Task You are required to write a structured research brief analysing how modern businesses use cloud-based Business Information Systems (BIS) and Internet of Things (IoT) to enhance operations. You are expected to: Demonstrate an underst

ASSESSMENT GUIDE

ICT501 Business Information Systems

Semester 1, 2026

Assessment Overview

Assessment ID	Assessment Item	When due	Weighting	ULO#	CLO# for MITS	CLO# for GDITS	CLO# for GCITS
1	Presentation (Individual)	Session 5	20%	1, 2	1, 3	1, 3	1, 3
2	Case Study (Individual) (1000 Words)	Session 9	30%	1, 2, 3	1, 2, 3	1, 2, 3	1, 2, 3
3*	Project Report and Presentation (Group) (2000 Words)	Session 12	50%	1, 4, 5	1, 3, 4, 5	1, 3, 4, 5	1, 3, 4, 5

Note: * denotes 'Hurdle Assessment Item' that students must achieve at least 40% in this item to pass the unit.

Referencing Guides

You must reference all the sources of information you have used in your assessments. Please use the IEEE referencing style when referencing in your assessments in this unit. Refer to the library's referencing guides for more information.

• https://elearning.vit.edu.au/pluginfile.php/473840/block_html/content/VIT%20Library%20Referencing%20-%20IEEE%20-%2007042020.pdf

Academic Misconduct

VIT enforces that the integrity of its students' academic studies follows an acceptable level of excellence. VIT will adhere to its VIT Policies, Procedures and Forms where it explains the importance of staff and student honesty in relation to academic work. It outlines the kinds of behaviours that are "academic misconduct", including plagiarism.

Late Submissions

In cases where there are no accepted mitigating circumstances as determined through VIT Policies, Procedures and Forms, late submission of assessments will lead automatically to the imposition of a penalty. Penalties will be applied as soon as the deadline is reached.

Short Extensions and Special Consideration

Special Consideration is a request for:

• Extensions of the due date for an assessment, other than an examination (e.g. assignment extension).
• Special Consideration (Special Consideration in relation to a Completed assessment, including an end-of-unit Examination).

Students wishing to request Special Consideration in relation to an assessment the due date of which has not yet passed must engage in written emails to the teaching team to Request for Special Consideration as early as possible and prior to start time of the assessment due date, along with any accompanying documents, such as medical certificates.

For more information, visit VIT Policies, Procedures and Forms.

Inclusive and Equitable Assessment

Reasonable adjustment in assessment methods will be made to accommodate students with a documented disability or impairment. Contact the unit teaching team for more information.

Contract Cheating

Contract cheating usually involves the purchase of an assignment or piece of research from another party. This may be facilitated by a fellow student, friend or purchased on a website. Other forms of contract cheating include paying another person to sit an exam in the student's place.

Contract cheating warning:

• By paying someone else to complete your academic work, you don't learn as much as you could have if you did the work yourself.
• You are not prepared for the demands of your future employment.
• You could be found guilty of academic misconduct.
• Many of the cheating companies recycle assignments despite guarantees of "Original, plagiarism-free work" so similarity is easily detected by TurnItIn.
• Penalties for academic misconduct include suspension and exclusion.
• Students in some disciplines are required to disclose any findings of guilt for academic misconduct before being accepted into certain professions (e.g., law).
• You might disclose your personal and financial information in an unsafe way, leaving yourself open to many risks including possible identity theft.
• You also leave yourself open to blackmail – if you pay someone else to do an assignment for you, they know you have engaged in fraudulent behaviour and can always blackmail you.

