WRITTEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD ACADEMIC WRITING PRINCIPLES

The primary theme of the paper is WRITTEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD ACADEMIC WRITING PRINCIPLES in which you are required to emphasize its aspects in detail. The cost of the paper starts from $119 and it has been purchased and rated 4.9 points on the scale of 5 points by the students. To gain deeper insights into the paper and achieve fresh information, kindly contact our support.

AssessmentRequirements

Your response should be structured as a report (chapter 5 of textbook), written in accordance with standard academic writing principles (chapter 4 of textbook).The report must be written using your own words with any in text citations clearly marked (see Referencing Style subsectionbelow). You may discuss the assessment task with other students and the lecturing staff but you must WRITE the report YOURSELF in your own words.

You will need to conduct research to support yourarguments using atleastten(10) references. Note that all the references you chose to use should have been evaluated using the Triple-R framework in the research stage of preparing your Report. One of the references could be your set textbook (if you reference the textbook you must include it in the reference list). You must have a minimum of ten (10) references in your reference list. At least six (6) of these references should be from refereed academic journals and books. All sources should be current that is,dated 2012 or later.Minimum requirements relate to a Pass mark. You are encouraged to use more than the minimum requirements for a better quality outcome to your report through improving the quality of your analysis.

The assignment should demonstrate a logical flow of discussion,and be free from typographical, spelling and grammaticalerrors. It should be prepared in MS-Word (or equivalent) using 12 point font, 1.5 line spacing and margins of 2.54 cm.

It is highly recommended that you submit your assignment to the Academic Learning Centre (ALC)AT LEAST ONE WEEK before the due date. The ALC can check your report for correct structure, referencing, paragraphing and some language issues.

Referencing Style

References must be cited (in text) and a reference list provided in accordance with the CQU APA referencing style.See the American Psychological Association (APA) abridged guide updated Term 2 2016 available from:

Helpful information on referencing techniques and styles can also be found on CQU’s referencing webpage:

The University’s Academic Misconduct Procedureis available in the policy portal

Useful information about academic integrity (avoiding plagiarism) can be found in the ALC resources on the Moodle Unit website and at:

Guidelines with respect to self-referencing are available on the COIT20249Moodle website.

Submission

The report has to be submitted using the COIT20249 Moodle Unit website on or before the due date. The submission link can be accessed through the Assessment block.

Before submitting your assignment you should check it against the detailed assessment criteria in the following table to ensure that you have satisfactorily addressed all the criteria that will be used to mark your report.

It is your responsibility to ensure that your report is submitted for grading. At the due date of the assessment Moodle will auto-submitfiles that have been uploaded and left as drafts. However, any files uploaded after the due datemust be manually submitted. This means thatif you have been granted an extension or are uploading a late assessment (after the due date) you must complete the Moodle submission process. Further details on completing the submission process are available via the ‘Moodle Help for Students’ link in the Support block of your Moodle website.

If your report is left as a draft in Moodle after the due date it will accrue a late penalty. Late submissions attract a penaltyof 5% per day of the total available mark for the individual assessment item. See the Assessment Policy and Procedure – Higher Education Coursework in the policy portal

MarkingCriteria

This assessment is criterion referenced which means your work is assessed against the criteria in the marking rubric below.

