Final self-reflection Can I see any areas where a marker may provide constructive feedback? Are these areas that can be addressed prior to submission? What grade would I give my assignment, honestly and in reflection of this checklist? Am I comfortable with this grade? Well done on successfully completing this checklist and for finishing the assignment!

Have I edited my work closely? Pay close attention to: • Sentence structure • Paragraphing (minimum of 3 sentences to allow for idea development. Spacing in between) • Grammar • Research quality and depth • Referencing in-text and in the List of References. Have you edited a hard copy document? (This really helps to pick up areas of improvement) Have I asked someone to read my work, particularly in relation to the assignment brief? Have I read out a section of my report and recorded it for playback using my phone? This is a useful self-editing tool. Does the document look professional? Am I within the word count? (please note, I will stop marking when you exceed 10% of the word count allowance). When I submit on Turnitin/enrol, I understand I will use my full name as it appears on the roll. This is important for administration purposes.

Presentation and Referencing (15%) Have I used a minimum of 12 academic references (journal articles)? Failure to meet this standard will result in a fail grade for this assessment, as identified in the assessment brief (page 11). Have you included a caption and a source acknowledgement for all developed figures and tables? Have you included appendices where needed, and linked to these within the text of your report? (all methods appendices, a copy of your poster) Have you correctly applied APA 6th, in-text and in your reference list?

significance identified in the Introduction section to the project (as you now have findings and have addressed your aim/objectives/research questions) Do you briefly identify limitations of the study, and develop future research avenues in relation to these?

Recommendations and conclusion (15%) In your conclusion: Do you provide a concise summary of the research project’s key findings and show how you have achieved the purpose of your study? Do you examine the implications of these findings for the case business, for broader industry (applied implications) and academia (theoretical implications)? These implications should extend the

In your recommendations: Do you develop a sound set of recommendations for each major finding? Do you relate your recommendations and implementation section to the case organisation? Note this section is designed for you as a researcher to purpose and justify solutions to the situation you have investigated, for the case organisation specifically. Do you clearly show how each recommendation would be implemented by the case organisation, including key feasibility considerations and/or challenges? If alternative options are presented, do you evaluate each to show strengths and weaknesses?

Do you develop each finding in relation to data? You should be including quotes from your key informant to demonstrate each finding. Have you considered any hierarchical relationships between your findings? E.g. some findings might be considered ‘themes’ and others ‘sub-themes’ using the data analysis technique of thematic analysis. In your discussion: Is this section structured using the same sub-sections as the findings? i.e. each finding needs to be discussed. Do you develop a strong argument within your discussion about your topic area? Do you develop each finding in relation to academic literature? You can also develop findings against industry references and secondary data, but note that academic literature must remain a focus area. This could include comparing your study to findings that have been determined previously – confirmation or disconfirmation.

Results and Discussion (25%) Note, results can also be referred to as findings. In your findings: Do you briefly outline a small number of findings derived by you during your data analysis? These should be sub-sections, with an initial paragraph introducing the findings overall. Have you de-identified your key informant? (do not refer to them by name. You can refer to the organisation)

Do you use past tense in your writing? Remember these actions have already been taken by you. Do you include any secondary data collection in your methods? Ensure this is also well explained and justified. Do you refer to yourself in the third person? (‘the researcher’). Do you understand that this section is related to the actions you took as a researcher, rather than the outcomes? (e.g. you would explain and justify the technique of data analysis in this section, but not the actual findings of the study derived during data analysis). Have you considered developing a clear diagram of the research process as a tool to visualise your methods/processes?

Do you include sub-sections for sampling, data collection, data analysis, ethical considerations, and quality of research (reliability/validity)? Do you use this writing technique for each sub-section: Identification of research technique (e.g. purposive sampling) Explanation of technique (referenced) Justification of value of technique (referenced and/or linked to study) Implementation details of technique Do you provide enough detail that the study can be replicated? Do you refer to, at minimum, the appendices of your interview questions, transcript/s, informed consent form? All appendices are cited in-text within the narrative of the report, and are then included in the appendices section of your report. Methods and Processes (15%)

Does your literature review start with a broad topic to position your study within a body of knowledge, and then progress through more focused topics towards your specific area of investigation? Does your literature review culminate in the argument of a ‘gap’ in knowledge? This means an area that needs further investigation, and should link nicely with your current study.

