included as an appendix if appropriate.

(4.2–3.8)

Excellent effort attending to requirements of the tasks. All items demonstrate due attention to detail with some minor gaps. Quality of writing is of a high standard with only minor grammar, spelling, punctuation, and referencing mistakes evident. Content is students own work. Workplace approval letter is included as an appendix if appropriate.

(3.75–3.55)

Good effort attending to requirements of the task. All items demonstrate due attention to detail with some gaps that impact on presentation and the readers’ understanding. Quality of writing is of a good standard with a few grammar, spelling, punctuation and referencing mistakes evident. Content is students own work. Workplace approval letter is included as an appendix if appropriate.

(3.50–2.5)

Satisfactory effort attending to requirements of the task. Most items demonstrate due attention to detail with some gaps that impact on presentation and the readers’ understanding. Quality of writing and presentation is of a satisfactory standard with quite a few grammar, punctuation, spelling, and referencing mistakes evident. Content is students own work. Workplace approval letter is included as an appendix if appropriate.

(2.45–0)

Submission is missing aspects of task or task requirements have been misunderstood. Quality of writing and presentation is at a poor standard grammar, punctuation, spelling and referencing mistakes evident. Content is not students own work. Workplace approval letter is required but not included.

Reference quality and referencing accurately
(5%)

(5–4.25)

A minimum of 20 contemporary, appropriate, and high-quality references articles have been cited. Accurate APA 7th edn referencing. No in-text referencing or reference list errors.

(4.2–3.8)

A minimum of 18 mostly contemporary, appropriate, and high-quality references have been cited. Mostly accurate APA 7th edn referencing. 1-2 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times).

(3.75–3.55)

17 mostly contemporary, appropriate, and quality references have been cited. Somewhat accurate APA 7th edn referencing. 3 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times).

(3.5–2.5)

15 mostly contemporary, appropriate, and quality references have been cited. Occasionally accurate APA 7th referencing. 4 consistent in-text or reference list errors (made multiple times).

(2.45–0)

Less than 15 references have been cited, and many not be contemporary or appropriate in focus and quality. APA 7^th edn referencing not used, or more than 4 consistent in-text or reference list errors.

TOTAL

Markers Comments:

Key Criteria

High Distinction
100–85%

Distinction
84.9–75%

Credit
74.9–65%

Pass
64.9–50%

Fail
<49.9%

TOTAL

Ability to write and effectively and complete required task
(5%)

(3–4.25)

Exemplary effort. Professional approach with no gaps in the ethics application and appendices. All sections of the form are expertly completed. Attention to detail is without fault and all requirements of the task have been met. Content is students own work. References to appendices are accurate throughout the document. Exemplary writing standard. No errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and referencing throughout document.

(4.2–3.8)

Excellent effort attending to the requirements of the tasks. All items demonstrate due attention to detail with some very minor gaps in the ethics application and appendices. Content is students own work. References to appendices are accurate throughout the document. Quality of writing is of a high standard with only 1 error in grammar, spelling, punctuation and referencing mistakes.

(3.75–3.55)

Good effort attending to the requirements of the task. All items demonstrate due attention to detail with some minor gaps in the ethics application and appendices which impact on presentation and the readers’ understanding. All sections of the form are completed quite well. Content is students own work. References to appendices are mostly accurate throughout the document. Quality of writing is above standard with two grammatical, spelling, punctuation, and referencing errors.

(3.50–2.5)

Satisfactory effort attending to requirements of the task. Most items demonstrate due attention to detail with several gaps in the ethics application and appendices that impact on presentation readers’ understanding. Inconsistencies in reference to appendices throughout the document. Content is students own work. Quality of writing is of a satisfactory standard with three grammatical, spelling, punctuation, and referencing errors. 

(2.45–0)

Submission is missing numerous aspects of the task or task requirements have been misunderstood. Multiple gaps in the ethics application and appendices. References to appendices are missing or very inaccurate throughout the document. Content is not students own work. Quality of writing has ≥4 grammatical, and punctuation, with numerous spelling and referencing errors.

Ethics Application Part 2.1-2.5:
Project Details
(15%)

(15–12.75)

Concise and comprehensive layperson description of project. Background and context are clear, succinct, and expertly explained. The quality improvement project question, aim and objectives are appropriately aligned and expertly articulated. The significance of the project and potential contribution is expertly discussed, the project is extremely well justified using appropriate contemporary research evidence.