Grades

We determine your grades to the following Grading Scheme:

Grade	Percentage
A	80% – 100%
B	70% – 79%
C	60% – 69%
D	50% – 59%
F	0% – 49%

 

 

Assessment Details for Assessment Item 1: Overview

Assessment ID	Assessment Item	When due	Weighting	ULO#	CLO# for MITS	CLO# for GDITS	CLO# for GCITS
1	Presentation (Individual)	Session 5	20%	1, 2	1, 3	1, 3	1, 3

 

ASSESSMENT ITEM 1: Individual Research Brief – BIS in the Age of Cloud and IoT

Word Count: 1500 (+/-10%)

Task

You are required to write a structured research brief analysing how modern businesses use cloud-based Business Information Systems (BIS) and Internet of Things (IoT) to enhance operations. You are expected to:

• Demonstrate an understanding of how BIS and IoT technologies operate and are deployed in different industries.
• Explore the strategic and operational roles of these systems in enhancing business performance.
• Integrate academic research and real-world data to show how theory is applied in practical settings.
• Examine how BIS and IoT technologies are transforming decision-making, service delivery, automation, and data analytics in business environments.
• Include examples from published case studies and scholarly literature.

Your brief should not just describe these technologies, but critically evaluate their benefits, limitations, and application contexts, supported by high-quality references and business cases.

Structure Guidelines

1. Introduction (approx. 200-250 words)

• Define BIS, cloud computing, and IoT
• State the purpose of the brief and key points you will address

2. Strategic and Operational Benefits (approx. 400-500 words)

• Explain how BIS and IoT contribute to real-time decision-making, automation, efficiency, and customer engagement
• Link these technologies to business strategy and competitive advantage

3. Risks and Limitations (approx. 300-400 words)

• Discuss risks such as data security, cost, dependency on vendors, and system integration challenges
• Include considerations for SMEs versus large enterprises

4. Case Studies (approx. 300-400 words)

Include two real-world examples of companies using cloud BIS and/or IoT. Suggested case studies include:

• Walmart: use of cloud-based BIS and IoT technologies for supply chain visibility, stock control, logistics coordination, and customer service improvement
• Tesla: use of connected devices, cloud systems, and real-time data for vehicle monitoring, predictive maintenance, software updates, and service optimisation

For each case study, learners should:

• describe the business context
• identify the BIS and/or IoT tools used
• explain how these technologies were implemented
• evaluate the outcomes achieved, including both benefits and limitations

5. Conclusion and Recommendations (approx. 150-200 words)

• Summarise the main findings
• Recommend how businesses should approach BIS and IoT adoption strategically and responsibly

