ICT6001 Applied Project
Assessment 2: Project Progress
Assessment Overview
Weighting: 40% of unit total
Due Date: Week 5, 7, 9
Assessment Type: Individual assessment
Word Count / Length: 2500 words +/- 10%
Unit Learning Outcomes
In this assessment, you will be tested on whether you have successfully met the following Unit Learning Outcomes (ULOs):
• ULO1: Select and apply an appropriate approach to identify, refine and clarify the problem.
• ULO2: Formulate a solution for the identified project, business problem, or research question.
• ULO3: Employ deliberate persuasive strategies to critique other researchers’ work.
• ULO4: Communicate the rationale, design, implementation, analysis and dissemination of the impacts of the solution to both specialists and non-specialists through appropriate presentations and reports.
Submission Type and Required Format
The type of assessment you will be completing is a Project Progress and Critical Review of Literature report.
It should include the following:
• Cover Page
• Report provides a comprehensive literature review and a project progress summarizing project progress so far, including synthesis of the current literature including comparison of various authors’ views and identification of research gaps, highlighting the critical analysis of previous research.
Information about writing a report can be found here on the Library and Learning Support website: Report
Assessment Details
Assessment Purpose
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate student progress on their group-based ICT project by integrating both collective and individual contributions. Students will demonstrate their ability to critically engage with relevant literature, review existing solutions, and document their team’s progress toward a feasible design, implementation, and evaluation. This assessment emphasises professional teamwork practices, including recording and reporting on group meetings, distinguishing between individual and team contributions, and justifying methodological decisions made to date.
Assessment Instructions
In this assessment, students will work in teams but must submit individual progress reports that clearly distinguish personal contributions from group achievements. The assessment is scaffolded into three key milestones (Weeks 5, 7, and 9), ensuring continuous progress and accountability. Each submission must include records of team meetings, evidence of team collaboration, and project artefacts demonstrating professional practice.
Submission Stages
Week 5 Submission – Requirement Analysis & Literature Review
• Document key meeting outcomes, including role allocation, initial timelines, and agreed milestones.
• Provide an initial requirements specification.
• Conduct and submit a critical literature review on existing solutions, tools, and methods relevant to the project. The review should analyse strengths, weaknesses, and gaps that the proposed project aims to address.
• Identify and justify the choice of development methodology.
• Submit early artefacts such as user stories, requirement tables, or use-case diagrams.
Week 7 Submission – System Design & Implementation Plan
• Provide updated meeting notes and evidence of project refinements.
• Submit a design framework, including system architecture diagrams, process models, and/or database schemas.
• Present the implementation plan, outlining tools, technologies, testing approaches, and evaluation metrics.
• Describe the data collection approach, including chosen methods (e.g., simulations, monitoring, API retrieval, logs, or surveys), and justify their relevance to the project.
• Explain use of simulations/tools (e.g., virtual machines, cloud platforms, or modelling software) to model environments and collect project data, if applicable.
• Discuss the sampling strategy, explaining how datasets, scenarios, or user groups will be selected and why this aligns with project goals.
• Ensure design and data collection decisions align with industry standards, ethical principles, and professional best practices (e.g., security, privacy, sustainability, usability, fairness, transparency).
Week 9 Submission – Implementation Progress & Interim Artefacts
• Submit updated meeting records reflecting refinements and decisions.
• Document implementation progress, including interim artefacts such as prototypes, mock-ups, or partial system modules.
• Provide a detailed description of how data was collected using the identified methods and tools (e.g., simulation platforms, APIs, cloud services, surveys, monitoring tools).
• Data analysis:
• Outline the techniques employed (e.g., statistical analysis, data mining, machine learning, log analysis, or other appropriate analytical methods).
• Present findings using visualisations such as graphs, charts, dashboards, or system diagrams.
• Interpret the results, explaining how they support or challenge project objectives and what insights have been gained.
• Distinguish clearly between individual contributions and team outputs.
• Reflect on challenges faced, strategies adopted, and next steps toward final delivery.
