For this assignment, you need to conduct and write an academic literature review on a topic of your choice, relevant to your degree. The review should demonstrate an understanding of the fie
CMI3416/CMI7416 Effective Research and Professional Practice Assignment 1 Brief 2024-25 | UoH
Assignment 1: Academic Literature Review
1. Assignment Aims
- To gain experience in literature searching and analysis, and scientific writing.
- To become skilled in recognising and investigating a wide range of issues in computing research and practice.
2. Learning Outcomes:
- Identify and delineate the professional, legal and ethical issues raised by computing practice in organisations and research, as well as the state of the art in a particular computing domain.
- Reflect critically on your own personal and professional development.
3. Assessment Brief
For this assignment, you need to conduct and write an academic literature review on a topic of your choice, relevant to your degree. The review should demonstrate an understanding of the field of research related to the chosen topic and a firm grasp of competing hypotheses in the area. In preparing your submission, you need to consider the following notes regarding topic choice, structure and content requirements.
Choosing your Topic
The topic of your literature review must be related to one of the areas of research and/or practice that are associated with your degree. In choosing your topic, you may get inspiration from any undergraduate or postgraduate modules and projects you have undertaken, or any experience gained from placement or employment. Feedback on your topic choice will be provided by your tutors. You are strongly advised to make your choice within two days of the handout date.
Structure
You are free to structure your review in any way that you feel is more suitable for your topic. Indicatively, you can structure it as a standard essay, containing:
- An introductory section where you can define your topic, state the scope of the review and explain the organisation of the rest of the document.
- The main body where the review of relevant literature is provided.
- A concluding section where you briefly summarise the most important aspects of the literature review and point out potential gaps in existing research.
- A list of references (which is NOT included in the word count).
Content Requirements
The content of your literature review is directly dependent on your topic. However, the following are required as a minimum:
An appreciation of the professional, legal and ethical issues that are relevant to the chosen topic.
- For Information Systems Management students, this may involve the ethics of dealing with trade-offs for different groups of stakeholders.
- For Computing students, this may involve the ethics of cutting-edge software development for commercial purposes.
- For Artificial Intelligence students, this may involve the significant legal and ethical challenges raised by the use of AI.
- For Data Analytics, Internet of Things and Industrial Mathematics students, this may involve issues related to data privacy and protection.
- For Cyber Security and Digital Forensics students, this may involve looking into ethical hacking.
A critical analysis of the most important academic publications relevant to the chosen topic, summarising their content, strengths and weaknesses.
Referencing must strictly follow the APA 7th style, which is used at the University of Huddersfield.
4. Marking Scheme
|
Assessment Criterion |
Weighting % |
|
Appreciation of relevant issues |
25 |
|
Critical analysis |
40 |
|
Breadth of references |
15 |
|
Presentation |
10 |
|
Citation style |
10 |
5. Grading Rubric
A detailed grading rubric is available on the next page.
|
|
Marks Available |
||||||||
|
Criterion |
0 to 29% |
30-39% |
40-49% |
50 – 59% |
60 – 69% |
70 – 79% |
80-89% |
≥ 90% |
|
|
Appreciation of relevant issues |
Little to no appreciation of professional, legal and ethical issues related to the topic |
Superficial analysis of professional, legal and ethical issues related to the topic |
Adequate but not well-supported analysis of professional, legal and ethical issues related to the topic |
Systematic analysis of professional, legal and ethical issues related to the topic |
Nearly excellent analysis of professional, legal and ethical issues related to the topic |
Excellent analysis of professional, legal and ethical issues related to the topic |
Exceptional and insightful analysis of professional, legal and ethical issues related to the topic |
Outstanding and deeply insightful analysis of professional, legal and ethical issues related to the topic |
|
|
Critical analysis |
Little to no critical analysis of strengths and weaknesses of reviewed work |
Superficial analysis of strengths and weaknesses of reviewed work |
Adequate but not well-supported analysis of strengths and weaknesses of reviewed work |
Systematic analysis of strengths and weaknesses of reviewed work |
Nearly excellent analysis of strengths and weaknesses of reviewed work |
Excellent analysis of strengths and weaknesses of reviewed work |
Exceptional and insightful analysis of strengths and weaknesses of reviewed work |
Outstanding and deeply insightful analysis of strengths and weaknesses of reviewed work |
|
|
Breadth of references |
Very poor attempt to explore literature. Very few to no articles presented from recent or seminal publications |
Poor attempt to explore literature. Very few articles presented from recent or seminal publications |
Use of literature limited to a few articles and reviews. Very limited number of recent or seminal or recent articles. |
Over-reliance on non-primary articles. Limited number of recent or seminal articles. |
Adequate use of primary articles with some reliance on reviews or other documents. Some articles not from recent or seminal publications |
Predominant use of primary articles. Adequate articles presented from recent or seminal publications |
Predominant use of primary articles. Many articles presented from recent or seminal publications |
Predominant and comprehensive use of primary articles. Many articles presented from recent or seminal publications. |
|
|
Presentation |
Major grammatical and spelling errors. No evidence of scientific writing. No relevant figures |
Major grammatical or spelling errors. Writing barely scientific. Few or largely irrelevant figures |
Many grammatical or spelling errors. Scientific writing on a low level. Most figures accurate but not very relevant |
Minor grammatical or spelling errors. Scientific writing on an adequate level. Most figures accurate, some not very relevant |
Minor grammatical or spelling errors. Writing on par with nationally recognised venues. Most figures accurate and informative |
No grammatical errors and minor spelling errors. Writing on par with internationally recognised venues. Almost all figures accurate, focused and informative |
No grammatical or spelling errors. Writing on par with excellent, internationally recognised venues. All figures accurate, focused and informative |
No grammatical or spelling errors. Report publishable in world-leading international venues. All figures accurate, focused and informative |
|
|
Citation style |
Little to no evidence of use of citation style. Little to no consistency and accuracy in reference list |
Citation style mostly inappropriate. Many inconsistencies and errors |
Citation style partly inappropriate. Many inconsistencies between text and list with many major errors |
Citation style somewhat consistent. Many references inconsistent between text and list, with many minor errors |
Citation style mostly consistent. Some references inconsistent between text and list, with many minor error |
||||