Criteria	Quality
*Executive summary*	The executive summary contained: - a brief description of the purpose of the report - the definition of the problem, key issues explored, and how they were investigated - a summary of what you found and what you concluded - overview of your recommendations	The executive summary contained the proper sections but did not include enough detail.	The executive summary had sections which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.	The executive summary lacked clarity and has incomplete or missing sections. It did not clearly explain the problem, how it was investigated and your recommendations.	Entire sections of the executive summary are missing.There is a lack of detail and the problem is not well explained.
*Table of contents*	Lists the report topics using decimal notation. Includes meaningful main headings and subheadings with corresponding page numbers. Format makes the hierarchy of topics clear.Auto generated using MS Word.	A few things missing from the table of contents. Pages are numbered.	Some things missing from the table of contents. Pages may not be numbered.	Includes the main headings only. Pages may not be numbered.	Table of contents missing. Pages not numbered.
*Introduction*	Set the scene for the report; gave some background information for the topic. Included a brief description of the organisation. Stated the objectives of the investigation. Included the problem you are addressing and the key issues to be explored. Explained the research method used to gather information. Outlined the sections of the report.	The introduction contained the proper parts but did not include enough detail.	The introduction had parts which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.	The introduction lacked clarity and had incomplete or missing parts. It did not clearly introduce the report.	The introduction was missing or was a repeat of the executive summary. It did not clearly introduce the report.
*Body of report:* Selection and sequencing of subject material; including evidence.	Selected exact amount of relevant material that supports argument with no contradictions. Substantial, logical, & concrete development of ideas. Arguments were logical and clear. Assumptions were made explicit. Key terms were defined. Details were germane, original, and convincingly interpreted.	Selected large amount of relevant material. Offered solid development of ideas but less original reasoning. Assumptions were not always recognised or made explicit. Contained some appropriate details or examples.	Selected adequate amount of material. Some development of ideas; not much original reasoning. Assumptions are not always recognised or made explicit. Contains some appropriate details or examples.	Selected adequate amount of material but not all of it is relevant. Not much development of ideas. Very little original reasoning. Offered somewhat obvious support that may be too broad. Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to problem, or inappropriately repetitive.	Selected too little material or material that is irrelevant. No development of ideas or original reasoning. Offered simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic support for the ideas. Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact.
*Conclusion*	Problem restated clearly, main points and supporting arguments summarised. Stated the significance of the findings and that the objectives of the report had been met. No new material.	The conclusion contained the proper parts but did not include enough detail. No new material.	The conclusion had parts which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail. May have included some new material.	The conclusion lacked clarity and had incomplete or missing parts. It did not clearly conclude the report. May have included some new material.	The conclusion is missing or was a repeat of the executive summary. It did not clearly conclude the report. Included new material.
*Recommendations*	Suggested specific actions to address the problem. Actions were clearly based on the findings of the report. Correctly formatted recommendations based on report writing guidelines.	Most suggested actions were relevant to the problem. Actions were based on the findings of the report. Correctly formatted recommendations.	Suggested actions were somewhat relevant to the problem. Not all actions were based on the findings of the report. Recommendations not presented effectively in line with the report writing guidelines.	Suggested some actions. Not all actions were relevant to the problem. Not all actions were based on the findings of the report. Descriptions of possible actions but no specific actions proposed or not in line with the report writing guidelines.	Recommendations missing or irrelevant to the problem and/or did not relate to the findings. Not formatted correctly.
*Organisation:*of ideas/main points; structure of sentences and paragraphs.	Organisation fully supportedthe problem being addressed and the objectives of report. Sequence of ideas was effective. Excellent sentence structure. Well-constructed paragraphs; clear linkages between paragraphs.	Organisation supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report. Sequence of ideas could be improved. Good sentence structure. Linkages between paragraphs were mostly appropriate.	Organisation supported theproblem being addressed and the objectives of report. Sequence of ideas did not always flow in a logical manner. Some good sentence structure. Linkages between paragraphs could be improved. Some brief, undeveloped paragraphs.	Some signs of logical organisation but not effectively addressing the problem. May have had abrupt or illogical shifts and ineffective flow of ideas. Some awkward sentences; paragraphs not well linked. Paragraph structure not well integrated; contained extraneous information.	Unclear organisation or organisational plan was inappropriate to problem being addressed. Poorly worded sentences. No linkages between paragraphs. Showed minimal effort or lack of comprehension of the assignment.
