Research Skills for Computing (55-708540-20223)

Assessment Task 1 – Reviewing the Lierature

Module Leader: Dr Yasir Javed Level: 7
Module Name: Module Code:
Research Skills for Computing 55-708540
Assignment Title:
Task 1 -Literature Review
Individual / Group Weighting: Magnitude: wordcount/length of…
Individual 40% 2,000 words
Submission Deadline date/time: Blackboard submission Y/N Format:
29-Feb-2024 @ 3:00 pm Document
Turnitin submission Y/N
Planned feedback date: Mode of feedback: In-module retrieval available:
21-Mar-2024 Written feedback on Blackboard Yes/No

Module Learning Outcomes

 Select, assess, analyse and critically evaluate a variety of types of information and literature (both
sources provided by tutors and those found by students).
 Understand established approaches, methods and techniques, and critically select those relevant
and appropriate to undertake an independent project in order to address a research problem in the
student's course of study.
 Define, plan and clearly communicate a proposal to conduct an independent research project, which
should observe the professional, legal and ethical framework of their industry

Assessment Brief
This is an individual assignment. You are required to provide a Literature Review by critical reviewing at least five
research articles taken from reputable published sources.

As discussed in the module, a literature review is a comprehensive overview of research studies and theoretical
arguments in a particular field or on a specific topic. In this case, your dissertation topic. The purpose of a literature
review is to enable you to collect, critically analyse, compare and evaluate current knowledge and research in a
particular field of study. It is an opportunity to engage with the current literature in the subject you have chosen, or
are interested in. The literature review should help explain and justify your research project.

Content
Your literature review should be more than a collection of commentaries on current literature in your topic of
interest. By engaging critically with the literature you are expected to present an evaluation of the field by means of
a discussion of the differences and similarities, weaknesses and strengths, of the existing knowledge and research
findings. This means that the focus and purpose of the literature review needs to be clearly defined. Therefore, the
introductory section of your report must include a concise description of the research topic or research area for
which you are conducting this review (200 words maximum).

A typical structure for a literature review might look like this:

1. Introduction. Concise description of the research topic for which you are conducting this review. A summary
using the SCR model used in class will be acceptable.
2. Body. Critical review of the current literature in relation to the purpose of the review. Literature must be
grouped in relevant themes, areas of controversy and disagreement will be highlighted and commented upon, as
will any limitations and asumptions.
 Research Skills for Computing (55-708540-20223)

3. Conclusion. This should contain the key points and arguments in relation to the purpose and scope of the
review. It should help identify the gap in current kowledge your aim to addres and in that way justify your
project.
4. References [not included in words count]. References should be cited in the main body of your text to back your
arguments up. At the end of your assignment you must include the list of the references cited in APA style.

It will be acceptable to have a mix of resources of different nature - e.g., empirical research, implementation and
testing, ‘review’ articles, qualitative or quantitative research, etc. The main criterion is that the articles must be
taken from reputable sources.

Submission details
This assignment is worth 40% of the total mark for the module. The word guidance is 2000 (±10%) excluding your list
of references. Your report should be submitted electronically through the module's Blackboard site. You will find a
link under Assessment for this submission.

You must also submit your assignment through TurnItIn.

The normal regulations for the submission of work apply, for further details see:
http://students.shu.ac.uk/rightsrules/regs.html

Deadline: 29th February 2024 (3:00pm)

 Research Skills for Computing (55-708540-20223)