Report Structure for Each Submission
- Project Title & Overview
- Meeting Outcomes (summary of group discussions and decisions)
- Activities Undertaken (team and individual contributions)
- Stage Deliverables (aligned with milestone):
o Week 5: Requirements Specification & Literature Review
o Week 7: System Design, Implementation Plan & Data Collection Approach
o Week 9: Implementation Progress, Data Analysis & Results - Reflection (progress, challenges, adjustments)
- References (APA style: academic, technical, industry, and ethical guidelines/sources)
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use
In this assessment, the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools is PERMITTED. You can use AI tools to support brainstorming of research ideas, check grammar and clarity of writing, and assist with formatting and referencing guidance only. You CANNOT use AI tools to generate your full assessment.
Example tools might include:
• Grammarly (for proofreading and grammar checking)
• ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot (for brainstorming and formatting support)
Students take full responsibility for the content of their assessments, and AI tools should be used as a supplement to your own research and analysis rather than as a replacement. If you use AI tools in an unethical or irresponsible manner, such as copying AI-generated output without checking it against reliable sources, you risk committing academic misconduct. Any use of AI must be appropriately acknowledged in the AI declaration on the Assessment Cover Sheet.
Refer to the Using AI page on the ECA Library and Learning Support website for further guidance.
Other Important Information
Assessment Resources
It is strongly recommended that you use the following to find academic peer-reviewed sources of information.
• ECA Library catalogue and databases
• Unit Readings (Course Reserves)
• Subject Guide
For in-text citation and referencing, follow the ECA HE Student Guide to APA 7th Referencing.
Submission Requirements
On completion of your assessment:
• Follow the Assessment Presentation Guidelines
• Submit your document as a PDF or MS Word document via the assessment submission link in Canvas.
• Include a completed Assessment Cover Sheet, including the AI Declaration, and attach it to the assessment.
• Save drafts of your work.
Assessment Support
For academic support or feedback on a draft of your assessment, please email [email protected]
For assistance with finding resources, such as books and journal articles, please email [email protected]
For information and guides on tackling assessments and developing your academic skills, please visit in the ECA Library and Learning Support website: https://eca.libguides.com/
For queries about this specific assessment task, please contact the Unit Coordinator.
Assessment 2 Rubric - Week 5 Submission: Requirement Analysis & Literature Review
Criteria (weighted as indicated below)
High Distinction (HD) 85-100
Distinction (D) 75-84
Credit (C) 65-74
Pass (P) 50-64
Fail (F) 0-49
Criteria 1: Critical Review of Literature (20 marks)
Comprehensive review covering all key sources; insightful comparisons; synthesises literature to provide new perspectives.
Covers most key sources; clear comparisons; synthesises main ideas effectively.
Adequate coverage of sources; some comparative analysis and synthesis.
Limited review with minimal comparative discussion.
Review is superficial, lacks relevance, or omits key sources.
Criteria 2: Requirements Specification (20 marks)
Clear, complete, and detailed specification of both functional and non-functional requirements; highly relevant and realistic.
Well-developed specification covering most requirements; minor omissions.
Adequate specification; some requirements missing or underdeveloped.
Basic requirements provided with limited detail.
No or very weak requirements specification.
Criteria 3: Methodology Justification (15 marks)
Strong and well-argued justification of methodology with clear relevance to project goals.
Clear justification of methodology; mostly relevant.
Some justification of methodology with partial relevance.
Limited or unclear justification provided.
No justification or irrelevant methodology.
Criteria 4: Initial Artefacts (15 marks)
Excellent and detailed artefacts (e.g., user stories, diagrams); highly professional and appropriate.
Clear and useful artefacts with minor gaps.
Some artefacts included; adequate but basic.
Minimal artefacts provided with limited clarity.
No artefacts or irrelevant work.
Criteria 5: Team Collaboration & Meeting Outcomes (15 marks)
Detailed meeting records; clear role allocations and evidence of effective collaboration.
Good meeting records with evidence of collaboration.
Some meeting notes included; partial evidence of collaboration.
Minimal meeting notes; limited collaboration shown.
No evidence of meetings or collaboration.
Criteria 6: Structure, Presentation & Referencing (15 marks)
Excellent clarity, professional presentation, no errors; accurate APA referencing.
Very clear writing and presentation, minimal errors; mostly correct APA.
Clear writing with some errors; referencing mostly correct.
Writing reasonably clear but with errors; limited or inconsistent APA referencing.
Poor structure, many errors; inadequate or missing APA referencing.
