Unit Profile Correction added on 25-09-24
NURS20174
Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences Project 2
Assessment 1 – Progress Report
Type: Presentation
Due date: Week 10 (presentation time to be arranged with Unit Coordinator)
Weighting: 20%
Length: Five (5) PowerPoint slides
Unit Coordinator: Assoc Prof Julie Bradshaw
Aim
The aim of this assessment is for you to provide an update on your project, your plan of how you will complete the project and to receive support and feedback for your project from your peers and Unit Coordinator.
Instructions
Please follow the steps below to construct a PowerPoint presentation with eight five (5) slides and complete the task. Use the following framework to construct your presentation:
· Slide 1 – States your project title and your name.
· Slide 2 – Describes the context of your project. This slide should state the problem and summarise the literature that informs your project.
· Slide 3 – Identifies the research question for your project.
· Slide 4 – Presents how you will search the literature.
· Slide 5 – Timeline. Identify where are you up to and what do you need to do to complete your project. When you present, speak to any challenges or facilitators you may encounter, or are encountering, in completing your quality improvement project.
In completing this assessment, present your progress report presentation to your peers and Unit Coordinator using the bullet points on your slides as prompts. Interact with your audience, ask for feedback on your project and respond to constructive feedback.
Remember: You are the narrator; it is your responsibility as the storyteller to make the content both compelling and exciting.
Literature and references
Literature and references are NOT required for this assessment. However, if you choose to use references, add a additional reference slide.
If you use references for this presentation, please use contemporary references (5 years or less) sourced from the CQUniversity library. You may also use seminal scholarly literature where relevant. Suitable references include peer-reviewed journal articles as well as textbooks and credible websites. When sourcing information, consider the 5 elements of a quality reference: currency, authority, relevance, objectivity, and coverage. Grey literature sourced from the internet must be from reputable websites such as government, university, or peak national bodies: for example, the Australian College of Nursing. Note, that websites such as StatPearls, Life in the Fastlane, and Wikipedia are not suitable for this assessment task. Lecture notes are not primary sources of evidence and should not be used in this assessment.
Requirements
· Use a conventional and legible font size.
· If you include tables or graphics in your presentation, you must label them appropriately. If you use a background or embedded photo or picture, this must be published with a Creative Commons (CC) licence and the source attributed as per the requirements of their CC licence. Do NOT use animations or clipart.
· You may use the first person (I, my) perspective when referring to your quality improvement project, however, use the third-person perspective when referring to the literature/evidence.
· Use formal academic and discipline-specific language.
· All work submitted must be your own work.
· The use of generative artificial intelligence is permitted in this assessment and only as indicated in the GenAI Permissions Checklist specific to Assessment One in this unit.
· If using references for this assessment, you may use Vancouver Style referencing but you may use American Psychological Association (APA) style (7th ed.).
Resources
· You can use unit-provided materials and other credible sources (e.g., journal articles, and books) to reference your argument. The quality and credibility of your sources are important. Please note, that lecture notes are not peer-reviewed primary sources of evidence.
· We recommend that you access your discipline-specific Nursing Resource Guide.
· You may like to manage your citations and reference list. Information on how to use academic referencing software (EndNote) is available at the CQUniversity Library website should you wish to learn how to use it.
· For information on academic writing and referencing please go to the Academic Learning Centre Moodle site. The Academic Communication section has many helpful resources, including information for students with English as a second language. There are also Oral Presentation resources.
· For information on using Zoom to present your assessment please go to Zoom web conferencing.
· You may wish to submit a draft to Studiosity.
· Submit at least one draft before the due date to review your Turnitin Similarity Score before uploading your final submission. Instructions are available here.
Submission
Submission will be a two-part process:
1. Submit your assessment via the unit Moodle site in Microsoft PowerPoint format only by the due date.
2. Present live to your Unit Coordinator and fellow students using Zoom, a video conferencing program. Your Unit Coordinator will help you with using Zoom and arrange a suitable time with you to present. With your permission, your presentation may be recorded for marking purposes. Only your Unit Coordinator will have access to this video which will be stored securely.
Marking Criteria
Refer to the marking rubric on the unit Moodle site for more details on how marks will be assigned. Assessment re-attempt is not available for Assessment One.
Learning Outcomes Assessed
1. Conduct an ethically approved research project to answer your research question.
2. Critically analyse and interpret your research findings, draw conclusions, and make recommendations for future clinical practice and research in your specialty practice context.
3. Communication your research findings and recommendations to a broader audience.
NURS20174
NURSING, MIDWIFERY AND SOCIAL SCIENCES PROJECT 2
Assessment 2
Type: Project (Research)
Due date: 5.00pm (AEST) Wednesday 16 October 2024
Weighting: 80%
Length: Approximately 4000 words (Excluding reference list, tables, figures, and appendices)
Unit Coordinator: Assoc Prof Julie Bradshaw
Aim
The aim of this assessment is for you to undertake a document analysis and write a critical discussion paper to answer a research question.
Instructions
Write a critical discussion paper using the following headings:
Abstract
Write an abstract with the following headings:
Aim (of the project), Background (the context), Design (That is that you are undertaking a document analysis), Findings, Conclusion. The abstract should not include abbreviations and should be about 200 words.
Introduction
The introduction introduces your project by discussing:
· The context of your project, the rationale, and clinical relevance and research question.
· A review of the relevant literature which helped to inform the rationale for your project.
Methods
Describe how you undertook the document analysis. Ensure that you state that you have also used grey literature and describe the types of grey literature accessed. Use the following heading to structure your methods:
Critical discussion
In your critical discussion:
Draw your results and evidence together into a whole by:
· Analysing similarities and differences
· Discussing what may be missing from the evidence
· Discussing the evidence in relation to ethical principles
· Drawing conclusions about the clinical application of your findings
· Identifying any limitations in relation to your search and critical discussion
Recommendations
Make recommendations for the clinical area based on your conclusions from your crucial discussion.
Conclusion
· Do not just summarise/repeat findings. Draw conclusions about the usefulness or clinical relevance of your study for the clinical setting, clinical guidelines or for policy.
