ICT 651 IT Research Methods

Assessment 2: Group Assessment

Weightage: 30% (20% for report and 10% for presentation)
Submission deadline: 24th August 2025

1. Assignment

Write a Thematic Literature Review Report on Emerging Areas in Information Technology.

2. Learning Outcomes

• Analyze and evaluate research methods in IT projects, adhering to principles of good practice.
• Critically review, analyze, and synthesize relevant literature in an area of IT.
• Exhibit advanced written and verbal communication skills relevant to the planning, proposal, design, and presentation of a written or verbal research project.

3. Submission Details

This is a group assignment. Make groups of 4 students for this assignment. You must discuss and finalize the topic with the instructor. Do not start working on the assignment before taking approval from the instructor. The report is to be submitted in a word or pdf format. The assessment carries 30% weightage. 20% marks are for the report and 10% marks are for the presentation. The report length should be not less than 2500 words and not more than 3000 words. The word count does not include the title page, table of contents, list of references and figures. Ensure all pages are numbered. The similarity index of your report should be less than 20%. The deadline to submit the report is by midnight on Sunday 24th August (end of week 6). Do not use AI tools. Oral Presentations of 15 minutes will take place in the lecture of week 7. You must convert your slides into PDF format and submit on the Turnitin link available on the moodle. All students must give the presentation to receive marks. Zero marks will be awarded if a student is absent or fails to deliver the presentation.

4. Topic Selection:

Choose one of the following approved thematic areas.

1. Artificial Intelligence and Ethics
2. Blockchain in Data Security
3. Cybersecurity in Cloud Environments
4. Internet of Things (IoT) and Smart Cities
5. Sustainable IT and Green Computing
6. Quantum Computing in Modern Applications
7. Human-Computer Interaction and User-Centric Design
8. Big Data Analytics in Healthcare

Note: Topic approval is mandatory and must be confirmed by your instructor before starting the review.

5. Structure of the Report

Title Page
The title page of your report must contain:

• Title of the report (concise but descriptive)
• Group member names and student IDs
• Prepared for: Lecturer Name
• Group name
• Submission Date

Abstract
It should be between 200 – 300 words long (tip: write the abstract last). Brief summary of the review scope, purpose, methods, and conclusions.

1. Introduction

• Clearly define your research theme and justify its significance in the IT field.
• Provide background context including trends and challenges.
• Clearly list 2–3 focused research questions your review addresses.
• Explain the value of this review for researchers and practitioners.

2. Article Summaries

Review at least 8 high-quality peer-reviewed articles. Each summary should include title, author(s), year, research aim, methods, findings, and relevance.

3. Thematic Discussion and Critical Analysis

• Group similar articles by sub-theme.
• Provide a critical analysis of each article, including strengths, limitations, relevance, and methodology.
• Highlight gaps and contrasting findings.

4. Literature Map

Draw a literature map related to your topic.

5. Concept Matrix

Draw a concept matrix related to your topic.

6. Conclusions

This section should summarize your key findings. Conclusions are the results of your own critical thinking, they should be justified through analysis of your findings and written in your own words with no citations.

7. References

You must use correct APA (7th edition) for referencing various academic resources that you have used to write this report. Your references should enable someone reading your report to easily identify and refer to any works you have used. At least 08 recent and relevant academic resources (i.e. peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers etc.) are needed in the report.

Marking Rubric for the Report

Total Marks = 100

Criteria

High Distinction (85-100%)

Distinction (75-84%)

Credit (65-74%)

Pass (50-64%)

Fail (0-49%)

Abstract (5 marks)

Clear, concise, and comprehensive summary demonstrating advanced understanding.

Clear summary with minor omissions or errors, conveying good understanding.

Adequate summary with some clarity issues, demonstrating basic understanding.

Summary lacking clarity and detail, showing limited understanding.

Unclear or missing summary, indicating significant misunderstanding.

Introduction (10 marks)

Clear topic, thorough background, strong rationale, and evident relevance to IT research.

Defined topic, adequate background, developed rationale, relevant to IT research.

Introduced topic, basic background, articulated rationale, somewhat relevant to IT research.

Brief topic, limited background, unclear rationale, vaguely relevant to IT research.

Unclear topic, no background, no rationale, irrelevant to IT research.