Assessment 2 Rubric - Week 7 Submission: System Design, Implementation Plan & Data Collection Approach
Criteria (weighted as indicated below)
High Distinction (HD) 85-100
Distinction (D) 75-84
Credit (C) 65-74
Pass (P) 50-64
Fail (F) 0-49
Criteria 1: System Design Framework (20 marks)
Comprehensive, detailed diagrams and framework fully integrated with project objectives.
Clear framework with strong visual representations.
Adequate framework with basic visuals.
Minimal framework with limited visuals.
No framework or insufficient work.
Criteria 2: Implementation Plan (20 marks)
Highly detailed plan including technologies, tools, testing, and evaluation metrics; realistic and professional.
Clear and practical implementation plan with minor gaps.
Adequate plan covering some elements but lacks depth.
Minimal plan with limited relevance.
No implementation plan or inappropriate detail.
Criteria 3: Data Collection Approach (15 marks)
Well-justified approach with clear explanation of chosen methods and strong relevance to project.
Clear approach with reasonable justification.
Adequate approach with some justification.
Limited approach with unclear justification.
No description of data collection approach.
Criteria 4: Use of Simulations/Tools & Sampling Strategy (15 marks)
Excellent use of tools/simulations with clear sampling strategy aligned to goals.
Good use of tools/simulations; sampling strategy mostly appropriate.
Adequate use of tools with some relevance; basic sampling approach.
Minimal or unclear use of tools/sampling.
No evidence of tools or sampling strategy.
Criteria 5: Team Collaboration & Meeting Outcomes (15 marks)
Thorough meeting documentation; strong evidence of effective teamwork and refinements.
Clear meeting notes with evidence of collaboration.
Some meeting notes included; partial collaboration.
Minimal notes; limited collaboration.
No evidence of meetings or teamwork.
Criteria 6: Structure, Presentation & Referencing (15 marks)
Excellent clarity, structure, visuals, and accurate APA referencing.
Very clear writing with minimal errors; referencing mostly correct.
Clear writing with some errors; referencing generally correct.
Writing somewhat clear; referencing inconsistent.
Poor structure, many errors; inadequate or missing referencing.
Assessment 2 Rubric - Week 9 Submission: Implementation Progress, Data Analysis & Results
Criteria (weighted as indicated below)
High Distinction (HD) 85-100
Distinction (D) 75-84
Credit (C) 65-74
Pass (P) 50-64
Fail (F) 0-49
Criteria 1: Implementation Progress & Artefacts (20 marks)
Comprehensive documentation of implementation with detailed artefacts (prototypes, mock-ups, modules).
Clear progress with well-presented artefacts.
Adequate progress with basic artefacts.
Minimal progress with limited artefacts.
No evidence of implementation or artefacts.
Criteria 2: Data Collection Process (20 marks)
Detailed, professional description of how data was collected using tools/methods; well justified.
Clear description of collection methods; mostly justified.
Adequate description with partial justification.
Minimal description; weak justification.
No or irrelevant description of data collection.
Criteria 3: Data Analysis (15 marks)
Comprehensive analysis using advanced techniques; highly appropriate and insightful.
Clear analysis with appropriate techniques; good insights.
Adequate analysis with basic techniques.
Minimal analysis with limited insight.
No analysis or inappropriate methods.
Criteria 4: Results, Visualisation & Interpretation (15 marks)
Results clearly presented with excellent visualisations; interpretation provides deep insights aligned with objectives.
Clear results and visualisations; good interpretation.
Adequate results with basic visualisations; some interpretation.
Minimal results or visualisations; limited interpretation.
No results, visualisation, or interpretation.
Criteria 5: Team Collaboration & Meeting Outcomes (15 marks)
Detailed meeting records and strong evidence of collaboration and project adjustments.
Clear records with evidence of collaboration.
Some records; partial collaboration shown.
Minimal records; weak collaboration.
No evidence of meetings or teamwork.
Criteria 6: Structure, Presentation & Referencing (15 marks)
Excellent clarity, professional presentation, no errors; accurate APA referencing.
Very clear writing with minimal errors; mostly correct referencing.
Clear writing with some errors; referencing mostly correct.
Writing reasonably clear; referencing inconsistent.
Poor structure, many errors; inadequate or missing referencing.