Literature and references
Use at least 25 contemporary references (<5 years) sourced from the CQUniversity library to support your discussion. You may also use seminal scholarly literature where relevant. Suitable references include peer-reviewed journal articles as well as textbooks and credible websites. When sourcing information, consider the 5 elements of a quality reference: currency, authority, relevance, objectivity, and coverage. Grey literature sourced from the internet must be from reputable websites such as from government, university, or peak national bodies: for example, the Australian College of Nursing, or the World Health Organisation. Note, websites such as StatPearls, Life in the Fastlane, and Wikipedia are not suitable for this assessment task.
Requirements
· Use a conventional and legible size 12 font, such as Times New Roman or Arial, with double line spacing and 2.54cm page margins (standard pre-set margin in Microsoft Word).
· Include page numbers on the top right side of each page in a header.
· Write in the third-person perspective using past tense.
· Use formal academic language.
· All work submitted must be your own work.
· The use of generative artificial intelligence is permitted in this assessment and only as indicated in the GenAI Permissions Checklist in this unit.
· Use the seventh edition American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style. The CQUniversity Academic Learning Centre has an online APA Referencing Style Guide.
· The word count is considered from the first word of the introduction to the last word of the conclusion. The word count excludes the reference list, tables and appendices list but includes in-text references and direct quotations. Avoid direct quotes as this reflects the knowledge of others and not your unique interpretation of the evidence.
Resources
· You can use unit provided materials and other credible sources (e.g., journal articles, books, grey literature) to reference your argument. The quality and credibility of your sources are important.
· We recommend that you access your discipline specific library guide: the Nursing and Midwifery Guide.
· We recommend you use EndNote to manage your citations and reference list. More information on how to use EndNote is available at the CQUniversity Library website.
· You may wish to submit a draft to Studiosity.
· For information on academic communication please go to the Academic Learning Centre Moodle site. The Academic Communication section has many helpful resources including information for students with English as a second language.
· Submit a draft before the due date to review your Turnitin Similarity Score and report before making a final submission. Instructions are available here. Please note, the Similarity Score is expected to be high due to the use of similar information from NURS20173; however, you still need to ensure you have paraphrased the work of others adequately.
Submission
Submit your assessment via the unit Moodle site in Microsoft Word format only.
Marking Criteria
Refer to the marking rubric on the Moodle site for more detail on how marks will be assigned. Assessment re-attempt is not available for Assessment 2.
Learning Outcomes Assessed
1. Conduct an ethically approved research project to answer your research question.
2. Critically analyse and interpret your research findings, draw conclusions, and make recommendations for future practice and research in your specialty practice context.
3. Communicate your research findings and recommendations to a broader audience.
Following Assessment
If you wish to publish your report, your Unit Coordinator will collaborate with you to prepare the manuscript for submission to a journal. Mentors may also be assigned to help you, or you may like to also include your nurse manager in this process.
Authorship Criteria
Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content. Authorship credits should be based on substantial contributions to: (i) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; (ii) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) final approval of the version to be published.
Conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) must all be met by all named authors.
Assessment 2 Marking criteria
| Key Criteria |
High Distinction 100–85% |
Distinction 84.5–75% |
Credit 74.9–65% |
Pass 64.9–50% |
Fail <49.9% |
| Abstract (5%) |
(4.25-5) Concise and comprehensive summary of the project which is exceptionally structured and written. |
(3.8-4.2) Concise and comprehensive summary of project which is very well structured and written. Some very minor content missing. |
(3.55-3.75) Concise summary of the project which is well structured and written. Some minor content missing. |
(2.5-3.5) A satisfactory summary of the project; however, is not concise and/or not comprehensive. The structure and writing are satisfactory but somewhat confusing. Some content is missing. |
0-2.45) The abstract does not satisfactorily summarise the project. The content is verbose and/or difficult to comprehend. The structure and writing are unsatisfactory. Significant content is incomplete or missing. |
| Introduction (15%) |
(12.75-15) The introduction very clearly, convincingly, and succinctly provides the rationale, context, and clinical relevance of the topic and reviews the relevant literature. |
(11.25-12.74) The introduction clearly, convincingly, and succinctly provides the rationale, context, and clinical relevance of the topic. Reviews the relevant literature. |
(9.75-12.73) The introduction is mostly clear, convincing, and succinct and provides the rationale, context, and clinical relevance of the topic. Reviews the relevant literature. |
(7.45-9.75) The introduction provides the rationale, context, and clinical relevance of the topic. Reviews the relevant literature. It lacks some clarity. |
(0-7.4) The introduction is not complete or is omitted. It does not provide the rationale, context, and clinical relevance of the topic. Does not adequately review the relevant literature. |
| Document analysis method (5%) |
(4.25-5) The document search is appropriate and very well explained. |
(3.8-4.2) The document search is appropriate and well explained. |
(3.55-3.75) The document search is appropriate and mostly well explained. |
(2.5-3.5) The document search is largely appropriate and explained. |
(0-2.45) The document search is not appropriate and/or not very well explained. |
| Critical Discussion (55%) |
46.8-55) Excellent critical discussion of the findings from the documents. Draws on a clear understanding of ethical principles. Comprehensively and succinctly draws conclusions in relation to the applicability to professional practice and/or policy. Excellent discussion of limitations. |
(41.2-46.7) Very good critical discussion of the findings from the documents. Draws on a clear understanding of ethical principles. Comprehensively draws conclusions in relation to the applicability to professional practice and/or policy. Very good discussion of limitations. |
(35.7-41.1) Good critical discussion of the findings from the documents. Draws on a largely clear understanding of ethical principles Draws conclusions in relation to the applicability to professional practice and/or policy. Discussion of limitations. |
(27-35.6) Mostly satisfactory critical discussion of the findings from the documents. Draws on a basic understanding of ethical principles. Draws conclusions in relation to the applicability to professional practice and/or policy. Discussion of limitations. |