Summaries of 8 Articles (30 marks)

Concise summaries with thorough critique and clear research method identification, demonstrating deep understanding.

Effective summaries with critique and research method identification, demonstrating good understanding.

Basic summaries with limited critique and research method mention, indicating a basic understanding.

Brief summaries lacking detail and critique, with vague research method mention, showing some understanding.

Incomplete summaries without critique or research method mention, demonstrating a lack of understanding.

Discussion (20 marks)

Clear research question(s), comprehensive discussion of article relevance, effective grouping of similar papers.

Clear research question(s), adequate discussion of article relevance, some grouping of similar papers.

Research question(s) stated, basic discussion of article relevance, limited grouping of similar papers.

Vague research question(s), minimal discussion of article relevance, little grouping of similar papers.

Unclear research question(s), no discussion of article relevance, no grouping of similar papers.

Literature Map (10 marks)

Clear, informative map with detailed annotations showcasing connections between concepts, theories, and studies.

Well-organized map illustrating connections between concepts, theories, and studies, with some annotations.

Basic map showing connections, with limited annotations.

Vague map with unclear connections and minimal annotations.

No map provided or a disorganized map with no clear connections or annotations.

Concept Matrix (10 marks)

Clear matrix showing relationships between concepts, theories, and studies.

Organized matrix illustrating relationships between concepts, theories, and studies.

Basic matrix showing relationships.

Vague matrix with unclear relationships.

No matrix or disorganized matrix.

Report Readability (5 marks)

Clear structure, concise writing, engaging language, and proper grammar.

Organized with mostly concise writing, some engagement, and acceptable grammar.

Basic structure with attempts at concise writing, but grammar may be inconsistent.

Lacks clear organization, verbose writing, and grammar issues.

Disorganized, verbose writing, and numerous grammar errors.

References (5 marks)

At least 8 peer reviewed academic resources are used with all of them in proper APA format.

At least 8 peer reviewed academic resources are used but few are not in proper APA format.

At least 8 academic resources are used. Few of them are not peer reviewed and are not in proper APA format.

Less than 8 academic resources are used. Most of them are not peer reviewed and/or are not in proper APA format.

Less than 8 academic resources are used. They are not peer reviewed and are not in proper APA format.

Conclusions (5 marks)

Clearly summarizes key results of the report.

Summarizes key results of the report with minor errors and/or minor missions.

Summarizes key results of the report with one major error and/or one major omission.

Summarizes key results of the report with more than one major error and/or more than one major omission.

Summarization has major errors and omissions.

Late Submission Penalty

• On time: 0% deduction
• 1 Day Late: 10% deduction
• 2 days late: 20% deduction
• 3 days late: 30% deduction
• 4 days late: 40% deduction
• 5 Day Late: 50 % deduction
• No submission: 0%

Marking Rubric for Oral Presentation

Total Marks = 10

Criteria

High Distinction (85-100%)

Distinction (75-84%)

Credit (65-74%)

Pass (50-64%)

Fail (0-49%)

Content (3 marks)

Exceptional clarity, depth, and relevance demonstrated with insightful analysis.

Clear and thorough analysis, demonstrating a solid understanding of the topic.

Adequate analysis covering key points adequately.

Limited analysis addressing key points superficially.

Inadequate analysis, missing key points entirely.

Organization (2 marks)

Highly organized structure with seamless transitions.

Well-organized structure facilitates comprehension.

Adequate structure with some room for improvement.

Structure is somewhat unclear or disjointed.

Chaotic or nonexistent structure, making it difficult to follow.

Delivery (2 marks)

Engaging and confident, captivating the audience.

Engaging delivery maintains audience interest.

Somewhat engages but lacks consistency in maintaining audience interest.

Lacks engagement and confidence, impacting audience interest.

Lacks engagement, coherence, and confidence, making it challenging for the audience to stay focused.

Answers to Questions (3 marks)

Comprehensive, insightful, and accurate answers that demonstrate deep understanding of the topic.

Clear and detailed answers, enhancing audience understanding with thoughtful engagement.

Responds adequately to questions, though answers may lack depth or detail.

Limited or incomplete answers, struggling to engage effectively with questions.

Irrelevant or incorrect responses, demonstrating a lack of understanding and engagement.