University of Sunderland School of Computer Science
CETM44 Assignment 2–Cybersecurity and UXD
This assignment contributes 50% to your final module mark.
The following learning outcomes will be assessed:
Skills
1. The ability to critically apply techniques form user experience design to the design of cyber security systems and processes.
2. The ability to critically apply techniques form user experience design to the evaluation of cyber security systems and processes
3. The ability to define, explain and interpret the results of usability studies in the evaluation of cybersecurity systems
Your Task
In this assignment you will implement an evaluative study of UX and Cyber security. For assignment one you reviewed the literature on your chosen topic within UX and Cyber security and proposed a piece of empirical research. In assignment 2 you will implement this research project, taking account of the feedback given to you on the first assessment submission.
You will be responsible for:
• The design of any materials needed to fulfil your study
• The collection of empirical data (within the bounds of the university ethical code of conduct)
• The analysis and interpretation of the collected data
You will present your results as an A1 sized Research Poster. You will be required to give a presentation with your poster about your aims, methods and results and be prepared to answer questions about your research project.
Along with the poster you will be required to build a small e-portfolio repository that holds the files associated with your study. For example, ethics forms; user tasks, high-light videos. This portfolio will be presented within CANVAS. Instructions on how to set this up will be covered in class.
The research poster should have the following sections:
Aims: you should state very clearly what the aim of your evaluation was and why this was of interest to you and your research questions.
Methodology: you should describe the process you followed in the collection of your data and the design of your study. You might include the following subsections: Participants; Design; Procedure.
Results: Using appropriate tables and charts with some qualitative insights. Conclusions: Implications of your findings; limitations and future work
The E-portfolio should have the following sections:
Research Proposal: Save a copy of your research proposal (assignment one) Poster: Save a copy of your poster
Authenticity Evidence: Here place any evidence that underpins the authenticity
of your data. As with many other types of research, behavioural research can be falsified, you need to provide evidence to show the authenticity of your work. This will vary from project to project.
Ethics forms: Include any ethics forms or statements used
Materials: Here include any materials you have designed or used within your research. E.G questionnaire development drafts; materials developed (e.g. phsishing emails etc).
The approximate time you should spend on this assignment is 20-30 hours. Your assignment must be handed in before the time specified.
The marks breakdown is as follows:
Poster: 80%
E-portfolio: 20%
The submission date and poster session date will be confirmed within the teaching sessions after Spring Vacation.
CETM44–Cyber Security and UXD– Assignment 2 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