(0-26.5) Limited critical discussion of the findings from the documents. Does not draw on ethical priniciples. Draws inadequate or irrelevant conclusions in relation to the applicability to professional practice and/or policy. Poor or no discussion of limitations. |
| Recommendations (5%) |
(4.25-5) All recommendations are significant and strongly justified. |
(3.8-4.2) Most recommendations are significant and well justified. |
(3.5-3.75) Recommendations are relevant, well justified, and workable. |
(2.5-3.5) Recommendations are largely relevant but not always well justified. |
0-2.45) Recommendations are vague and/or unjustified. |
| Conclusion (5%) |
(4.25-5) Excellent conclusion. Summarises the project and makes very relevant conclusions about its significance. |
(3.8-4.2) Very good conclusion. Summarises the project and makes relevant conclusions about its significance. |
(3.5-3.75) Good conclusion. Summarises the project and makes mostly relevant conclusions about its significance. |
2.5-3.5) Satisfactory conclusion. Summarises the project and attempts to make conclusions about its significance. |
(0-2.45) Unsatisfactory conclusion. Does not summarise the project and/or does not attempt to make conclusions about its significance. |
| Ability to write and present effectively and complete required task (5%) |
(4.2-5) Exemplary effort. Professional approach with one or two gaps. Attention to detail is without fault and all requirements of task have been met. Exemplary writing standard. Correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. |
(3.8-4.2) Excellent effort attending to requirements of the tasks. All items demonstrate due attention to detail with two or three gaps. Quality of writing is of a high standard with only one or two grammar, spelling, punctuation, and referencing mistakes evident. |
3.5-3.75) Good effort attending to requirements of the task. All items demonstrate due attention to detail with three or four gaps that impact on presentation and the readers’ understanding. Quality of writing is of a good standard with two or three grammar, spelling, punctuation and referencing mistakes evident. |
2.5-3.5) Satisfactory effort attending to requirements of the task. Most items demonstrate due attention to detail with four or five gaps that impact on presentation and the readers’ understanding. Quality of writing and presentation is of a satisfactory standard with three or four grammar, punctuation, spelling, and referencing mistakes evident. |
(0-2.45) Submission is missing aspects of task or task requirements have been misunderstood. Quality of writing and presentation is at a poor standard with ≥5 grammar, punctuation, spelling and referencing mistakes evident. |
| Reference quality and accuracy (5%) |
(4.2-5) A minimum of 30 references and grey literature have been cited. APA 7 th edition referencing used with no in-text referencing or reference list errors. |
3.8-4.2) A minimum of 28–29 references and grey literature have been cited. APA 7 th edition referencing used with 1 consistent in-text or reference list error (may be made multiple times). |
(3.5-3.75) A minimum of 26–27 references and grey literature have been cited. APA 7 th edition referencing used with 2 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times). |
(2.5-3.5) A minimum of 24–25 references and grey literature have been cited. APA 7 th edition referencing used with 3 consistent in-text or reference list errors (made multiple times). |
(0-2.45) Less than 24 references and grey literature have been cited. APA 7th referencing not used, or ≥4 consistent in-text or reference list errors. |
Assessment 1 Marking criteria
| 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 |
| Context of Project (20%) |
(16.9-20) |
(15-16.8) Context explained clearly, problem and relevance established. |
(12.9-14.9) Context explained, problem and relevance largely established. |
(9.9-12.9) Context, problem, and relevance somewhat explained. |
(0-9.8) Context and/or problem and/or relevance not explained. |
|
| Research question 10% |
(8.45-10) Your research question is very clear and clearly relates to the context. |
(7.45-8.4) Your research question is clear and clearly relates to the context. |
(6.45-7.45) Your research question is somewhat clear and relates to the context. |
(4.95-6.45) Your research question is apparent. |
(<4.9) You do not have a research question |
|
| Data collection 20% |
(16.9-20) Your literature search is relevant and clearly explained. |
(15-16.8) Your literature search is clear and relevant. |
(12.9-14.9) Your literature search is largely clear and relevant. |
(9.9-12.9) Your literature search is somewhat clear and relevant. |
(0-9.8) Your literature search is not clear and/or not relevant. |
|
| Timeline 20% |
(16.9-20) Timeline relevant and barriers and facilitators are very appropriate. |
(15-16.8) Timeline relevant and barriers and facilitators are appropriate. |
(12.9-14.9) Timeline relevant and barriers and facilitators are somewhat appropriate. |
(9.9-12.9) Timeline relevant. Some discussion of barriers and facilitators. |
(0-9.8) Timeline not relevant. No or minimal discussion of barriers and facilitators. |
|
| Overall presentation 30% |
(25.3-30) Clear and interesting presentation. Slides used as prompts. Interacts well with audience and responds constructively to questions and feedback. |
(22.3-25.2) Clear presentation. Slides used as prompts. Interacts well with audience and responds largely constructively to questions and feedback. |
19.3-25.1) Largely clear presentation. Slides mostly used as prompts. Interacts well with audience and responds constructive to questions and feedback. |
14.9-19.2) Presentation somewhat clear. Slides not always used as prompts. Interacts with audience and responds to questions and feedback. |
(0-14.8) Presentation is unclear. Has minimal or no interact with audience. |
Unit Profile Correction added on 25-09-24
See above
Overview
This unit will provide you with the opportunity to undertake a quality improvement research project in your professional practice related to health, safety or wellbeing. As you undertake your quality improvement research project, you will be mentored in the processes of data collection and analysis, reporting your findings and formulating recommendations to enhance practice. You will be encouraged and supported to disseminate your research findings to your peers and others via presentations and by publication.
Details
Pre-requisites or Co-requisites
Students must be enrolled in CL22 Master of Clinical Nursing to undertake this unit. Pre-requisites: NURS20167, NURS20168, and NURS20173.
Important note: Students enrolled in a subsequent unit who failed their pre-requisite unit, should drop the subsequent unit before the census date or within 10 working days of Fail grade notification. Students who do not drop the unit in this timeframe cannot later drop the unit without academic and financial liability. See details in the Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework).
Offerings For Term 2 - 2024
Attendance Requirements
All on-campus students are expected to attend scheduled classes - in some units, these classes are identified as a mandatory (pass/fail) component and attendance is compulsory. International students, on a student visa, must maintain a full time study load and meet both attendance and academic progress requirements in each study period (satisfactory attendance for International students is defined as maintaining at least an 80% attendance record).
