DSGN6029_Assessment04_Research And Innovation.Docx Page 1 of 9
| ASSESSMENT BRIEF 04 | |
| Subject Code and Title | DSGN6029 Research and Innovation |
| Assessment | Final research outcome including capstone question proposal. |
| Individual/Group | Individual |
| Length | 1000 – 2000 words |
| Learning Outcomes | Applying research skills appropriate to the level of qualification. Actively reflect on the processes and methodologies being used, and be able to identify learning needs and seek answers independently. Understands and can employ different research methodologies. Evaluate and apply emerging research methods to synthesise research findings with a proposed innovation |
| Submission | By 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of Week 10 (Part A) and Week 12 (Part B) Module 6.2 |
| Weighting | 40% |
| Total Marks | 100 marks |
Context:
This assessment covers:
1. Applying research skills appropriate to the level of the qualification.
2. Design for good.
3.Brain re-wiring
In this assessment the Designer will gain understanding for;
1. Describing their discipline or profession in the contemporary global environment,
including the forces that have shaped the past, are driving innovation today, and taking it
into the future.
2. Applying cognitive skills and dispositions necessary to be perceptive, analytical and
creative in identifying and solving problems.
DSGN6029_Assessment04_Research And Innovation.Docx Page 2 of 9
1. The designer will gain an understanding of the employment of different research
methodologies.
2. Will be able to argue the case to support a particular design position drawing on relevant
research, analysis and evidence.
3. Will be able to actively reflect on the processes and methodologies being used, and be
able to identify learning needs and seek answers independently.
Instructions:
Documentation of final research question process: 40%
a) Final presentation of research question
State your final research question
( Content, Audience and Purpose; Knowledge and understanding;
Critical reasoning, presentation and defence of an argument and/or position)
b) Proof of resource:
Produce a completed resource listing utilised for this project in APA referencing style
(Use of academic and discipline conventions and sources of evidence;)
c) Identifying seminal in field:
List influential, informative, pioneering, innovative and original influences drawn upon for
the development of your research question.
(Knowledge and understanding; Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge;)
d) Boundaries and adjacencies:
Identify limitations of the research question.
( Ethico moral reasoning; Critical reasoning, presentation and defence of an argument
and/or position )
How may the design help another area entirely? What could be an unexpected outcome?
e) Peer review: (Effective communication; Content, Audience and Purpose; Knowledge and
understanding, Understanding of reflective principles)
Choose two different student participants to complete a peer review (300 words) on the
Content, Audience and Purpose research design questions shared in the Assessment 4 Final
research question Blog for this assessment .
Questions to consider: Review the validity of the research question presentation, did you
understand the question?, What problem could this question be solving? would you want to
invest in this research question?, does this research question support the concept of ‘design
for good’ and explain your answer.
DSGN6029_Assessment04_Research And Innovation.Docx Page 3 of 9
Submission details:
Part A – end of Module 5.2 – Upload written information for sections (a, b, c, d) into the Assessment
4 Final research question blog as an individual thread for peer sharing and comments. Do not include
peer review (section e) in this submission. The learning facilitator and peers can share comments
and view all research question information.
Part B – end of Module 6. 2 – Upload all sections of assessment 4 (a,b,c,d,e)in a written pdf format
into the Assessment 4 submission in main navigation menu in Blackboard. The learning facilitator
will grade this submission and offer formative feedback.
DSGN6029_Research and Innovation_ Assessment 04
Page 4 of 9
Learning Rubric: Assessment 4 DSGN6029 Research and Innovation
| Assessment Attributes | Fail (Unacceptable) | (Functional) Pass | (Proficient) Credit | (Advanced) Distinction | High Distinction (Exceptional) |
| Grade Description (Grading Scheme) | Evidence of unsatisfactory achievement of one or more of the learning objectives of the course, insufficient understanding of the course content and/or unsatisfactory level of skill development. | Evidence of satisfactory achievement of course learning objectives, the development of relevant skills to a competent level, and adequate interpretation and critical analysis skills. | Evidence of a good level of understanding, knowledge and skill development in relation to the content of the course or work of a superior quality on the majority of the learning objectives of the course. Demonstration of a high level of interpretation and critical analysis skills. | Evidence of a high level of achievement of the learning objectives of the course demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, use of methodology and communication skills. | Evidence of an exceptional level of achievement of learning objectives across the entire content of the course demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, creativity, originality, use of methodology and communication skills. |
| Knowledge and understanding | Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge Key components of the assignment are not addressed. | Knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline. Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the | Thorough knowledge or understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/course materials. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant | Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s. Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and | A sophisticated understanding of the field or discipline/s. Systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading. |
DSGN6029_Research and Innovation_ Assessment 04
Page 5 of 9
| 20% | 0-9.8 | research/course materials. 10-12.8 | concepts. 13-14.8 | extended reading. Well demonstrated capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. 15-16.8 | Mastery of concepts and application to new situations/further learning. 17-20 |
| Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge 20% | Limited synthesis and analysis. Limited application/recommendations based upon analysis. 0-9.8 | Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application. Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. 10-12.8 | Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. 13-14.8 | Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis 15-16.8 | Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge. Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations are clearly justified based on the analysis/synthesis. Applying knowledge to new situations/other cases. 17-20 |