(12.74–11.25)

Comprehensive layperson description of project. Some very minor points are missing. Background and context are clear and succinctly explained. The quality improvement project question, aim and objectives are appropriate, aligned and very well-articulated. The significance of the project and potential contribution is very well discussed. The project is very well justified using mostly appropriate contemporary research evidence.

(11.24–9.75)

Mostly comprehensive summary of layperson description of project. Some minor points are missing or incomplete. Background and context are clear and succinctly explained. The quality improvement project question, aim and objectives are mostly appropriate, aligned, and well-articulated. The significance of the project and potential contribution is well discussed. The project is quite well justified using mostly appropriate contemporary research evidence.

(9.74–7.5)

Summary of layperson description of project is not concise and/or not comprehensive. Several points are missing or incomplete. Background and context are satisfactorily explained. The quality improvement project question, aim and objectives are mostly appropriate; however, are not well aligned nor well-articulated. The significance of the project and potential contribution is discussed, but further clarity required. The project justification is satisfactory but weak, using some contemporary research evidence.

(7.4–0)

Unsatisfactory or incomplete layperson description of project. Missing significant points. Background and context are not satisfactorily explained. The quality improvement project question, aim and objectives are inappropriate, misaligned and are very poorly articulated. The significance of the project and potential contribution is incomplete or inappropriate to the project focus. The project justification is unsatisfactory, and not appropriately supported by contemporary research evidence.

Ethics Application Part 2.6-2.7:
Project Details
(15%)

(15–12.75)

The appropriateness of the methodology and methods to the project question are expertly explained and justified. It is feasible and realistic. The link between methodology and methods is clearly and succinctly evident. The sample size and data analysis are appropriate for the project and very well justified using appropriate evidence. Ethical considerations are appropriate and detailed expertly.  

(12.74–11.25)

The appropriateness of the methodology and methods to the project question is clearly explained and justified. It is feasible and realistic. The sample size and data analysis are appropriate for the project and well justified using appropriate evidence. Ethical considerations are appropriate and detailed clearly.

(11.24–9.75)

The appropriateness of the research methodology and research methods to the project question is somewhat clearly explained and justified. The link between methodology and methods is somewhat evident, however feasibility needs to be considered more. The sample size and data analysis are mostly appropriate for the project and justified with some evidence. Ethical considerations are appropriate.

(9.74–7.5)

The appropriateness of the research methodology and research methods to the project question is explained and justification is attempted. The link between methodology and methods is somewhat evident, however it does not appear feasible or realistic for the timeframe provided. The sample size and data analysis are somewhat appropriate but require further explanation and/or justification. Ethical considerations are mostly appropriate. There is a lack of clarity at times.

(7.4–0)

The appropriateness of the research methodology and research methods to the project question is not explained and/or justified and/or is unclear. The link between methodology and methods questions is not explained or is unclear and/or ethical considerations are not explained and/or are unclear. It is neither feasible to conduct nor realistic. The sample size and data analysis are not included, are inappropriate and/or are not justified.

Ethics Application Part 2.8-2.9:
Risk
(15%)

(15–12.75)

The risks to participants/others and the project team are appropriately identified and expertly discussed. Mechanisms to minimise the risks are appropriate and comprehensively explained. The potential benefits and the location of the project are expertly articulated and explained. Appropriate scholarly evidence is expertly incorporated.  

(12.74–11.25)

The risks to participants/others and the project team are appropriately identified and very well discussed. Mechanisms to minimise the risks are appropriate and well explained. The potential benefits and the location of the project are very well articulated and explained. Appropriate scholarly evidence is clearly incorporated.

(11.24–9.75)

The risks to participants/others and the project team are mostly appropriately identified and discussed. Mechanisms to minimise the risks are appropriate and explained. The potential benefits and the location of the project are articulated and explained. Appropriate scholarly evidence is incorporated.

(9.74–7.5)

The risks to participants/others and the project team are mostly identified and discussed, however there is lack of clarity at times. Mechanisms to minimise the risks are mostly appropriate however require further clarity. The potential benefits and the location of the project are explained but require some additional clarity. Appropriate scholarly evidence is mostly incorporated.

(7.4–0)

The risks to participants/others and the project team are not identified or are inappropriate or not discussed in any detail. The mechanisms to minimise the risks are not identified, are inappropriate and/or poorly explained. The potential benefits and the location of the project are not explained, are inappropriate or poorly explained. Appropriate scholarly evidence is unsatisfactorily/not incorporated.