Recommended Student Time Commitment
Each 6-credit Postgraduate unit at CQUniversity requires an overall time commitment of an average of 12.5 hours of study per week, making a total of 150 hours for the unit.
Class Timetable
Assessment Overview
Assessment Grading
This is a graded unit: your overall grade will be calculated from the marks or grades for each assessment task, based on the relative weightings shown in the table above. You must obtain an overall mark for the unit of at least 50%, or an overall grade of 'pass' in order to pass the unit. If any 'pass/fail' tasks are shown in the table above they must also be completed successfully ('pass' grade). You must also meet any minimum mark requirements specified for a particular assessment task, as detailed in the 'assessment task' section (note that in some instances, the minimum mark for a task may be greater than 50%). Consult the University's Grades and Results Policy for more details of interim results and final grades.
All University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
You may wish to view these policies:
- Grades and Results Policy
- Assessment Policy and Procedure (Higher Education Coursework)
- Review of Grade Procedure
- Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure - Domestic Students
- Monitoring Academic Progress (MAP) Policy and Procedure - International Students
- Student Refund and Credit Balance Policy and Procedure
- Student Feedback - Compliments and Complaints Policy and Procedure
- Information and Communications Technology Acceptable Use Policy and Procedure
This list is not an exhaustive list of all University policies. The full list of University policies are available on the CQUniversity Policy site.
Feedback, Recommendations and Responses
Every unit is reviewed for enhancement each year. At the most recent review, the following staff and student feedback items were identified and recommendations were made.
Feedback from n/a
No data available for analysis.
n/a
- Conduct an ethically approved research project to answer your research question.
- Critically analyse and interpret your research findings, draw conclusions, and make recommendations for future clinical practice and research in your specialty practice context.
- Communicate your research findings and recommendations to a broader audience.
N/A.
Alignment of Assessment Tasks to Learning Outcomes
| Assessment Tasks | Learning Outcomes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 1 - Project (research) - 80% | |||
| 2 - Presentation - 20% | |||
Alignment of Graduate Attributes to Learning Outcomes
| Graduate Attributes | Learning Outcomes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 1 - Knowledge | |||
| 2 - Communication | |||
| 3 - Cognitive, technical and creative skills | |||
| 4 - Research | |||
| 5 - Self-management | |||
| 6 - Ethical and Professional Responsibility | |||
| 7 - Leadership | |||
| 8 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultures | |||
Textbooks
A Guide to Responsible Research
Edition: 1st (2023)
Authors: Marusic, A.
Springer Nature
Cham Cham , Switzerland
ISBN: 978-3-031-22412-6
Binding: eBook
Brown’s evidence-based nursing: the research-practice connection
Edition: 5th (2024)
Authors: Nowak, E. W., & Colsch, R.
Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC
Burlington Burlington , United States of America
Binding: eBook
Introduction to health research methods: a practical guide
Edition: 3rd (2021)
Authors: Jacobsen, K. H.
Jones & Bartlett Learning
Burlington Burlington , United States of America
Binding: eBook
Additional Textbook Information
These textbooks are available through the CQU library.
IT Resources
- CQUniversity Student Email
- Internet
- Unit Website (Moodle)
- Academic Learning Centre services
- CQ U library search engines for research articles
- CQUniversity library literature search tools
- Microsoft Word
- Statistical software relevant to the students' study area such as R, SPSS, or NVIVO, or equivalant online statistical application.
- Wordprocessing, spreadsheeting and powerpoint software
- Zoom account (Free)
- Zoom app on your smart phone or access to Zoom on your laptop
- Endnote bibliographic software. This is optional for formatting references.
- CQUniversity Library Nursing Resources
- CQUniveristy Library Resources
- Zoom (both microphone and webcam capability)
All submissions for this unit must use the referencing style: American Psychological Association 7th Edition (APA 7th edition)
For further information, see the Assessment Tasks.
j.bradshaw@cqu.edu.au
a.monson@cqu.edu.au
Module/Topic
Reflection and planning ahead
During Week 1 you will revisit and reflect on what you have already completed in relation to your project and plan what you need to do.
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Complete the template provided for Week 1. This template will form the basis of the meeting with your Unit Coordinator
Organise a meeting with your Unit Coordinator to share what you hope to achieve and how you plan to do this.
Module/Topic
Data collection
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Qualitative data analysis
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
If you are undertaking a quantitative project or a mixed methods project, you need not complete this module.
Module/Topic
Qualitative data analysis
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
If you are undertaking a quantitative project or a mixed methods project, you need not complete this module.
Module/Topic
Qualitative data analysis
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
If you are undertaking a quantitative project or a mixed methods project, you need not complete this module.
Module/Topic
Vacation week
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Quantitative data analysis
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
If you are undertaking a qualitative project or a mixed methods project, you need not complete this module.
Module/Topic
Quantitative data analysis
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
If you are undertaking a qualitative project or a mixed methods project, you need not complete this module.
My progress Due: Week 7 Wednesday (28 Aug 2024) 5:00 pm AEST
Module/Topic
Mixed method data analysis
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
If you are undertaking a qualitative or quantitative project, you need not complete this module.
Module/Topic
Mixed method data analysis
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
If you are undertaking a qualitative or quantitative project, you need not complete this module.
Module/Topic
Writing up your project
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Assessment preparation
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Assessment preparation
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
Module/Topic
Chapter
Events and Submissions/Topic
As this unit is offered online, students are asked to prepare their own individual study plan to undertake self-directed study throughout the term. A key to your success is a strategic self-directed approach to learning and regular contact with your Unit Coordinator/s. Please check the Announcements page and unit content at least twice a week - there will be regular announcements about assessments and unit resources posted throughout the term and reviewing this information is essential to unit knowledge and your success. CQUniversity communicates with students through CQUniversity email. We recommend that you access your CQUniversity email at least twice a week so that you do not miss vital information about your studies.
1 Presentation
Aim
The aim of this assessment is for you to provide an update on your project, your plan of how you will complete the project and to receive support and feedback for your project from your peers and Unit Coordinator.
Instructions
Please follow the steps below to construct a PowerPoint presentation with eight slides and complete the task. Use the following framework to construct your presentation:
- Slide 1 – States your project title and your name.