*Presentation:* · Title page · Grammar, punctuation and spelling. · Formatting	Title page contained all necessary information: Unit code, assessment number, reporttitle, assessment due date, word count,student name, student number, email address, campus lecturer/tutor, and UnitCoordinator. Written expression was clear and correct; evidence of thorough proof-reading. Grammar excellent; correct use of punctuation; minimal or no spelling errors. Observed professional conventions of written English and report format. Formatted correctly in MS Word or compatible applicationusing 12 point font, 1.5 line spacing and margins of 2.54 cm. Each page (except Title page) is numbered.	Title page contained all necessary information. A few errors in grammar (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, etc.). Made occasional problematic word choices or syntax errors. Grammar strong despite occasional lapses; a few spelling or punctuation errors. Observed professional conventions of written English and report format; made a few minor or technical errors. Formatted correctly.	Title page contained all necessary information. Some distracting grammatical errors (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, etc.).Little evidence of proof-reading. Grammar could be improved; errors in punctuation and spelling. Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made numerous errors. Some minor formatting errors.	Some necessary information was missing from the title page. Some major grammatical or proofreading errors (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, sentence fragments, word form errors, etc.).Language frequently weakened by inexact word choices. Frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made repeated errors. Major errors in formatting.	Title page missing or missing necessary information. Numerous grammatical errors which seriously detracted from understanding the writing. Frequent major errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Evidence ofpoor planning and/or no serious revision of writing. Did not meet professional conventions of written English and report format. Formatted incorrectly.
*References (1):*Evidence of research and analysis of the referencesbased on the ARE framework. Selection and use of references based on the Triple R framework.	Thorough research indicated; clear well-thought out analysis clearly integrated into discussion. Analysed and evaluated information in great depth. Used references to support, extend, and inform, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas. Combined material from a variety of sources. Did not overuse quotes.	Research was generally thorough; analysis was generally well done; integrated into discussion. Analysed and evaluated information in considerable depth. Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas. Combined material from a variety of sources. Did not overuse quotes.	Some evidence of research; basic analysis; some integration into discussion. Analysed and evaluated information in reasonable depth, some description. Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas. Combined material from a few sources. Did not overuse quotes.	Basic research; weaknesses evident in analysis. Little evidence of analysis and evaluation of information; recounted and described. Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to topic, or inappropriately repetitive. Used relevant references but lacked in variety of references and/or the skilful combination of references. Combined material from a few sources. Quotations and paraphrases may be too long or not well integrated into the text.	Little or no evidence of research and analysis of information. Neglected important references. Simplistic or undeveloped support for the ideas. Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact. Overused quotations or paraphrasing to substitute writer’s own ideas. Possibly used source material without acknowledgement.
*References (2):* In-text citations and reference list.	More than tencurrent references including more than six academic references; all references conformed to the Triple R framework. Thorough referencing. Citations and reference list accurate and consistent with APA referencing style.	More than tencurrent references including more than six academic references. A few inaccuracies with APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list. All citations/references listed.	At least tencurrent references including at least six academic sources. Some errors in APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list. Some citationsand/or references missing.	At least tencurrent references. Errors with APA referencing style. Incomplete reference list. References not cited properly in text.	Less than ten references. Inconsistent with APA referencing style. Problems with citations and references.
Length	Correct length (2250-2750 words)	Correct length (2250-2750 words)	Correct length (2250-2750 words)	Correct length (2250-2750 words)	Too long (>2750words) or too short ( Words in excess of 2750will NOT be marked.