6. References

• Minimum 6 scholarly or industry sources
• Use IEEE referencing style

Marking Rubrics

Criteria	Excellent (80%+) (High Distinction) (90% of criteria mark)	Good (70-80%) (Distinction) (75% of criteria mark)	Average (60-70%) (Credit) (65% of criteria mark)	Borderline (50-60%) (Pass) (55% of criteria mark)	Poor (40-50%) (Fail) (45% of criteria mark)	0 Marks
Depth of Research (5 Marks)	4.5 Marks – Demonstrates an excellent understanding of AI trends in corporate training. Engages deeply with academic and industry sources.	3.75 Marks – Strong understanding of AI in training with relevant examples but lacks depth in some areas.	3.25 Marks – Adequate discussion of AI in training but limited exploration of cutting-edge applications.	2.75 Marks – Basic knowledge of AI with minimal discussion of its role in training. Some generalisations.	2.25 Marks – Poor understanding of AI in training with little to no relevant information.	No submission or entirely off-topic.
Critical Analysis (5 Marks)	4.5 Marks – AI integration strategies are exceptionally well-reasoned, demonstrating deep critical thinking. Strong evaluation of future trends.	3.75 Marks – Well-reasoned AI integration strategies with a good evaluation of future trends. Some minor gaps in critical analysis.	3.25 Marks – AI integration ideas are present but lack depth. Future trends discussed but not critically evaluated.	2.75 Marks – Superficial analysis with unclear AI integration strategies. Future trends mentioned but not well developed.	2.25 Marks – Weak or no critical analysis. AI integration and future trends are vague or missing.	No submission or entirely off-topic.
Use of Evidence (5 Marks)	4.5 Marks – Uses high-quality academic sources, industry reports, and real-world case studies effectively. Strong citations throughout.	3.75 Marks – Uses good academic and industry sources with clear citations, though some areas could be more robust.	3.25 Marks – Relies on a mix of academic and non-academic sources. Some citations may be missing or weak.	2.75 Marks – Limited academic sources. Weak or inconsistent citations. Heavy reliance on non-academic sources.	2.25 Marks – Little to no supporting evidence. Few or no citations.	No submission or clear plagiarism.
Clarity & Professionalism (2 Marks)	1.8 Marks – Exceptionally clear, well-structured report with professional writing. Presentation is polished and engaging.	1.5 Marks – Well-structured and clear, but some minor issues with professionalism or clarity.	1.3 Marks – Generally clear, but some structural inconsistencies. Writing may lack precision.	1.1 Marks – Noticeable writing and structural issues affecting readability.	0.9 Marks – Poorly structured, difficult to follow, and unprofessional.	No submission or unreadable.
Use of AI in Report (3 Marks)	2.7 Marks – Outstanding use of AI tools for content generation, analysis, or visualization. Clearly explained in the report.	2.25 Marks – Effective use of AI tools with minor gaps in explanation or application.	1.95 Marks – Some AI tools used, but limited explanation or impact on the report.	1.65 Marks – Minimal AI use with little clarity on how it contributed to the report.	1.35 Marks – AI tools not used or their application is unclear.	No submission or AI misused (e.g., excessive AI-generated content without critical engagement).

 

 

Assessment 2: Data Visualisation Task – eCommerce Dashboard Design

Assessment ID	Assessment Item	When due	Weighting	ULO#	CLO# for MITS	CLO# for GDITS	CLO# for GCITS
2	Case Study (Individual) (1000 Words)	Session 9	30%	1, 2, 3	1, 2, 3	1, 2, 3	1, 2, 3

 

Task

In this assessment, learners are required to design an eCommerce dashboard interface that supports business decision-making in an online retail environment. The dashboard should be based on mock data, provided data, or a self-created sample dataset that reflects realistic business operations.

The dashboard may be developed using Power BI, Tableau, Excel, or another suitable visualisation tool. A hand-drawn dashboard concept is also acceptable, provided it is clear, professional, and logically structured. The dashboard must demonstrate how Business Information Systems (BIS) can support reporting, performance monitoring, and decision-making in eCommerce.

The accompanying written report should explain the dashboard design, justify the selected visualisations and key performance indicators (KPIs), describe the BIS environment behind the dashboard, and critically discuss the ethical and governance issues related to the use of business data.

A visual of the dashboard must be embedded in the work or attached as an appendix.

Business Scenario

Assume you are designing a dashboard for an online retail business manager who needs to monitor sales performance, customer behaviour, and operational trends. Your dashboard should help the business make informed decisions about marketing effectiveness, customer engagement, and sales improvement.

1. Introduction (approx. 150 words)

• Introduce the purpose of the dashboard.
• Briefly explain the eCommerce business context.
• State what the dashboard is designed to achieve for decision-makers.

2. Dashboard Design Description (approx. 300-400 words)

• Describe the layout and key sections of your dashboard.
• Explain the purpose of each feature or visual element.
• Justify the use of different visualisation types such as bar charts, line graphs, pie charts, tables, heat maps, slicers, or filters.
• Explain how the dashboard supports business users in interpreting performance quickly and effectively.

3. KPIs and Business Significance (approx. 200 words)

Identify the main KPIs displayed in the dashboard, such as:

• total sales
• conversion rate
• abandoned cart rate
• customer retention
• average order value
• top-selling products

Explain why these KPIs are important for eCommerce decision-making.