- Slide 2 – Describes the context of your project. This slide should state the problem and provide a summary of the literature that informs your quality improvement project.
- Slide 3 – Identifies the aim/s, objective/s, and research question/s of your quality improvement project.
- Slide 4 – Presents your research design. When you are presenting, explain why you chose this design and its relevance to the research question.
- Slide 5 – Data collection. Presents how you will collect your data and what tools you are using (if relevant).
- Slide 6 – Data analysis. Presents how you will analyse your data.
- Slide 7 – Project dissemination. Discuss how you plan to disseminate the results of your quality improvement project.
- Slide 8 – Timeline. Identify where are you up to and what do you need to do to complete your quality improvement project. When you present, speak to any challenges or facilitators you may encounter, or are encountering, in completing your quality improvement project.
In completing this assessment, present your progress report presentation to your peers and Unit Coordinator using the bullet points on your slides as prompts. Interact with your audience, ask for feedback on your project and respond to constructive feedback.
Remember: You are the narrator; it is your responsibility as the storyteller to make the content both compelling and exciting.
Literature and references
Literature and references are NOT required for this assessment. However, if you choose to use references, add a additional reference slide.
If you use references for this presentation, please use contemporary references (5 years or less) sourced from the CQUniversity library. You may also use seminal scholarly literature where relevant. Suitable references include peer-reviewed journal articles as well as textbooks and credible websites. When sourcing information, consider the 5 elements of a quality reference: currency, authority, relevance, objectivity, and coverage. Grey literature sourced from the internet must be from reputable websites such as government, university, or peak national bodies: for example, the Australian College of Nursing. Note, that websites such as StatPearls, Life in the Fastlane, and Wikipedia are not suitable for this assessment task. Lecture notes are not primary sources of evidence and should not be used in this assessment.
Requirements
- Use a conventional and legible font size.
- If you include tables or graphics in your presentation, you must label them appropriately. If you use a background or embedded photo or picture, this must be published with a Creative Commons (CC) licence and the source attributed as per the requirements of their CC licence. Do NOT use animations or clipart.
- You may use the first person (I, my) perspective when referring to your quality improvement project, however, use the third-person perspective when referring to the literature/evidence.
- Use formal academic and discipline-specific language.
- All work submitted must be your own work.
- The use of generative artificial intelligence is permitted in this assessment and only as indicated in the GenAI Permissions Checklist specific to Assessment One in this unit.
- If using references for this assessment, you may use Vancouver Style referencing but you may use American Psychological Association (APA) style (7th ed.).
Resources
- You can use unit-provided materials and other credible sources (e.g., journal articles, and books) to reference your argument. The quality and credibility of your sources are important. Please note, that lecture notes are not peer-reviewed primary sources of evidence.
- We recommend that you access your discipline-specific Nursing Resource Guide.
- You may like to manage your citations and reference list. Information on how to use academic referencing software (EndNote) is available at the CQUniversity Library website should you wish to learn how to use it.
- For information on academic writing and referencing please go to the Academic Learning Centre Moodle site. The Academic Communication section has many helpful resources, including information for students with English as a second language. There are also Oral Presentation resources.
- For information on using Zoom to present your assessment please go to Zoom web conferencing.
- You may wish to submit a draft to Studiosity.
- Submit at least one draft before the due date to review your Turnitin Similarity Score before uploading your final submission. Instructions are available here.
Submission
Submission will be a two-part process:
- Submit your assessment via the unit Moodle site in Microsoft PowerPoint format only by the due date.
- Present live to your Unit Coordinator and fellow students using Zoom, a video conferencing program. Your Unit Coordinator will help you with using Zoom and arrange a suitable time with you to present. With your permission, your presentation may be recorded for marking purposes. Only your Unit Coordinator will have access to this video which will be stored securely.
Marking Criteria
Refer to the marking rubric on the unit Moodle site for more details on how marks will be assigned. Assessment re-attempt is not available for Assessment One.
Learning Outcomes Assessed
- Conduct an ethically approved research project to answer your research question.
- Critically analyse and interpret your research findings, draw conclusions, and make recommendations for future clinical practice and research in your specialty practice context.
- Communication your research findings and recommendations to a broader audience.
Week 7 Wednesday (28 Aug 2024) 5:00 pm AEST
Submit your assessment via the unit Moodle site in Microsoft PowerPoint format only.
Week 9 Friday (13 Sept 2024)
Students will be advised of release of assessment marking via an announcement posted to the Announcement's Board on the Unit Moodle site. Please note, the 'Return to Students Information" is an approximate date.