DSGN6029_Research and Innovation_ Assessment 04
Page 6 of 9
| Content, Audience and Purpose 10% | Does not meet minimum standard Demonstrates no awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. 0 – 4.9 | Meets minimum standard Demonstrates limited awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment 5 – 6.4 | Moves beyond minimum standard Demonstrates consistent awareness of context and/or purpose of the assignment. 6.5 – 7.4 | Exceeds minimum standard Demonstrates an advanced and integrated understanding of context and/or purpose of the assignment. 7.5 – 8.4 | Exceeds minimum standard and exhibits high levels of independence Consistently demonstrates a systematic and critical understanding of context and purpose of the assignment. 8.5 -10 |
| Critical reasoning, presentation and defence of an argument and/or position 10% | Specific position (perspective or argument) fails to take into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Makes assertions that are not justified. | Specific position (perspective or argument) begins to take into account the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Justifies any conclusions reached with arguments not merely assertion. | Specific position (perspective or argument) takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Others’ points of view are acknowledged. Justifies any conclusions reached with well-formed arguments not merely assertion. | Specific position (perspective or argument) is expertly presented and accurately takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) and scope of the assignment. Justifies any conclusions reached with well developed arguments. | Specific position (perspective or argument) is presented expertly, authoritatively and imaginatively, accurately taking into account the complexities of the issue(s) and scope of the assignment. Limits of position are acknowledged. Justifies any conclusions reached with sophisticated arguments. |
DSGN6029_Research and Innovation_ Assessment 04
Page 7 of 9
| 0 – 4.9 | 5 – 6.4 | 6.5 – 7.4 | 7.5 – 8.4 | 8.5 – 10 | |
| Ethico moral reasoning (recognises ethical and moral issues within a discipline and is able to reason based on these principles) 10% | Difficulty in formulating own opinion and lack of recognition of ethical principles and competing interests. Does not clearly demonstrate moral ethical reasoning. 0 – 4.9 | Difficulty in justifying conclusions based on moral-ethical principles but recognises different viewpoints. 5 – 6.4 | Conclusions are justified based on moral-ethical principles. 6.5 – 7.4 | Formulates and justifies conclusions based on moral-ethical principles. Can recognise the competing interests in arguments and identify ethical issues embodied in them. 7.5 – 8.4 | Uses ethical principles to identify competing interests and views. Sophisticated understanding of the ethical and moral positions. Well-articulated viewpoint based on moral-ethical reasoning. 8.5 – 10 |
| Use of academic and discipline conventions and sources of evidence | Poorly written with errors in spelling, grammar. Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in using the APA style. | Is written according to academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary) and has accurate spelling, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction. Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to | Is well-written and adheres to the academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary). Demonstrates consistent use of high quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. | Is very well-written and adheres to the academic genre. Consistently demonstrates expert use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop appropriate arguments and | Expertly written and adheres to the academic genre. Demonstrates expert use of high-quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows extensive evidence of reading beyond the key |
DSGN6029_Research and Innovation_ Assessment 04
Page 8 of 9
| 10% | 0 – 4.9 | support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. There are no mistakes in using the APA style. 5 – 6.4 | There are no mistakes in using the APA style. 6.5 – 7.4 | statements. Shows evidence of reading beyond the key reading There are no mistakes in using the APA style. 7.5 – 8.4 | reading There are no mistakes in using the APA Style. 8.5 -10 |
| Effective communication | Difficult to understand for audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence. No effort is made to keep audience engaged, audience cannot follow the line of reasoning. Little use of presentation aids, or the presentation aids and material used are irrelevant. | Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical. Attempts are made to keep the audience engaged, but not always successful. Line of reasoning is often difficult to follow. Presentation aids are used more for effect than relevance. 5 – 6.4 | Information, arguments and evidence are well presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments. The audience is mostly engaged, line of reasoning is easy to follow. Effective use of presentation aids. | Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented, the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence. Engages the audience, demonstrates cultural sensitivity. Carefully and well prepared presentations aids are used. 7.5 – 8.4 | Expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments. Engages and sustains audience’s interest in the topic, demonstrates high levels of cultural sensitivity Effective use of diverse presentation aids, including graphics and multi media. 8.5 – 10 |
DSGN6029_Research and Innovation_ Assessment 04
Page 9 of 9
| 10% | 0 – 4.9 | 6.5 – 7.4 | |||
| Understanding of reflective principles and methods applicable to 10% | The focus for the reflective question(s) or basis for the project is unclear. The rationale for the peer reflection is inappropriate for the reflective question/project. 0 – 4.9 | The focus for the reflective question(s) or basis for project is clear. The rationale for the self peer reflective exercise is appropriate for the reflective question/project. 5 – 6.4 | The focus for the reflective question(s) or basis for project is clear. The rationale for the peer reflection is stated and appropriate for the reflective question/project. 6.5 – 7.4 | The focus for the reflective question(s) or basis for project is clear. The rationale for the reflective process is compared and peer reflection that is appropriate for the reflective question/project. 7.5 – 8.4 | The focus for the reflective questions(s) is clear. The rationale for the reflective process is compared and critically evaluated for both peer reflective exercises that is appropriate for the reflective question/project. 8.5 – 10 |