4. BIS Architecture and Integration (approx. 200-250 words)

Explain where the dashboard data originates from, such as:

• eCommerce platform
• CRM system
• inventory database
• payment system
• web analytics tools
• Describe how data flows through the BIS environment.
• Explain how data is collected, transformed, and presented in the dashboard.

5. Ethical and Data Governance Considerations (approx. 200-250 words)

Critically discuss issues such as:

• customer privacy
• consent and responsible data collection
• data accuracy and reporting reliability
• user access control
• dashboard misuse or misinterpretation
• Explain why governance matters in digital reporting environments.

6. Conclusion (approx. 100 words)

• Summarise the value of the dashboard.
• Briefly highlight areas for future improvement.

7. References

• Use IEEE referencing style.
• Include at least 4 relevant academic or industry sources.

Submission Requirements

• Submit a written report of approximately 1000 words.
• Include a visual of your dashboard within the work or as an appendix.
• Ensure the dashboard is clearly labelled and professionally presented.
• The work should demonstrate both technical understanding and business insight.

Suggested Dashboard Metrics

Your dashboard may include, but is not limited to, the following metrics:

• total revenue
• number of orders
• average order value
• conversion rate
• cart abandonment rate
• return rate
• customer retention rate
• best-performing product categories

Marking Rubrics

Criteria	Excellent (80%+) (High Distinction) (90% of criteria mark)	Good (70-80%) (Distinction) (75% of criteria mark)	Average (60-70%) (Credit) (65% of criteria mark)	Borderline (50-60%) (Pass) (55% of criteria mark)	Poor (40-50%) (Fail) (45% of criteria mark)	0 Marks
Identify Benefits (6 Marks)	5.4 Marks – Clearly identifies multiple well-explained benefits of business analytics with strong supporting examples and industry relevance.	4.5 Marks – Identifies key benefits with good explanations and relevant examples but lacks some depth.	3.9 Marks – Identifies some benefits with limited explanation or real-world examples.	3.3 Marks – Identifies benefits but lacks depth in explanation, with generic points.	2.7 Marks – Benefits are vague, unclear, or missing, with little to no explanation.	No submission or entirely off-topic.
Discuss the Challenges (6 Marks)	5.4 Marks – Provides a detailed discussion of challenges with critical analysis and industry-specific examples.	4.5 Marks – Discusses relevant challenges with good analysis but lacks depth in some areas.	3.9 Marks – Identifies challenges but with limited depth or critical evaluation.	3.3 Marks – Mentions challenges but lacks a clear discussion or supporting examples.	2.7 Marks – Challenges are vague or missing, with little critical thought.	No submission or entirely off-topic.
Present 1-2 Case Studies (6 Marks)	5.4 Marks – Presents 1-2 well-researched, relevant case studies with strong analysis and supporting data.	4.5 Marks – Presents relevant case studies with good analysis but lacks supporting details or real-world application.	3.9 Marks – Provides case studies but with limited analysis or depth.	3.3 Marks – Mentions case studies but lacks clarity or proper discussion.	2.7 Marks – Case studies are unclear, irrelevant, or missing.	No submission or entirely off-topic.
Analyze Emerging Trends (5 Marks)	4.5 Marks – Insightful analysis of emerging trends in business analytics with strong evidence and real-world relevance.	3.75 Marks – Identifies key emerging trends with good analysis but lacks some depth.	3.25 Marks – Provides basic discussion on trends with limited analysis or examples.	2.75 Marks – Mentions trends but lacks sufficient discussion or real-world relevance.	2.25 Marks – Emerging trends are unclear, outdated, or missing.	No submission or entirely off-topic.
References in IEEE format (7 Marks)	6.3 Marks – Uses high-quality academic and industry sources, properly formatted in IEEE style with no errors.	5.25 Marks – Uses good sources with mostly correct IEEE citations but minor formatting mistakes.	4.55 Marks – Uses a mix of academic and non-academic sources; citations have multiple errors.	3.85 Marks – Limited use of credible sources; IEEE citation format is weak or inconsistent.	3.15 Marks – Few or no references; IEEE formatting is incorrect or absent.	No references or clear plagiarism.
Penalty: Plagiarism/Absenteeism — 0 Marks (if plagiarism detected or absent from discussion)

 

 

ASSESSMENT ITEM 3: Group BIS Solution Report and Implementation Discussion

Overview

Assessment ID	Assessment Item	When due	Weighting	ULO#	CLO# for MITS	CLO# for GDITS	CLO# for GCITS
3	Project Report and Presentation (Group) (2000 Words)	Session 12	50%	1, 4, 5	1, 3, 4, 5	1, 3, 4, 5	1, 3, 4, 5

 

Task

In this group assessment, learners are required to analyse, design, and recommend a feasible Business Information System (BIS) solution for a real-world organisation based on the given scenario. Each group will submit a detailed written report and participate in a recorded group discussion to justify and defend its proposed solution and implementation approach.

The assessment is designed to evaluate the group's ability to identify BIS challenges, examine risks, apply emerging technologies, and recommend an integrated solution that improves business performance, operational efficiency, and customer experience.

Scenario: Woolworths Group – Retail Business Information Systems

Woolworths Group is one of Australia's largest retail organisations, operating supermarkets, online platforms, and extensive supply chain networks across the country. The organisation is currently facing challenges in integrating its online and physical retail operations due to outdated systems, delayed access to business data, and limited visibility across sales, inventory, and customer channels.

The leadership team is seeking a strategy to modernise its Business Information Systems in order to improve operational efficiency, support better decision-making, and enhance customer satisfaction. This includes upgrading point-of-sale systems, integrating supply chain tracking, improving cross-channel data visibility, and leveraging artificial intelligence to better understand customer purchasing patterns and support predictive inventory planning.

Your group is required to analyse Woolworths' BIS gaps, identify cybersecurity and data flow risks, and design a practical solution that integrates modern technologies and supports business improvement.

Assessment Components

Part A: Group Report (25 marks)

Your group must prepare a 2000-word report addressing the following three areas:

1. The Role of Data Analytics in Woolworths' BIS

• Explain how Woolworths can use data analytics to improve business performance.
• Discuss the role of predictive analytics, dashboards, customer behaviour analysis, and trend data in supporting decision-making, inventory planning, and operational efficiency.
• Show how these tools can support both strategic and day-to-day business activities.

2. Cybersecurity Challenges

Identify major cybersecurity risks across Woolworths' BIS environment, such as:

• point-of-sale systems
• mobile applications
• supplier systems
• customer data platforms
• online transactions

Propose appropriate controls and risk mitigation strategies, such as:

• access controls
• encryption
• authentication mechanisms
• monitoring and incident response
• recognised cybersecurity frameworks such as ISO 27001 or the NIST Cybersecurity Framework

3. Impact of Emerging Technologies

Critically evaluate how emerging technologies can strengthen Woolworths' BIS. You may consider technologies such as:

• blockchain for supply chain traceability
• edge computing for store-level data processing
• artificial intelligence for demand forecasting, personalisation, and customer insights

Discuss the practical benefits, implementation challenges, and business value of these technologies.

Recommended Report Structure

1. Introduction (approx. 200 words)

• Introduce Woolworths and the purpose of the report.
• Briefly summarise the BIS issues facing the organisation.
• Outline the key areas that will be analysed.

2. BIS Gaps and Organisational Challenges (approx. 300-400 words)

• Explain the current BIS limitations in the scenario.
• Discuss issues such as fragmented systems, slow data access, limited cross-channel integration, and operational inefficiencies.

3. The Role of Data Analytics in Woolworths' BIS (approx. 450-500 words)

• Analyse how dashboards, predictive analytics, and customer trend analysis can support business performance.
• Explain the value of data-driven decisions in retail operations.

4. Cybersecurity Challenges and Risk Controls (approx. 400-450 words)

• Identify the major cybersecurity threats in Woolworths' BIS environment.
• Recommend practical security controls, governance mechanisms, and frameworks.

5. Emerging Technologies and BIS Innovation (approx. 400-450 words)

• Evaluate how technologies such as AI, blockchain, and edge computing can improve Woolworths' systems.
• Consider both opportunities and implementation limitations.

6. Recommendations and Implementation Priorities (approx. 200-250 words)

• Present clear, practical recommendations for Woolworths.
• Suggest implementation priorities and explain how the proposed BIS improvements can be introduced effectively.

7. Conclusion (approx. 100-150 words)

• Summarise the main findings of the report.
• Reinforce the value of a modern, integrated BIS solution for Woolworths.

8. References

• Use IEEE referencing style.
• Include relevant academic and industry sources to support your analysis.

Part B: Recorded Group Discussion (25 marks)

Each group must conduct a 20-minute recorded discussion using Zoom or Microsoft Teams.

Requirements

• All group members must participate.

The discussion must be based on the three core report areas:

• data analytics
• cybersecurity challenges
• emerging technologies

The discussion should demonstrate:

• individual contribution
• critical engagement with the scenario
• the ability to justify and defend the group's proposed BIS solution

Important Note

This component is a discussion, not a presentation.

If the group records a slide-based presentation instead of a discussion, the group will receive 0 marks for this component.

Part C: Individual Self-Reflection

Each learner must submit an individual 300-word reflection outlining:

• their specific role in the group
• their contribution to the report and discussion
• challenges faced during the task
• lessons learned from the group project experience

This reflection is intended to show personal engagement, accountability, and insight into collaborative work.

Submission Requirements

• Submit one group report of 2000 words
• Submit one 20-minute recorded group discussion
• Submit one individual 300-word reflection per group member
• Use IEEE referencing style
• Ensure the work is analytical, realistic, and clearly linked to the Woolworths scenario

Suggested Supporting Sources

[1] D. Grewal, "Leveraging In-Store Technology and AI: Increasing Efficiency and Innovation in Retail," Journal of Retailing, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 143-160, 2023.

[2] Y. Adulyasak, M. C. Cohen, W. Khern-am-nuai, and M. Krause, "Retail Analytics in the New Normal: The Influence of Artificial Intelligence and the COVID-19 Pandemic," arXiv preprint, arXiv:2312.00046, 2023.

[3] H. A. Mohamed, A. Ramadan, M. Magdy, R. Abdelwahab, S. Ashraf, and Z. Mohamed, "Revolutionizing Retail Analytics: Advancing Inventory and Customer Insight with AI," arXiv preprint, arXiv:2405.00023, 2024.

Marking Rubric – Group Report (25 Marks)

Criteria	Excellent (80%+) (High Distinction) (90% of criteria mark)	Good (70-80%) (Distinction) (75% of criteria mark)	Average (60-70%) (Credit) (65% of criteria mark)	Borderline (50-60%) (Pass) (55% of criteria mark)	Poor (40-50%) (Fail) (45% of criteria mark)	0 Marks
Data Analytics in BIS (6 Marks)	5.4 – In-depth analysis of analytics in Woolworths BIS with strong real-world examples	4.5 – Strong explanation with minor gaps	3.9 – Moderate detail, some unclear applications	3.3 – Superficial explanation	2.7 – Vague or incorrect	Off-topic or missing
Cybersecurity Analysis (6 Marks)	5.4 – Comprehensive analysis with justifiable solutions and standards (ISO/NIST)	4.5 – Good discussion, but lacks detail in frameworks or examples	3.9 – Identifies risks but with general solutions	3.3 – Mentions risks vaguely	2.7 – Minimal or irrelevant content	Off-topic or missing
Emerging Technology Impact (6 Marks)	5.4 – Clear evaluation of relevant technologies with specific retail applications	4.5 – Identifies relevant tech with limited depth	3.9 – Surface-level connections	3.3 – Mentions technologies without connection	2.7 – Misunderstands or omits technologies	Off-topic or missing
Structure & Writing (4 Marks)	3.6 – Clear, logical, professional, minimal errors	3.0 – Generally clear, minor formatting issues	2.6 – Some structure but not polished	2.2 – Poor structure affecting readability	1.8 – Unstructured and hard to follow	No submission
IEEE Referencing (3 Marks)	2.7 – Accurate IEEE style, minimum 6 sources	2.25 – Mostly correct with minor errors	1.95 – Some errors and missing sources	1.65 – Weak and inconsistent format	1.35 – Incorrect or insufficient	No references or plagiarism

