University of Sunderland School of Computer Science
CETM44 Assignment 1–Cybersecurity and UXD
This assignment contributes 50% to your final module mark.
The following learning outcomes will be assessed:
Knowledge
1. A critical appreciation of the principles of user experience design and their application to the design of cyber security systems
2. A critical appreciation of the principles of user experience design and their application to the evaluation of cyber security systems
3. A critical understanding of the major research themes in usable cyber security
Important Information
You are required to submit your work within the bounds of the University Infringement
of Assessment Regulations (see your Programme Guide). Plagiarism, paraphrasing and downloading large amounts of information from external sources, will not be tolerated and will be dealt with severely. Although you should make full use of any source material, which would normally be an occasional sentence and/or paragraph
(referenced) followed by your own critical analysis/evaluation. You will receive no
marks for work that is not your own. Your work may be subject to checks for originality which can include use of an electronic plagiarism detection service.
Where you are asked to submit an individual piece of work, the work must be entirely your own. The safety of your assessments is your responsibility. You must not permit another student access to your work.
Where referencing is required, unless otherwise stated, the Harvard referencing system must be used (see your Programme Guide).
Please ensure that you retain a duplicate of your assignment. We are required to send samples of student work to the external examiners for moderation purposes. It will also safeguard in the unlikely event of your work going astray.
|
Submission Date and Time |
As advised on Canvas |
|
Submission Location |
Via Canvas |
Your Task
In this assignment you will devise a 4000 word research proposal in the form of a research paper. The proposal should specify a research project that you
would like to undertake within Cyber Security and UXD research. You are free to choose the focus of your research proposal but it must sit within the remit
of cybersecurity and UXD and therefore have user-centred issues as the primary concern. You are advised to agree your topic with your tutor before starting work. If you wish, you may implement your proposed research in the second assignment which is practically focused. In assignment one you will:
• Review the literature and plan a research activity
• Receive feedback on your work
In assignment 2 (to be disseminated later)
• Develop the research plan further and collect the data.
To do this effectively you must narrow the scope of your research activity and assess its feasibility. For example, it would not be possible for you to engage in an experimental study with 50 users in the time available to you.
You must agree the title of your research proposal with your local tutor before submission.
The 4000 word limit for the whole assignment (excluding references) must be adhered to. You are given guidance on individual section length. The literature review component should not exceed 2000 words
The research proposal should have the following headings:
1. Literature Review
The purpose of this section is to set your research proposal in the context
of the prevailing literature. Your review should set out the focus of the research; justify your choice of topic; the current state of thinking in relation to your topic and identify themes that are suitable for further investigation. It is essential that the literature you discuss is critically evaluated and that it motivates your research proposal. Therefore, it should be relevant to the topic and research questions. This section should be no more than 2000 words in length.
2. Aims and Research Questions
In this section you should specify the general aim of the research and the specific research question of interest. This must be specified as a question that will be addressed in the proposed study. This question is what your planned research will address. Section 3 and 4 combined should be around 1500 words.
3. Research Methods
In this section you will set out the methodology you will follow in order to address the specific research question detailed in section 3. You should describe the methodology and justify why it is appropriate. This section should be detailed and set out in a way that is repeatable including details of participants, materials, etc.
If your work is based around a questionnaire or interview then you should include indicative questions and the proposed analysis method.
If your work is experimental then you should include the experiment design and the analysis methods you would propose to use.
It should be clear that the methodology will deliver the necessary data to answer your research question. Section 3 and 4 combined should be around 1500 words. Remember you are only presenting a plan for the research you should not undertake the research or present real data in this assignment.
4. Feasibility
In this section you should clearly state why you believe this research would be feasible to conduct for your second assignment. Consider access to technology, participants, analysis time and access to data. This section should be around 250 words in length. If your plan is not feasible you will be advised to modify this in the assessment feedback.
5. Ethical Considerations
You should briefly discuss any ethical and/or professional issues that would affect your research project. This section should be around 250 words in length
Submission Guidelines
You must agree the title of your essay with your local tutor before submission.
Your written assignment must be spell checked, and contain references (which are not included within the 4000 word limit) and a word count for each section. You must use the Harvard style of referencing, both for citations within the text and your reference list. You should expect to use 10-15 references. Do not include a bibliography, i.e. all references listed must be cited within the text.
If your submission exceeds the word limit then the penalty as specified in‘Guidance for Students on the Penalty for Exceeding the Limit for Assessed Work’shall apply.
The main text of your essay must be submitted in single-line spacing, and in 12- point Arial (or similar) font.