Criteria

Quality

High Distinction

(2.75-3.0 marks)

Distinction

(2.25-2.5 marks)

Credit

(1.75-2 marks)

Pass

(1.25-1.5 marks)

Fail

(0-1 marks)

Executive summary

The executive summary contained:

- a brief description of the purpose of the report

- the definition of the problem, key issues explored, and how they were investigated

- a summary of what you found and what you concluded

- overview of your recommendations

The executive summary contained the proper sections but did not include enough detail.

The executive summary had sections which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.

The executive summary lacked clarity and has incomplete or missing sections. It did not clearly explain the problem, how it was investigated and your recommendations.

Entire sections of the executive summary are missing.There is a lack of detail and the problem is not well explained.

Table of contents

Lists the report topics using decimal notation. Includes meaningful main headings and subheadings with corresponding page numbers. Format makes the hierarchy of topics clear.Auto generated using MS Word.

A few things missing from the table of contents. Pages are numbered.

Some things missing from the table of contents. Pages may not be numbered.

Includes the main headings only. Pages may not be numbered.

Table of contents missing. Pages not numbered.

Introduction

Set the scene for the report; gave some background information for the topic. Included a brief description of the organisation.

Stated the objectives of the investigation. Included the problem you are addressing and the key issues to be explored.

Explained the research method used to gather information.

Outlined the sections of the report.

The introduction contained the proper parts but did not include enough detail.

The introduction had parts which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.

The introduction lacked clarity and had incomplete or missing parts. It did not clearly introduce the report.

The introduction was missing or was a repeat of the executive summary. It did not clearly introduce the report.

Body of report:

Selection and sequencing of subject material; including evidence.

Selected exact amount of relevant material that supports argument with no contradictions.

Substantial, logical, & concrete development of ideas. Arguments were logical and clear.

Assumptions were made explicit.

Key terms were defined.

Details were germane, original, and convincingly interpreted.

Selected large amount of relevant material.

Offered solid development of ideas but less original reasoning.

Assumptions were not always recognised or made explicit.

Contained some appropriate details or examples.

Selected adequate amount of material.

Some development of ideas; not much original reasoning.

Assumptions are not always recognised or made explicit.

Contains some appropriate details or examples.

Selected adequate amount of material but not all of it is relevant.

Not much development of ideas. Very little original reasoning.

Offered somewhat obvious support that may be too broad.

Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to problem, or inappropriately repetitive.

Selected too little material or material that is irrelevant.

No development of ideas or original reasoning.

Offered simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic support for the ideas.

Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact.

Conclusion

Problem restated clearly, main points and supporting arguments summarised.

Stated the significance of the findings and that the objectives of the report had been met.

No new material.

The conclusion contained the proper parts but did not include enough detail.

No new material.

The conclusion had parts which were too brief or missing. Did not include enough detail.

May have included some new material.

The conclusion lacked clarity and had incomplete or missing parts. It did not clearly conclude the report.

May have included some new material.

The conclusion is missing or was a repeat of the executive summary. It did not clearly conclude the report.

Included new material.

Recommendations

Suggested specific actions to address the problem.

Actions were clearly based on the findings of the report.

Correctly formatted recommendations based on report writing guidelines.

Most suggested actions were relevant to the problem.

Actions were based on the findings of the report.

Correctly formatted recommendations.

Suggested actions were somewhat relevant to the problem.

Not all actions were based on the findings of the report.

Recommendations not presented effectively in line with the report writing guidelines.

Suggested some actions. Not all actions were relevant to the problem.

Not all actions were based on the findings of the report.

Descriptions of possible actions but no specific actions proposed or not in line with the report writing guidelines.

Recommendations missing or irrelevant to the problem and/or did not relate to the findings.

Not formatted correctly.

Organisation:of ideas/main points; structure of sentences and paragraphs.

Organisation fully supportedthe problem being addressed and the objectives of report.

Sequence of ideas was effective.

Excellent sentence structure. Well-constructed paragraphs; clear linkages between paragraphs.

Organisation supported the problem being addressed and the objectives of report.

Sequence of ideas could be improved.

Good sentence structure. Linkages between paragraphs were mostly appropriate.

Organisation supported theproblem being addressed and the objectives of report.

Sequence of ideas did not always flow in a logical manner.

Some good sentence structure. Linkages between paragraphs could be improved. Some brief, undeveloped paragraphs.

Some signs of logical organisation but not effectively addressing the problem.

May have had abrupt or illogical shifts and ineffective flow of ideas.

Some awkward sentences; paragraphs not well linked. Paragraph structure not well integrated; contained extraneous information.