 

Group Discussion Mark Rubric

Criteria	Excellent (80%+) (High Distinction) (90% of criteria mark)	Good (70-80%) (Distinction) (75% of criteria mark)	Average (60-70%) (Credit) (65% of criteria mark)	Borderline (50-60%) (Pass) (55% of criteria mark)	Poor (40-50%) (Fail) (45% of criteria mark)	0 Marks
Quality of Points Contributed (6 Marks)	5.4 Marks – Provides well-researched, insightful, and relevant points that add significant value to the discussion. Supports arguments with strong evidence and real-world examples.	4.5 Marks – Contributes relevant and well-reasoned points but lacks depth in some areas. Provides some supporting evidence.	3.9 Marks – Shares relevant ideas but with limited depth or supporting evidence.	3.3 Marks – Provides basic points but lacks clarity, depth, or clear understanding.	2.7 Marks – Contributions are minimal, vague, or repetitive, showing little understanding.	No contribution or entirely off-topic.
Active Participation and Engagement (5 Marks)	4.5 Marks – Engages actively throughout the discussion, listens attentively, asks insightful questions, and responds effectively to group members.	3.75 Marks – Engages well, asks relevant questions, and responds to others, though with minor lapses in attentiveness.	3.25 Marks – Participates but with limited engagement or responses to other group members.	2.75 Marks – Speaks occasionally but shows minimal effort in engaging with the discussion.	2.25 Marks – Barely participates, does not contribute to group interactions, or is disengaged.	No participation.
Clarity and Communication (4 Marks)	3.6 Marks – Communicates ideas clearly and confidently with strong articulation, logical flow, and professionalism.	3.0 Marks – Expresses ideas clearly, but some points lack structure or precision.	2.6 Marks – Communicates adequately, though with occasional hesitations or unclear explanations.	2.2 Marks – Struggles with clarity, often presenting ideas in a confusing manner.	1.8 Marks – Poor communication with unclear or disorganized speech.	No contribution.
Self-Reflection Submission (4 Marks)	3.6 Marks – Provides a highly detailed and thoughtful self-reflection, discussing key takeaways, strengths, and areas for improvement.	3.0 Marks – Submits a good self-reflection, covering key points but lacking depth in self-analysis.	2.6 Marks – Submits a self-reflection but with limited analysis of personal contribution and learning.	2.2 Marks – Reflection is vague, lacks detail, or does not address key points of the assessment.	1.8 Marks – Minimal or incomplete self-reflection with little personal insight.	No self-reflection submitted.
Group Cohesion & Collaboration (3 Marks)	2.7 Marks – Works exceptionally well with the team, encourages balanced participation, builds on others' ideas, and fosters a productive discussion environment.	2.25 Marks – Engages well with the team, responds to others' contributions, and helps maintain group dynamics.	1.95 Marks – Interacts with team members but does not significantly contribute to group cohesion.	1.65 Marks – Minimal effort in working with others; does not engage much with group dynamics.	1.35 Marks – Does not work well with the team, disrupts discussion, or fails to collaborate.	No participation in group cohesion.