NURS20174 Nursing, Midwifery and Social Scienced Project 2
Assessment One – Presentation Student name:
|
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 |
|
Context of research (15%) |
(15–12.75) Context very clearly explained, problem and relevance clearly established. |
(12.74–11.25) Context explained clearly, problem and relevance established. |
(11.24–9.75) Context explained, problem and relevance largely established. |
(9.74–7.5) Context, problem, and relevance somewhat explained. |
(7.4–0) Context and/or problem and/or relevance not explained. |
|
|
Aims, objectives and research questions (10%) |
(15–12.75) Aims, objectives and research questions very clear and relevant. |
(12.74–11.25) Aims, objectives and research questions clear and relevant. |
(11.24–9.75) Aims, objectives and research questions largely clear and relevant. |
(9.74–7.5) Aims, objectives and research questions somewhat clear and relevant. |
(7.4–0) Aims, objectives and research questions not clear and/or not relevant. |
|
|
Research design (15%) |
(15–12.75) Research design explained very well and its relationship to the research question is clearly articulated. |
(12.74–11.25) Research design explained well and its relationship to the research question is clearly articulated. |
(11.24–9.75) Research design is explained and its relationship to the research question is articulated. |
(9.74–7.5) Research design is explained very its relationship to the research question is somewhat articulated. |
(7.4–0) Research design not explained and/or its relationship to the research question. |
|
|
Data collection (15%) |
(15–12.75) Data collection methods very clear and relevant. |
(12.74–11.25) Data collection methods clear and relevant. |
(11.24–9.75) Data collection methods largely clear and relevant. |
(9.74–7.5) Data collection methods somewhat clear and relevant. |
(7.4–0) Data collection methods not clear and/or not relevant. |
|
|
Data analysis (15%) |
(15–12.75) Data analysis methods very clear and relevant. |
(12.74–11.25) Data analysis methods clear and relevant. |
(11.24–9.75) Data analysis methods largely clear and relevant. |
(9.74–7.5) Data analysis methods somewhat clear and relevant. |
(7.4–0) Data analysis methods not clear and/or not relevant. |
|
|
Project dissemination (10%) |
(10–8.5) Project dissemination plan very clear and relevant. |
(8.4–7.5) Project dissemination plan clear and relevant. |
(7.4–6.5) Project dissemination plan largely clear and relevant. |
(6.4–5) Project dissemination plan mostly clear and somewhat relevant. |
(4.9–0) Project dissemination plan is not clear and/or not relevant. |
|
|
Project timeline (10%) |
(10–8.5) Timeline very clear and achievable. |
(8.4–7.5) Timeline clear and achievable. |
(7.4–6.5) Timeline mostly clear and achievable. |
(6.4–5) Timeline clear however it may not be completely achievable. |
(4.9–0) Timeline not clear and/or achievable. |
|
|
Overall presentation (10%) |
(10–8.5) Clear and interesting presentation. Slides used as prompts. Interacts well with audience and responds constructively to questions and feedback. Presentation is the student’s own work. |
(8.4–7.5) Clear presentation. Slides used as prompts. Interacts well with audience and responds largely constructively to questions and feedback. Presentation is the student’s own work. |
(7.4–6.5) Largely clear presentation. Slides mostly used as prompts. Interacts well with audience and responds constructive to questions and feedback. Presentation is the student’s own work. |
(6.4–5) Presentation somewhat clear. Slides not always used as prompts. Interacts with audience and responds to questions and feedback. Presentation is the student’s own work. |
(4.9–0) Presentation is unclear. Has minimal or no interact with audience and/or is not the student’s own work. |
|
|
TOTAL: |
MARKER: |
|||||
|
Marker’s feedback:
|
||||||
- Conduct an ethically approved research project to answer your research question.
- Critically analyse and interpret your research findings, draw conclusions, and make recommendations for future clinical practice and research in your specialty practice context.
- Communicate your research findings and recommendations to a broader audience.
2 Project (research)
Aim
The aim of this assessment is for you to conduct a quality improvement project and construct a report of the project suitable for dissemination.
To successfully complete this assessment, you will need to engage with the unit material on the NURS20174 Moodle site and meet regularly with your unit coordinator to discuss your progress. The Unit learning resources offered will support you to complete this assessment task.
Instructions
Construct and write a report in a suitable format to disseminate the findings of your quality improvement project. Following CQUniversity ethics approval, conduct the project you developed in NURS20173 Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences Project 1. This report should be in the form of a manuscript suitable for submission to a peer-reviewed nursing journal.
Develop your report using the following headings.
Abstract
Your abstract should include the following headings: Aim (of the project), Background (the context), Design (Your research design), Findings, Conclusion. The abstract should not include abbreviations and should be about 200 words.
Introduction
The introduction introduces your project by discussing the following:
- The context of your project, the rationale, and clinical relevance of your topic and the problem.
- Theoretical, or evidence-based frameworks or guidelines that may have informed your project.
- A review of the relevant literature which helped to inform the rationale for your project.
Methods
- Aims
State the aim/s of the project and your research question/s.
- Design
Describe the research design you have chosen and explain why the chosen research design is appropriate to answer the research question/s.
- Sample/participants
Describe the sampling strategy/strategies you used such as random, convenience, or purposive. For example, ‘A convenience sample of registered nurses was recruited…’.
Identify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for your sample and the size of the sample.
- The intervention
Provide a detailed discussion of any intervention or what you did.
- Data collection
Detail how you collected your data and the tool/s that you used to collect your data. If you used a survey, discuss whether it has been validated in previous research. If it has been adapted, describe how it was adapted and explain why it needed to be adapted.
Define the data collection timeframe, for example, between August 2024 and September 2024.
Ethical considerations
- Identify any ethical issues associated with this research. State the approval number and where ethics approval was obtained from. Explain any other approvals obtained such as local site arrangements.
- Clearly state that all participants (if relevant) gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study, or the rationale provided for any deviation from this.
Data analysis
- Describe the techniques used to analyse your data. For example, ‘SPSS version X was used to analyse the data’ or ‘Interviews were transcribed and analysed for themes.
Results
- Describe the characteristics of your sample or your participants. For example, ‘The study participants ranged in age from X to Y years…’. Always include age (range and mean) and gender distribution.
- Present results for each research question.
- Use figures and tables as needed. Refer to your figure/tables in your text, but do not repeat what is available in your tables. Instead, identify the key points in your text, and refer readers to figures/tables for detail.
Discussion
In your discussion, do the following:
- Draw your results together into a whole.
- Discuss whether your findings match or differ to previous research findings/evidence?
- Draw conclusions about the clinical application of your findings that has emerged from your study.
- Consider study limitations including sample representativeness and/or sample size, and the generalisability of the results.
Conclusion
- Do not just summarise/repeat findings. Draw conclusions about the usefulness or clinical relevance of your study for the clinical setting, clinical guidelines or for policy.
Literature and references
Use at least 25 contemporary references (<5 years) sourced from the CQUniversity library to support your discussion. You may also use seminal scholarly literature where relevant. Suitable references include peer-reviewed journal articles as well as textbooks and credible websites. When sourcing information, consider the 5 elements of a quality reference: currency, authority, relevance, objectivity, and coverage. Grey literature sourced from the internet must be from reputable websites such as from government, university, or peak national bodies: for example, the Australian College of Nursing, or the World Health Organisation. Note, websites such as StatPearls, Life in the Fastlane, and Wikipedia are not suitable for this assessment task.
Requirements
- Use a conventional and legible size 12 font, such as Times New Roman or Arial, with double line spacing and 2.54cm page margins (standard pre-set margin in Microsoft Word).
- Include page numbers on the top right side of each page in a header.
