[SOLVED] FIT5125/4005 Semester 2 2025 Assignment 2

FIT5125/4005 Semester 2, 2025

IT Research and Innovation Methods

Assignment 2

This assignment uses the Monash University standard grading schema, see: https://publicpolicydms.monash.edu/Monash/documents/1935755

N (Fail(	P (Pass)	C (Credit)	D (Distinction)	HD (High Distinction)
Lack of satisfactory demonstration of fundamental knowledge, skills and expected attributes.	Demonstration of fundamental knowledge, skills and attributes at a satisfactory level.	Demonstration of fundamental knowledge, skills and attributes at a proficient level, showing fluency in concepts	Demonstration of extended knowledge, skills and attributes at a superior level, showing fluency and emerging originality and integration of concepts	Demonstration of extended knowledge, skills and attributes at an exceptional level, showing fluency, originality and integration of concepts.
0-49%	50-59%	60-69%	70-79%	80-100%

Task A: “Descriptive Analysis of Kluster Conditions” (13.5 marks / 30%)

● Research Question

○    Clear, specific, and testable research question

○    Appropriately focused on differences between the four experimental conditions

○    Relevant to participant engagement and interaction patterns in the Kluster system

○    Demonstrates understanding of the study context

● Descriptive Metrics

○    Selection of appropriate descriptive metrics that reveal meaningful differences across conditions

○    Correct calculation of metrics for all four conditions

○    Clear presentation of variables/fields used from the dataset

○    Appropriate justification for why these metrics were chosen

○ Metrics are relevant to the research question

● Visualization

○ Appropriate chart type for the data and research question

○ A clear comparison of all four experimental conditions

○ Fully annotated (title, axis labels, legend, units)

○ Visually clear and easy to interpret

○ Professional presentation quality

● Narrative Description

○    Clear connection between findings and the research question

○    Effective integration of both metrics and visualisation in the narrative

○    Thoughtful discussion of what the differences/similarities suggest about participant behaviour

○    Connection to implications for designing better collaboration systems

○    Coherent and well-structured writing

Task B: “Inferential Analysis of Communication Patterns” (13.5 marks / 30%)

● Hypothesis Formulation

○    A clear formulation and expression of the research hypothesis

○    The hypothesis is testable using inferential statistics

○ Realistic to test with the provided data

○ Relevant to communication patterns in Kluster

○    The null hypothesis is correctly stated

● Variable Identification

○ Independent variable(s) correctly identified

○ Dependent variable(s) correctly identified

○    Relevant confounding variables have been identified

○    A clear understanding of the relationships between variables

● Statistical Approach

○    Appropriate statistical test(s) selected for the hypothesis and data

○    Clear articulation of assumptions about the data (normality, independence, scale of measurement, etc.)

○    Strong justification for why the chosen test(s) are appropriate

○    Demonstrates understanding of statistical concepts

●    Statistical Results and Interpretation

○    Correct execution of the statistical test(s)

○    Accurate presentation of test statistic(s) and p-value(s)

○    Correct interpretation of results (reject or fail to reject null hypothesis)

○    Clear explanation of what the results mean in practical terms for understanding communication in Kluster

○    Discussion of findings demonstrates critical thinking

Task C: “Design for Multilingual Collaboration” (18 marks / 40%)

●    Theme Synthesis and Design Focus

○    Clear identification and synthesis of key themes from the user experience quotes

○    Themes are relevant to multilingual collaboration challenges

○    Strong connection between identified themes and chosen design focus

○    A clearly annotated Miro board from which the affinity diagramming process can be understood.

● Design Rationale

○    Clear explanation of how design addresses needs and challenges from user quotes

○    Strong justification for specific design choices

○    Thoughtful discussion of what communication patterns or collaboration behaviours the design aims to support

○    Consideration of the multilingual context is evident throughout

○    Honest discussion of potential limitations or trade-offs

○    Well-structured and coherent writing

○    Strong integration of evidence (quotes) with design decisions

○    Demonstrates critical thinking and design reasoning

○    A clearly annotated Miro board, based on which the two final designs and the brainstorming process can be understood.