Ethics Application Part 4 & 5:
Recruitment of Participants / Consent
(15%)

(15–12.75)

The proposed participants, identification strategy and recruitment methods are highly appropriate, and comprehensively and concisely explained and justified. Relationships with participants and steps to minimise participant pressure to participate are highly appropriate and comprehensively and concisely explained. All recruitment strategies are ethically appropriate. The plans to ensure and record informed consent are appropriate and comprehensively and concisely explained. Appropriate scholarly evidence is expertly incorporated. 

(12.74–11.25)

The proposed participants, identification strategy and recruitment methods are appropriate, and very well explained and justified. Relationships with participants and steps to minimise participant pressure to participate are appropriate and very well explained. All recruitment strategies are ethically appropriate. The plans to ensure and record informed consent are appropriate and very well explained. Appropriate scholarly evidence is clearly incorporated.

(11.24–9.75)

The proposed participants, identification strategy and recruitment methods are mostly appropriate, and well explained and justified. Relationships with participants and steps to minimise participant pressure to participate are mostly appropriate and well explained. All recruitment strategies are ethically appropriate. The plans to ensure and record informed consent are appropriate and well explained. Appropriate scholarly evidence is incorporated.

(9.74–7.5)

The proposed participants, identification strategy and recruitment methods are somewhat appropriate, and satisfactorily explained and justified. Relationships with participants and steps to minimise participant pressure to participate are somewhat appropriate and reasonably explained. Recruitment strategies are ethically appropriate however further clarification and justification required. The plans to ensure and record informed consent are mostly appropriate and reasonably explained. Additional clarification required. Appropriate scholarly evidence is mostly incorporated.

(7.4–0)

The proposed participants, identification strategy and recruitment methods are incomplete and/or unethical and/or without explanation or justification. Relationships with participants and steps to minimise participant pressure to participate are missing, unethical and/or without appropriate explanation. The plans to ensure and record informed consent are missing, inappropriate or not explained. Appropriate scholarly evidence is unsatisfactorily/not incorporated.

Ethics Application Part 6 & 7:
Information protection / Dissemination of Results
(15%)

(15–12.75)

The proposed strategy to ensure participant confidentiality and/or anonymity, data storage and security are appropriate, and expertly explained and justified. The plan for dissemination of results is appropriate and expertly explained and justified.

(12.74–11.25)

The proposed strategy to ensure participant confidentiality and/or anonymity, data storage and security are appropriate, and very well explained and justified. The plan for dissemination of results is appropriate and very well explained and justified.

(11.24–9.75)

The proposed strategy to ensure participant confidentiality and/or anonymity, data storage and security are mostly appropriate, and well explained and justified. The plan for dissemination of results is mostly appropriate and well explained and justified.

(9.74–7.5)

The proposed strategy to ensure participant confidentiality and/or anonymity, data storage and security are somewhat appropriate, and reasonably explained and justified. The plan for dissemination of results is somewhat appropriate and reasonably explained and justified. Additional clarification required.

7.4–0)

The proposed strategy to ensure participant confidentiality and/or anonymity, data storage and security are missing, incomplete or inappropriate. The plan for dissemination of results is missing, inappropriate and/or poorly explained or justified.

Appendices
(20%)

(20–17)

All appendices are appropriate and included as required by the assessment instructions. Accurate APA 7th edition referencing. No reference list errors. Expertly written and professionally presented appendices, with appropriate headings, which are accurate and in complete alignment with the ethics application and each other.

(16.9–15)

All appendices are appropriate and included as required by the assessment instructions. Mostly accurate APA 7th edition referencing. 1-2 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times). Very well written and presented appendices, with appropriate headings, which are accurate and in complete alignment with the ethics application and each other. Few minor errors or inconsistencies.

(14.9–13)

All appendices are appropriate and included as required by the assessment instructions. Somewhat accurate APA 7th edition referencing. 3 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times). Well written and presented appendices, with appropriate headings, which are mostly accurate and in alignment with ethics application and each other. Some minor errors or inconsistencies.

(12.9–10)

All appendices are appropriate and included as required by the assessment instructions. Occasionally accurate APA 7th edition referencing. 4 consistent in-text or reference list errors (made multiple times). Appendices are satisfactorily written and presented, with mostly appropriate headings. A number of errors with accuracy and alignment with the ethics application and each other.

(9.9–0)

Some or all appendices and inappropriate and/or missing or incomplete. They do not meet the assessment instructions. APA 7^th edition referencing not used, or more than 5 consistent in-text or reference list errors. Appendices are poorly written and presented with missing or inappropriate headings. Significant errors with accuracy and alignment with the ethics application and each other.

TOTAL:

Marker:

Marker’s feedback: