WRITE A FORMAL ACADEMIC REPORT

100% Pass and No Plagiarism Guaranteed

WRITE A FORMAL ACADEMIC REPORT

Objectives

Please refer to the course profile to see how this assessment item relates to the course learning outcomes.

This assignment is designed to stimulate critical thinking outside of the classroom by requiring students to write a formal academic report. You will need to follow the ARE process described in chapters 2 and 3 of Your Business Degree2(prescribedtextbook for COIT20233/COIT20249)to analyse the assessment task, research relevant information and evaluate the information you find. This information should be used to write an academic report in which you present your findings or outcomes and make recommendations for future practice Professional writing and writing reports are described in chapters 4 and 5 of Your Business Degree2.This assessment task will assess your skills in critical thinking, researching information, forming an opinion, academic writing, logical ordering of ideas and your ability to support your arguments with quotes from literature.These objectives will be measured by the ‘closeness of fit’ to meeting the assessment task, assessment requirements and assessment criteria listed below.

Please note that there is a wealth of material available on the Libguidewebsite for this course that you should use to help you gather and evaluate relevant informationforwriting your report.

Assessment task

Students are required to write an academic report as per the format outlined in chapter 5 of the textbook. The report must follow either the Harvard citation and referencing guidelinesor APA referencing style.Please note that the prescribed textbook uses APA referencing guidelines but the School of Engineering and Technology recommends Harvard style. See also the Referencing Style subsection below.

The report is to be based on the following case study scenarioabout Wearable Computers.

The last decade has seen the introduction of wearable computers. For example,smartwatchesare computerised wristwatches that have screens and functionality that is far greaterthan justdisplaying the time and date. Another example is Google Glass which is worn like a pair of spectacles. It has a touch screen and can also be controlled by voice. Wearable computers have many advantages such as, assisting with health and fitness. Smartwatches can be used to track physical activity, sleep patterns and heart rate.Google Glass can be used in medicine for a range of applications such as assisting surgeons to record operations on patients and in healthcare to provide online support from mid-wives for mothers having problems breast-feeding.

However there are also concerns about privacy and security with wearable computers. Recently smartwatches have been in the news because students have used them in exams; see written by our Melbourne-based colleague Dr Ritesh Chugh.Google Glass has been criticised for a range of issues about invading people’s privacy and secretly recording people; see

You are the ICT manager of a university based in Rockhampton. The Vice-Chancellor has asked you to research wearable computers in higher education. She is interested in finding out how wearable computers can be used in learning and teaching. She is also concerned about any possible negative effects. You are to write a report to be presented at the next executive meeting. The report should address:

What are wearable computers and how are they currently being used. You should explore a range of applications of wearable computers,for example, in areas such as healthcare, the military and entertainment.

2.Discussat least three ways that wearable computerscould be used to enhance higher education. In particularthe Vice-Chancellor would like you to explore ways wearable computers could be used to provide educationalopportunities that are not possible with current stand-alone computers.

Assess the advantages and disadvantages of using wearable computers in higher education. Explore the ethical, social and legal considerations of students being connected to the Internet through wearable computers. Examine the privacy and security concerns of using wearable computers in higher education.

Your report should conclude with recommendations for the university with respect to the implementation and use of wearable computers in higher education.

Please note that you will need to make some assumptions about the university in order to write this report. These assumptions should be incorporated in the introduction to your report when you describe the university and outline the problem to be solved.

Specifically your report should include the following:

Title page:student name, student number, email address, course code, assignment number, assignment due date, academic referencing style, campus lecturer/tutor, and course coordinator.Not counted in the word count.Note the title page must indicate which academic referencing style you have used: APA or Harvard.
Executive summary:should include the purpose of the report, the problem and how it was investigated, your findings and your recommendations.Should be approximately 300 words.
Table of Contents: should list the report topics using decimal notation. Needs to include the main headings and subheadings with corresponding page numbers, using a format that makes the hierarchy of topics clearUseMS Word’s ToC auto-generator rather than manually typing out the ToC. Instructions can be found here .Not counted in the word count.
Introduction:provide a brief description of the organisation, a concise overview of the problem you have been asked to research,the objectives to be achieved by writing the report and how you investigatedthe problem. Provide an outline of the sections of the report. Note that you will have to make assumptions about what type of organisation you are working for in this case study. Should be approximately 400 words.
Body of the report (use appropriate headings in the body of the report.): Define key terms you will use in your report, such as what is meant by ‘wearable computers’. Present your ideas on the topic and discuss the information you found in your research that was relevant to the report’s objectives.Provide an analysis of the information that you gathered. Ensure that you explore the three points listed in the scenario above. You also need to discuss the ethical, social and legal aspects surrounding this issue. In your discussion, examine the issues from a global perspective as well as from the local perspective (of the fictional university that is the centre of this report).

Please do NOT use ‘Body of the Report’ as a heading. Create meaningful headings that reflect the content of your report. Should be approximately 1200 words.

Conclusion: based on your research and analysis. Explain the significance of your findings and your discussion. State if your report has achieved its objectives.Should be approximately 550 words.
Recommendations:(based on your findings) what would your recommendations be to your Vice-Chancellor in this situation? Provide some guidelines for the university with respect to the implementation and use of wearable computers in higher education. Should beapproximately 550 words.
Reference list.Not counted in the word count.
Appendices if necessary.Not counted in the word count.

Note:Additional information regarding this assignment may be placed on the course website as required.Check the course website at least once a week for further information relating to the report. Regular access to the course website is a requirement of this course.

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 AT LEAST NINE references in addition to your set textbook (that is, 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 i.e. 2010 onwards.

The assignment should demonstrate a logical flow of discussion,be grammatically correct and 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 CentreAT LEAST ONE WEEK before the due date so that it can be checked for spelling and grammatical errors.

Referencing Style

References must be cited (in text) and a reference list provided in accordance with either the Harvard (author-date) referencing style or the APA referencing style.

Marks will be deducted for poor referencing or having less thanten (10) references or going under or over the word length.

Use quotation marks for direct quotes and you must include the author, date and page number(s) with the quote as per the referencing standards.

ALL assignments will be checked for plagiarism (material copied from other students and/or material copied from other sources) using TurnItIn.If you are found to have plagiarised material or if you have used someone else’s words without appropriate referencing, you will be penalised for plagiarism which could result in zero marks for the whole assignment. In some circumstances a more severe penalty may be imposed.

Submission

To be submitted online through the COIT20233 or COIT20249 Moodle course website assessment block on or before the due date.

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.

Assessment criteria

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 and how it was investigated - a summary of what you found and what you concluded - 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 the 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.	Some things missing from the table of contents	Includes the main headings only.	Table of contents missing.
*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. Include the problem you are addressing. 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 not all of it 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 actions to address the problem. Actions were clearly based on the findings of the report.	Most suggested actions were relevant to the problem. Actions were based on the findings of the report.	Suggested actions were somewhat relevant to the problem. Not all actions were based on the findings of the report.	Suggested some actions. Not all actions were relevant to the problem. Not all actions were based on the findings of the report.	Recommendations missing or irrelevant to the problem and/or did not relate to the findings.
*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. 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.	Title page contained all necessary information: student name, student number, email address, course code, assignment number, assignment due date, academic referencing style, campus lecturer/tutor, and course coordinator. Written expression was clear and correct; evidence of thorough proof-reading. Observed professional conventions of written English and report format. Grammarexcellent; correct use of punctuation; minimal or no spelling errors.	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. Observed professional conventions of written English and report format; made a few minor or technical errors. Grammar strong despite occasional lapses; a few spelling or punctuation errors.	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. Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made numerous errors. Grammar could be improved; errors in punctuation and spelling.	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. Needed to observe professional conventions of written English and report format; made repeated errors. Frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.	Title page missing or missing necessary information. Numerous grammatical errors which seriously detracted from understanding the writing. Evidence ofpoor planning and/or no serious revision of writing. Did not meet professional conventions of written English and report format. Frequent major errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
*References (1):*Evidence of research and analysis of the references.	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.	At least tencurrent references. Thorough referencing. Citations and reference list accurate and consistent with referencing style: · Harvard style. · APA.	At least tencurrent references A few inaccuracies with referencingstyle (Harvard or APA) for citations and/or reference list. All references listed.	At least tencurrent references Generally complete. One or two references missing. Some errors in referencing style (Harvard or APA) for citations and/or reference list.	At least tencurrent references Incomplete reference list. References not cited properly in text. Errors with referencing style (Harvard or APA).	Less than ten references. Problems with citations. Inconsistent with referencing style: · Harvard style. · APA
Length	Correct length (2500-3500 words)	Correct length (2500-3500 words)	Correct length (2500-3500 words)	Correct length (2500-3500 words)	Too long (>3500 words) or too short ( Reports in this range will receive a penalty of 5 marks.

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 and how it was investigated

- a summary of what you found and what you concluded

- 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 the 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.

Some things missing from the table of contents

Includes the main headings only.

Table of contents missing.

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. Include the problem you are addressing.

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 not all of it 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 actions to address the problem.

Actions were clearly based on the findings of the report.

Most suggested actions were relevant to the problem.

Actions were based on the findings of the report.

Suggested actions were somewhat relevant to the problem.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Title page contained all necessary information: student name, student number, email address, course code, assignment number, assignment due date, academic referencing style, campus lecturer/tutor, and course coordinator.

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

Observed professional conventions of written English and report format.

Grammarexcellent; correct use of punctuation; minimal or no spelling errors.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Grammar could be improved; errors in punctuation and spelling.

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.

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

Frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Title page missing or missing necessary information.

Numerous grammatical errors which seriously detracted from understanding the writing.

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

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

Frequent major errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

References (1):Evidence of research and analysis of the references.

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.

At least tencurrent references.

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

· Harvard style.

· APA.

At least tencurrent references

A few inaccuracies with referencingstyle (Harvard or APA) for citations and/or reference list.

All references listed.

At least tencurrent references

Generally complete. One or two references missing.

Some errors in referencing style (Harvard or APA) for citations and/or reference list.

At least tencurrent references

Incomplete reference list. References not cited properly in text.

Errors with referencing style (Harvard or APA).

Less than ten references.

Problems with citations.

Inconsistent with referencing style:

· Harvard style.

· APA

Length

Correct length (2500-3500 words)

Too long (>3500 words) or too short (

Reports in this range will receive a penalty of 5 marks.

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written,
Tailored to your instructions

International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom,
E16 2DQ

UK Registered Company # 11483120

100% Pass Guarantee

STILL NOT CONVINCED?

View our samples written by our professional writers to let you comprehend how your work is going to look like. We have categorised this into 3 categories with a few different subject domains

View Our Samples

We offer a £ 2999

If your assignment is plagiarised, we will give you £ 2999 in compensation