Unclear organisation or organisational plan was inappropriate to problem being addressed.

Poorly worded sentences. No linkages between paragraphs.

Showed minimal effort or lack of comprehension of the assignment.

Presentation:

· Title page

· Grammar, punctuation and spelling.

· Formatting

Title page contained all necessary information: Unit code, assessment number, reporttitle, assessment due date, word count,student name, student number, email address, campus lecturer/tutor, and UnitCoordinator.

Written expression was clear and correct; evidence of thorough proof-reading.

Grammar excellent; correct use of punctuation; minimal or no spelling errors.

Observed professional conventions of written English and report format.

Formatted correctly in MS Word or compatible applicationusing 12 point font, 1.5 line spacing and margins of 2.54 cm.

Each page (except Title page) is numbered.

Title page contained all necessary information.

A few errors in grammar (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, etc.). Made occasional problematic word choices or syntax errors.

Grammar strong despite occasional lapses; a few spelling or punctuation errors.

Observed professional conventions of written English and report format; made a few minor or technical errors.

Formatted correctly.

Title page contained all necessary information.

Some distracting grammatical errors (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, etc.).Little evidence of proof-reading.

Grammar could be improved; errors in punctuation and spelling.

Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made numerous errors.

Some minor formatting errors.

Some necessary information was missing from the title page.

Some major grammatical or proofreading errors (wrong verb tense, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, apostrophe errors, singular/plural errors, article use, preposition use, split infinitives, sentence fragments, word form errors, etc.).Language frequently weakened by inexact word choices.

Frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made repeated errors.

Major errors in formatting.

Title page missing or missing necessary information.

Numerous grammatical errors which seriously detracted from understanding the writing.

Frequent major errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Evidence ofpoor planning and/or no serious revision of writing.

Did not meet professional conventions of written English and report format.

Formatted incorrectly.

References (1):Evidence of research and analysis of the referencesbased on the ARE framework.

Selection and use of references based on the Triple R framework.

Thorough research indicated; clear well-thought out analysis clearly integrated into discussion.

Analysed and evaluated information in great depth.

Used references to support, extend, and inform, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas.

Combined material from a variety of sources.

Did not overuse quotes.

Research was generally thorough; analysis was generally well done; integrated into discussion.

Analysed and evaluated information in considerable depth.

Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas.

Combined material from a variety of sources.

Did not overuse quotes.

Some evidence of research; basic analysis; some integration into discussion.

Analysed and evaluated information in reasonable depth, some description.

Used references to support, but not substitute writer’s own development of ideas.

Combined material from a few sources.

Did not overuse quotes.

Basic research; weaknesses evident in analysis.

Little evidence of analysis and evaluation of information; recounted and described. Details were too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to topic, or inappropriately repetitive.

Used relevant references but lacked in variety of references and/or the skilful combination of references.

Combined material from a few sources.

Quotations and paraphrases may be too long or not well integrated into the text.

Little or no evidence of research and analysis of information.

Neglected important references.

Simplistic or undeveloped support for the ideas.

Inappropriate or off-topic generalisations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact.

Overused quotations or paraphrasing to substitute writer’s own ideas.

Possibly used source material without acknowledgement.

References (2):

In-text citations and reference list.

More than tencurrent references including more than six academic references; all references conformed to the Triple R framework.

Thorough referencing. Citations and reference list accurate and consistent with APA referencing style.

More than tencurrent references including more than six academic references.

A few inaccuracies with APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list.

All citations/references listed.

At least tencurrent references including at least six academic sources.

Some errors in APA referencing style for citations and/or reference list. Some citationsand/or references missing.

At least tencurrent references.

Errors with APA referencing style.

Incomplete reference list. References not cited properly in text.

Less than ten references.

Inconsistent with APA referencing style.

Problems with citations and references.

Length

Correct length (2250-2750 words)

Too long (>2750words) or too short (

Words in excess of 2750will NOT be marked.

WRITTEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD ACADEMIC WRIT