- Write in the third-person perspective using past tense.
- Use formal academic language.
- All work submitted must be your own work.
- The use of generative artificial intelligence is permitted in this assessment and only as indicated in the GenAI Permissions Checklist in this unit.
- Use the seventh edition American Psychological Association (APA) referencing style. The CQUniversity Academic Learning Centre has an online APA Referencing Style Guide.
- The word count is considered from the first word of the introduction to the last word of the conclusion. The word count excludes the reference list, tables and appendices list but includes in-text references and direct quotations. Avoid direct quotes as this reflects the knowledge of others and not your unique interpretation of the evidence.
Resources
- You can use unit provided materials and other credible sources (e.g., journal articles, books, grey literature) to reference your argument. The quality and credibility of your sources are important.
- We recommend that you access your discipline specific library guide: the Nursing and Midwifery Guide.
- We recommend you use EndNote to manage your citations and reference list. More information on how to use EndNote is available at the CQUniversity Library website.
- You may wish to submit a draft to Studiosity.
- For information on academic communication please go to the Academic Learning Centre Moodle site. The Academic Communication section has many helpful resources including information for students with English as a second language.
- Submit a draft before the due date to review your Turnitin Similarity Score and report before making a final submission. Instructions are available here. Please note, the Similarity Score is expected to be high due to the use of similar information from NURS20173; however, you still need to ensure you have paraphrased the work of others adequately.
Submission
Submit your assessment via the unit Moodle site in Microsoft Word format only.
Marking Criteria
Refer to the marking rubric on the Moodle site for more detail on how marks will be assigned. Assessment re-attempt is not available for Assessment 2.
Learning Outcomes Assessed
- Conduct an ethically approved research project to answer your research question.
- Critically analyse and interpret your research findings, draw conclusions, and make recommendations for future practice and research in your specialty practice context.
- Communicate your research findings and recommendations to a broader audience.
Following Assessment
If you wish to publish your report, your Unit Coordinator will collaborate with you to prepare the manuscript for submission to a journal. Mentors may also be assigned to help you, or you may like to also include your nurse manager in this process.
Authorship Criteria
Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content. Authorship credits should be based on substantial contributions to: (i) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; (ii) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) final approval of the version to be published.
Conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) must all be met by all named authors.
Week 12 Wednesday (2 Oct 2024) 5:00 pm AEST
Submit your assessment in Microsoft Word format only.
Exam Week Wednesday (16 Oct 2024)
Students will be advised of release of assessment marking via an announcement posted to the Announcement's Board on the Unit Moodle site. Please note, the 'Return to Students Information" is an approximate date.
NURS20174 NURSING, MIDWIFERY AND SOCIAL SCIENCES PROJECT 2
ASSESSMENT 2 – Quality Improvement Project Report Student Name:
|
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 the project which is exceptionally structured and written. |
(4.2–3.8) Concise and comprehensive summary of project which is very well structured and written. Some very minor content missing. |
(3.75–3.55) Concise summary of the project which is well structured and written. Some minor content missing. |
(3.50–2.5) A satisfactory summary of the project; however, is not concise and/or not comprehensive. The structure and writing are satisfactory but somewhat confusing. Some content is missing. |
(2.45–0) The abstract does not satisfactorily summarise the project. The content is verbose and/or difficult to comprehend. The structure and writing are unsatisfactory. Significant content is incomplete or missing. |
|
|
Introduction (10%) |
(10–8.5) The introduction very clearly, convincingly, and succinctly provides the rationale, context, and clinical relevance of the topic and reviews the relevant literature. |
(8.4–7.5) The introduction clearly, convincingly, and succinctly provides the rationale, context, and clinical relevance of the topic. Reviews the relevant literature. |
(7.4–6.5) The introduction is mostly clear, convincing, and succinct and provides the rationale, context, and clinical relevance of the topic. Reviews the relevant literature. |
(6.4–5) The introduction provides the rationale, context, and clinical relevance of the topic. Reviews the relevant literature. It lacks some clarity. |
(4.9–0) The introduction is not complete or is omitted. It does not provide the rationale, context, and clinical relevance of the topic. Does not adequately review the relevant literature. |
|
|
Aims/objectives, research question/s and research design (5%) |
(5–4.25) Research question/s relate to the aims and/or objectives and aligns with the research design. Very clearly focused and relevant. |
(4.2–3.8) Research question/s relate to the aims and/or objectives and aligns with the research design. Clearly focused and relevant. |
(3.75–3.55) Research question/s relate to the aims and/or objectives and aligns with the research design. Mostly focused and relevant. |
(3.50–2.5) Research question/s relate to the aims and/or objectives and aligns with the research design. May lack some focus or relevance. |
(2.45–0) Research question/s do not relate to the aims and/or objectives and/or do not align with the research design. |
|
|
Sampling Method and/or Participant Recruitment, Ethics, intervention and Data Collection (20%) |
(20–17) The sampling or recruitment strategy, data collection, ethical considerations, and intervention are appropriate and very well explained. |
(16.9–15) The sampling or recruitment strategy, data collection ethical considerations, and intervention are appropriate and well explained. |
(14.9–13) The sampling or recruitment strategy, data collection ethical considerations, and intervention are appropriate and mostly well explained. |
(12.9–10) The sampling or recruitment strategy, data collection ethical considerations, and intervention are mostly appropriate and satisfactorily explained. |
(9.9–0) The sampling or recruitment strategy, data collection ethical considerations, and intervention are inappropriate and/or poorly explained. |
|
|
Data Analysis and Results (20%) |
(20–17) Accurate analysis of data is evident and described. Results/findings are very well presented. |
(16.9–15) Accurate analysis of data is evident and described. Results/findings are well presented. |
(14.9–13) Accurate analysis of data is evident and described. Results/findings are largely well presented. |
(12.9–10) Accurate analysis of data is evident and described. Results/findings are somewhat well presented. |
(9.9–0) Data analysis is inaccurate. Results/findings are unclear or illogical. |
|
|
Discussion (20%) |
(20–17) Excellent interpretation of the significance of the results. Excellent discussion of the findings and results in relation to the identified problem and the literature. Comprehensively and succinctly draws conclusions in relation to the applicability to professional practice, quality improvement and/or policy. Excellent discussion of limitations. |