It is important that you read thoroughly the information on the cover sheet regarding the university assessment regulations, including those regarding plagiarism and collusion.
Assignment hand-in requirements are specified on the front cover sheet. The approximate time you should spend on this assignment is 20-30 hours. Your assignment must be handed in before the time specified.
Your assessment will be assessed according to the University’s Postgraduate Generic Assessment Criteria, which are provided on the following pages.
The marks breakdown is as follows:
Literature Review 40% Research Questions 10% Research Methods 30% Feasibility 5% Ethical/Professional Issues 5% Structure, Introduction, Referencing 10%
You are required to submit your assignment as a PDF file through the turn-it-in submission system in the module space on Canvas.
CETM44–Cyber Security and UXD– Assignment 1 Marking Sheet
Name Student Registration Number Total Mark %
|
|
Categories |
|||||||
|
|
Grade |
Relevance |
Knowledge |
Analysis |
Argument and Structure |
Critical Evaluation |
Presentation |
Relevance to Literature |
|
Pass |
86–100% |
The work examined is exemplary and provides clear evidence of a complete grasp of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also unequivocal evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be exemplary in all the categories cited above. It will demonstrate a particularly compelling evaluation, originality, and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse. |
||||||
|
76–85% |
The work examined is excellent and demonstrates comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be excellent in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse and some evidence of originality |
|||||||
|
70–75% |
The work examined is of a high standard and there is evidence of comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is clearly articulated evidence demonstrating that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are satisfied At this level it is expected that the standard of the work will be high in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse |
|||||||
|
60–69% |
Directly relevant to the requirements of the assessment |
A substantial knowledge of relevant material, showing a clear grasp of themes, questions and issues therein |
Comprehensive analysis - clear and orderly presentation |
Well supported, focussed argument which is clear and logically structured. |
Contains distinctive or independent thinking; and begins to formulate an independent position in relation to theory and/or practice. |
Well written, with standard spelling and grammar, in a readable style with acceptable format |
Critical appraisal of up-to-date and/or appropriate literature. Recognition of different perspectives. Very good use of a wide range of sophisticated source material. |
|
|
50–59% |
Some attempt to address the requirements of the assessment: may drift away from this in less focused passages |
Adequate knowledge of a fair range of relevant material, with intermittent evidence of an appreciation of its significance |
Significant analytical treatment which has a clear purpose |
Generally coherent and logically structured, using an appropriate mode of argument and/or theoretical mode(s) |
May contain some distinctive or independent thinking; may begin to formulate an independent position |
Competently written, with only minor lapses from standard grammar, with acceptable format |
Uses a good variety of literature which includes recent texts and/or appropriate literature, including a substantive amount beyond library texts. |
|
|
Pass |
|
|
|
|
|
in relation to theory and/or practice. |
|
Competent use of source material. |
|
40–49% |
Some correlation with the requirements of the assessment but there are instances of irrelevance |
Basic understanding of the subject but addressing a limited range of material |
Some analytical treatment, but may be prone to description, or to narrative, which lacks clear analytical purpose |
Some attempt to construct a coherent argument, but may suffer loss of focus and consistency, with issues at stake stated only vaguely, or theoretical mode(s) couched in simplistic terms |
Sound work which expresses a coherent position only in broad terms and in uncritical conformity to one or more standard views of the topic |
A simple basic style but with significant deficiencies in expression or format that may pose obstacles for the reader |
Evidence of use of appropriate literature which goes beyond that referred to by the tutor. Frequently only uses a single source to support a point. |
|
|
Fail |
35–39% |
Relevance to the requirements of the assessment may be very intermittent, and may be reduced to its vaguest and least challenging terms |
A limited understanding of a narrow range of material |
Largely descriptive or narrative, with little evidence of analysis |
A basic argument is evident, but mainly supported by assertion and there may be a lack of clarity and coherence |
Some evidence of a view starting to be formed but mainly derivative. |
Numerous deficiencies in expression and presentation; the writer may achieve clarity (if at all) only by using a simplistic or repetitious style |
Barely adequate use of literature. Over reliance on material provided by the tutor. |
|
30–34% |
The work examined provides insufficient evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence provided shows that some of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in some of the indicators. |
|||||||
|
15–29% |
The work examined is unacceptable and provides little evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence shows that few of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in several of the indicators. |
|||||||
|
0–14/% |
The work examined is unacceptable and provides almost no evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence fails to show that any of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in the majority or all of the indicators. |
|||||||
Comments