Assessment Criteria
FAIL FAIL PASS MERIT DISTINCTION DISTINCTION
(insufficient) (insufficient) (sufficient) (good) (Very good-Excellent) (Exceptional)
Zero Very Low fail Low Mid Borderline Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High Exceptional
Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Merit Merit Merit Distinction Distinction Distinction Distinction
Criteria and 0 – 0% 1 – 10% 2 – 25% 4 – 35% 6 – 45% 7 – 50% 8 – 55% 9 – 58% 10 – 62% 11 – 65% 12 – 68% 13 – 74% 14 – 81% 15 – 89% 16 – 96%
weighting
Introduction Introduction is Limited understanding of the The research topic is The research topic is well + The likely benefits of the + Innovative
10% missing or research topic and its context. understood and set in the explained. The research research topic are expressed approach
understanding of The research problem is not context of the knowledge problem is clearly argued and is clearly. identified in
the research topic clearly stated, or limited domain. Research problem is relevant for the knowledge the chosen
is highly justification provided. Rationale identified and the need for the domain. Sound rationale context. The
insufficient. is unclear or references to project justified. Rationale is provided, supported by research
Research problem previous research are limited. supported by references to references to relevant previous problem and
is inadequate or previous research work in the research. Expected results are its potential
not stated. domain. identified. solution are
Rationale is not to be
coherent or obtained or
missing. presented in
References to an innovative
previous research way.
highly irrelevant
or missing.
Use of No evidence of Evidence of reviewing the Good range of appropriate Very good range of sources +Review evidences a systematic + Exceptional
sources and reviewing the literature in the field, possibly sources reviewed. reviewed. Resources of review of relevant literature in breadth and
evidence literature in the incomplete but using Sources have been used different nature -empirical, the field. depth of
20% field; or little or no appropriate approaches. effectively as evidence in your implementation, review, etc. sources of
evidence of a Sources have not been used argument and reasoning, these are used effectively throughout references.
systematic effectively to support your are cited correctly. the document. Sources cited
approach to argument. Citation of sources and correctly
reviewing the needs improvement.
literature.
Critical No evidence of Literature is grouped in Evidence of critical appraisal of Excellent evidence of appraisal + Evidence of independent +
thinking, critical appraisal of relevant themes; but limited all papers cited. Ability to and evaluation of all papers reading and research to Independent
reasoning, the sources is evidence of comparing and identify issues and think cited. Clear critical thinking, advance work and inform inquiry
and analysis shown; or contrasting arguments made by critically is shown. Relevant reasoning, and analysis, arguments and approaches. operating
30% descriptive and the authors or to identify the connection between different evidenced in a suitable with
unsubstantiated limitations or assumptions points or aspects argued in the thematic analysis. advanced
statements made. difference sources read is concepts
presented. evident.
 Research Skills for Computing (55-708540-20223)

FAIL FAIL PASS MERIT DISTINCTION DISTINCTION

(insufficient) (insufficient) (sufficient) (good) (Very good-Excellent) (Exceptional)
Zero Very Low fail Low Mid Borderline Low Mid High Low Mid High Low Mid High Exceptional
Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Merit Merit Merit Distinction Distinction Distinction Distinction
Criteria and 0 – 0% 1 – 10% 2 – 25% 4 – 35% 6 – 45% 7 – 50% 8 – 55% 9 – 58% 10 – 62% 11 – 65% 12 – 68% 13 – 74% 14 – 81% 15 – 89% 16 – 96%
weighting
Developmen No attempt at An attempt is made at Your literature review develops Good academic argument is Excellent academic argument + Cogent
t of an discussing or providing an argued and an argument that is rooted in developed throughout. presented, key points and arguments
argument summarising the reasoned discussion of the evidence. Key points and Appropriate narrative, drawn arguments clearly relate back and
25% literature review conducted. Some arguments are made relevant and follow up from the work to the purpose and scope of explanations
reviewed strengths and weaknesses are to the purpose and scope of reviewed. Gap in knowledge is your research project. The gap are
considering the identified, but there is no your research. The gap in evident, which relates back to in current knowledge is consistently
research coherent argument; or the gap current knowledge is identified your research topic and identified and a rationale is provided,
proposed. Lack of in knowledge is not clearly and the need for your research associated research problem. built throughout that justifies demonstratin
academic identified; or the rationale for project is justified. your project. g an ability to
argument in the the topic proposed is effectively
work submitted. insufficient/inadequate. communicate
the relevance
of the project
proposed.
Structure, Little or no Some structure present in the The document is well-organised Very good structure that Clear; well structured; concise; + Excellent
presentation, evidence or work submitted but might not and supports the argument supports your academic accurate. Appropriate structure and
and quality organisation in the always be logical or flowing. built. Evidence of argument. Clarity, conciseness, professional practice shown, communicatio
of citing and work submitted. And/or grammar errors and professionalism and good and professionalism are shown. sources are cited and n style. Clear
referencing. And/or poor inconsistent spellings. communication with few Good communication, minimal referenced appropriately evidence of
15% writing is difficult Limited evidence of grammatical or spelling grammar or spelling mistakes. throughout. professional
to understand. professional practice; attempt mistakes. Suitable citing and Citing and referencing is practice.
And/or citing and at citing and referencing of referenced of sources. consistent and of good quality.
referencing sources.
missing or not
appropriate.