Literature Review (15%) Overall, have you strongly evaluated a body of knowledge related to your topic area? This means your writing in this section is evaluative (evaluating studies, comparing knowledge, drawing on similarities and differences in study findings) rather than descriptive (explaining knowledge). Do you use sub-sections to show the development of your literature review? Do you reference major theories/studies in your body of knowledge? Does your literature review prioritise academic literature? Credible industry references can be used elsewhere in your report, but this section focuses on published, peer-reviewed academic literature.

Introduction, research aims and objectives (15%) Does your report strongly argue the significance of completing this study as sub-section 1.3? This should be related to the value for the case management/broader industry, academia and yourself as a researcher. Literature should be used here to create strong arguments. In section 1.4, does your report outline what is to come in the following sections? (e.g., “a literature review will be provided in section 2, to evaluate…”)

Does your report develop a succinct understanding of the research problem or situation you have investigated? This should occur in sub-section 1.1. Does your report also provide essential information about the case (hotel) in sub-section 1.1? Does the report position the targeted research problem against literature? Note that this could include credible industry references. Does your report clearly state a singular research aim? This should occur in sub-section 1.2. Does your report clearly identify three (3) research objectives or research questions in section 1.2? This shows smaller manageable tasks that allow you to meet your research aim.

MHC611 Independent Critical Analysis Project: Self-Edit Checklist Marking Rubric Criteria Checklist Yes/No Overall considerations Is your report formatted against the structure guidelines provided to you in the Assessment Resources folder on SharePoint? Have your reviewed the assessment brief to ensure your understanding of the task is sound?

Presentation and Referencing (15%) Unstructured presentation/ lacks coherence Failure to meet minimum referencing requirements Attempt made at coherent presentation, but ideas not well integrated Citations frequently missing and/or not in correct APA 6th style Good structure and presentation, however minor problems exist Citations are occasionally missing and/or not in correct APA 6th style Clear structure and presentation of appropriate length Citations mostly correct Well-structured and organised with clearly defined line of reasoning. Citations are present for all key points and in correct APA 6th style Mark range out of 100 0- 49.5 50 - 64 65 -74 75-84 85+

Results and Discussion (25%) Data analysis and results are irrelevant to research topic and poorly analysed Failure to meet minimum referencing requirements Data analysis and results are somewhat relevant to research topic and somewhat analysed Data analysis and results are relevant to research topic and analysed Data analysis and results are very relevant to research topic and demonstrates critical analysis Data analysis and results are highly relevant to research topic and demonstrates coherent critical analysis and problem solving Recommendations and conclusion (15%) Only basic issues used in reaching a conclusion, and those are insufficient. Limited recommendations integrated. Few of the relevant issues used as a basis for reaching a conclusion. Few recommendations integrated but not well analysed for feasibility. Partial review of relevant issues in reaching a conclusion. Some recommendations integrated and analyzed for feasibility. Most relevant issues reviewed in arriving at a conclusion. Sound recommendations integrated and analysed for feasibility. All relevant issues reviewed in arriving at a conclusion. Recommendations are comprehensively analysed for feasibility.

Literature Review (15%) Literature review is poorly developed, disorganised and/or irrelevant to research topic Failure to meet minimum referencing requirements Literature review is poorly organised with some relevance to research topic with little independent analysis Literature review is somewhat organised with relevance to research topic and demonstrates some level of independent analysis Literature review is organised with sound relevance to research topic and demonstrates good level of independent analysis Literature review is well organised with excellent relevance to research topic and demonstrates high level of independent analysis Methodology (15%) Methodology is flawed with limited justification of research methods and not effective Failure to meet minimum referencing requirements Methodology is somewhat pragmatic and poorly justified through research methods and somewhat effective Methodology is pragmatic and justified through research methods and effective Methodology is pragmatic and well justified through research methods and effective Methodology is pragmatic and strongly justified through research methods and strongly effective