(16.9–15) Very good interpretation of the significance of the results. Very good discussion of the findings and results in relation to the identified problem and the literature. Draws relevant conclusions in relation to the applicability to professional practice, quality improvement and/or policy. Very good discussion of limitations. |
(14.9–13) Good interpretation of the significance of the results. Good discussion of the findings and results in relation to the identified problem and the literature. Draws relevant conclusions in relation to the applicability to professional practice, quality improvement and/or policy. Good discussion of limitations. |
(12.9–10) Satisfactory interpretation of the significance of the results. Mostly satisfactory discussion of the findings and results in relation to the identified problem and the literature. Draws some conclusions in relation to the applicability to professional practice, quality improvement and/or policy. Good discussion of limitations however some gaps. |
(9.9–0) Unsatisfactory interpretation of the significance of the results. Poor or limited discussion of the findings and results in relation to the identified problem and of the literature. Discussion does not satisfactorily draw conclusions. Unsatisfactory discussion of limitations. |
|
|
Recommendations (5%) |
(5–4.25) All recommendations are significant, strongly justified, and workable. |
(4.2–3.8) Most recommendations are significant, well justified, and workable. |
(3.75–3.50) Recommendations are relevant, well justified, and workable. |
(3.50–2.5) Recommendations are relevant but not always well justified. Some are unworkable or do not relate to project. |
(2.45–0) Recommendations are vague, unjustified and/or unworkable, or do not relate to project. |
|
|
Conclusion (5%) |
(5–4.25) Excellent conclusion. Summarises the project and makes very relevant conclusions about its significance. |
(4.2-3.8) Very good conclusion. Summarises the project and makes relevant conclusions about its significance. |
(3.75-3.55) Good conclusion. Summarises the project and makes mostly relevant conclusions about its significance. |
(3.50–2.5) Satisfactory conclusion. Summarises the project and attempts to make conclusions about its significance. |
(2.45–0) Unsatisfactory conclusion. Does not summarise the project and/or does not attempt to make conclusions about its significance. |
|
|
Ability to write and present effectively and complete required task (5%) |
(5–4.25) Exemplary effort. Professional approach with one or two gaps. Attention to detail is without fault and all requirements of task have been met. Exemplary writing standard. Correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Project is the student’s own work s. |
(4.2–3.8) Excellent effort attending to requirements of the tasks. All items demonstrate due attention to detail with two or three gaps. Quality of writing is of a high standard with only one or two grammar, spelling, punctuation, and referencing mistakes evident. Project is the student’s own work. |
(3.75–3.55) Good effort attending to requirements of the task. All items demonstrate due attention to detail with three or four gaps that impact on presentation and the readers’ understanding. Quality of writing is of a good standard with two or three grammar, spelling, punctuation and referencing mistakes evident. Project is the student’s own work. |
(3.50–2.5) Satisfactory effort attending to requirements of the task. Most items demonstrate due attention to detail with four or five gaps that impact on presentation and the readers’ understanding. Quality of writing and presentation is of a satisfactory standard with three or four grammar, punctuation, spelling, and referencing mistakes evident. Project is the student’s own work. |
(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 with ≥5 grammar, punctuation, spelling and referencing mistakes evident. Project is not the student’s own work. |
|
|
Reference quality and accuracy (5%) |
(5–4.25) A minimum of 30 contemporary* and high-quality references articles have been cited. APA 7th edition referencing used with no in-text referencing or reference list errors. |
(4.2–3.8) A minimum of 28–29 mostly contemporary and high-quality references articles have been cited. APA 7th edition referencing used with 1 consistent in-text or reference list error (may be made multiple times). |
(3.75–3.55) A minimum of 26–27 mostly contemporary and high-quality references articles have been cited. APA 7th edition referencing used with 2 consistent in-text or reference list errors (may be made multiple times). |
(3.5–2.5) A minimum of 24–25 mostly contemporary and high-quality references articles have been cited. APA 7th edition referencing used with 3 consistent in-text or reference list errors (made multiple times). |
(2.45–0) Less than 24 references have been cited, and many not contemporary or appropriate or quality. APA 7th referencing not used, or ≥4 consistent in-text or reference list errors. |
|
|
TOTAL: |
MARKER: |
|||||
|
Marker’s feedback:
|
||||||
- Conduct an ethically approved research project to answer your research question.
- Critically analyse and interpret your research findings, draw conclusions, and make recommendations for future clinical practice and research in your specialty practice context.
- Communicate your research findings and recommendations to a broader audience.
As a CQUniversity student you are expected to act honestly in all aspects of your academic work.
Any assessable work undertaken or submitted for review or assessment must be your own work. Assessable work is any type of work you do to meet the assessment requirements in the unit, including draft work submitted for review and feedback and final work to be assessed.
When you use the ideas, words or data of others in your assessment, you must thoroughly and clearly acknowledge the source of this information by using the correct referencing style for your unit. Using others’ work without proper acknowledgement may be considered a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Participating honestly, respectfully, responsibly, and fairly in your university study ensures the CQUniversity qualification you earn will be valued as a true indication of your individual academic achievement and will continue to receive the respect and recognition it deserves.
As a student, you are responsible for reading and following CQUniversity’s policies, including the Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure. This policy sets out CQUniversity’s expectations of you to act with integrity, examples of academic integrity breaches to avoid, the processes used to address alleged breaches of academic integrity, and potential penalties.
What is a breach of academic integrity?
A breach of academic integrity includes but is not limited to plagiarism, self-plagiarism, collusion, cheating, contract cheating, and academic misconduct. The Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure defines what these terms mean and gives examples.
Why is academic integrity important?
A breach of academic integrity may result in one or more penalties, including suspension or even expulsion from the University. It can also have negative implications for student visas and future enrolment at CQUniversity or elsewhere. Students who engage in contract cheating also risk being blackmailed by contract cheating services.
Where can I get assistance?
For academic advice and guidance, the Academic Learning Centre (ALC) can support you in becoming confident in completing assessments with integrity and of high standard.
What can you do to act with integrity?