REPORT (100%) Introduction, research aims and objectives (15%) Research aims and objectives are developed through no critical and conceptual analysis of subject matter, with total reliance on others' work Failure to meet minimum referencing requirements Research aims and objectives are developed through little critical and conceptual analysis of subject matter, with considerable reliance on easy and readily available solutions or arguments Research aims and objectives are developed through limited critical and conceptual analysis of issues, with tendency to rely on others' arguments or solutions Research aims and objectives are developed through sound critical and conceptual analysis of the issue Research aims and objectives are developed through sophisticated critical and conceptual analysis of issues

Submission guidelines • Typed in format specified and to be submitted in electronic form as a word- processed file to before 9am, Monday Week 10. • PDF documents are not an acceptable file type. • A school assessment cover sheet plus the marking guide to be included with your paper. • Please note that plagiarism is a serious academic offence. Please see the Academic Integrity Policy for a better understanding on how plagiarism is detected and can be prevented.

2. Literature Review What you are doing in the literature review is developing a research framework for understanding and interpreting the research issue you are investigating. You do this by undertaking a literature review of the published academic research and credible industry sources, and by an explanation of the ideas and concepts that have relevance to your business situation. This is an evaluative piece of writing demonstrating familiarity with a body of knowledge. Your review relies on your capacity to critically interpret existing knowledge, compare and contrast credible perspectives on concept areas, and build an informed, logically developed argument about a topic. To supplement academic references, credible industry sources can be integrated to contextualize the industry environment of your identified business situation, strengthen your developing argument about the topic area and evaluate relevant industry knowledge.

Executive Summary * not included in the word count Summary of all essential content in the report including background to the problem, purpose of report, research methods, main findings, recommendations; 10% of total word count (500 words for a 5,000 word report). The Executive Summary is not part of the overall assessment word count. Table of Contents * not included in the word count List of Tables * not included in the word count List of Figures * not included in the word count 1. Background and Introduction Background Context Develop a succinct understanding of the organisational problem or situation you have investigated, including all essential information about the case organisation and a positioning of the problem against existing theoretical knowledge. Research Problem, Research Purpose, Aims & Objectives What are you being asked to do? What is your report targeting, specifically? Significance of the Research Scope of Report - what major sections and sub-sections are involved in your report? (Tell the reader what is to come)

Structural Layout: An Academic Report method calls for subdivision of the information into several distinct parts. The logic of this format is to give the reader the purpose and objectives of your report, then a short summary and resume of your facts and of your arguments, lay out the research base as referenced facts, and finally combining the facts with your own reasoning in discussion to reach a conclusion and put forward recommendations for action. A reference list follows along with any other material held as appendices to the Report. You should start with a title page, which shows the date, the title of the Report, the name of the course, and school. The title page should also give the names of the sender along with the name of the lecturer to whom it is addressed.

The final report (Due Monday Week 10, 9am) Your final report constitutes a major project deliverable, in terms of the information, conclusions, and recommendations it contains. Therefore, it is imperative that your final report is totally professional in terms of structure, content, writing style, depth of analysis, and overall presentation. In a commercial setting a final project report does more than simply report facts, findings, and recommendations. It creates a profile for its authors by virtue of its excellence of presentation, and professionalism of its contents and reporting style. (Just keep this in mind; many students who have done Business Reports have taken a copy of their final project report to job interviews, to show their prospective employer the quality of work they are capable of.)

Please note that additional means of collecting primary data, including interviews with other staff and additional face-to-face meetings with your key informant beyond the two identified above, are not allowed in this unit due to BMIHMS at TUA ethics restrictions. This is non-negotiable.

In this capstone subject, students have the opportunity to demonstrate the core attributes of written communication, information literacy, synthesis of complex information, and logical and critical thinking. This is achieved by completing a substantive piece of analysis, supported by research and based on experiential learning and the analysis of an actual business situation and/or contemporary topic that has significance to industry. Prerequisite: Students must have completed MHC607 Business Research Methods prior to undertaking this subject.

THE TOPIC: - THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF THE STAFF HIGH TURNOVER RATE ON THE HOUSEKEEPING PERFORMANCE A CASE STUDY OF MERITON SUITE CHATSWOOD - Literature Review must have 2500 words. - Methodology : + Case study apply + Qualitative + Context analysis - Data analysis method: + Thematic analysis