32144
Technology
Research
Preparation
Assessment Task 2: Literature-Based Report
Aim and Intent
To establish search skills and the ability to evaluate the appropriateness of the articles chosen. To
develop the skills of critical analysis and synthesis, as well as direct and indirect citation, referencing,
and writing a complete report.
This assessment task addresses the following Subject Learning Objectives (SLOs): 1, 2, 3, and 4. It also
contributes to developing the following Course Intended Learning Outcomes (CILOs): A.1, B.1, C.1, and E.
NB: Please refer to Subject Outline for SLO and CILO descriptors.
Task Description
Task 2 allows students to source existing academic and industry literature on their chosen research
topic and begin writing about it in an organised and logical way. The task is intended to provide
students with the necessary background to develop their Project Proposal (Task 3).
The assignment will be a report synthesising information from at least ten high-quality texts you have
sourced, critically evaluated and analysed. Students should selecttexts from both industry and
academic sources, including:
Online scholarly databases (e.g., ProQuest Central, Google Scholar, Scopus (Elsevier) Web of
Science, and Discovery (EBSCO)) containing journal articles and conference papers.
Online industry report databases (e.g., Gartner.com, IBIS Industry World Reports) provide research
and analysis about the global information technology industry and industry profiles,supply chains,
main activities, leading companies, market overviews, consumers, forecasts, etc.
Academic books and book chapters are also welcome.
The task is designed to develop and assess your ability to evaluate the quality of academic and
industry articles, their suitability for the context in which you are researching (e.g., IT industry or
educational context), and your ability to synthesise the literature sourced in a logical and critical
evaluation of related research.
You will develop and demonstrate your writing skills – paraphrasing, synthesising, structuring a
logical organisation of ideas, critical analysis, proofreading and editing – using your own words as
far as possible and correctly citing all work drawn from other writers, whether paraphrased or quoted
directly.
Additionally, you must show your ability to create a reference list and mastery of directand indirect
citations. Students may complete their reference lists using bibliographic software such as EndNote.
NB: Using bibliographic software such as Endnote and Zotero is optional.
University of Technology Sydney
Submission Details
Type: Individual Report
Weighting: 45%
Date Due: Week 7
Assessment Task 2: due on Friday, 4 April at 11:59
pm.
Length: 3000-4000 words – not including TOC, ReferenceList, or
Appendix
Style Format: 12pt, Times New Roman, single space, single-sided
File Format:
Word Document or PDF file
File name:
Task2_StudentSurname_Tutnumber_TutorName.docx
Submission: to Canvas/Assessments
University of Technology Sydney
Report Sections
The Report should consist of the following sections:
1) Title Page, Table of Contents, List of Figures and Tables (if relevant), each beginning on a
separate page
2) Introduction to the topic, establish the objectives and significance of your report, provide an
overview of the relevant domains of research literature, establish a context for your review, identify
knowledge gaps, and illustrate how your information will advance knowledge on the topic.
3) Critical Evaluation of two Sources: using two (2) of your articles, students should provide an
evaluation of each article’s suitability to your research according to the following criteria:
Relevance, Reliability, Accuracy, Potential for Bias, Timeliness and Completeness (refer to Week
4).
4) Literature Review: present your viewpoint on the topic with support from the literature. This section
should be organised into sub-sections with appropriate headings and demonstrate a logical
progression of ideas in structure and the links between subsections.
5) Conclusion/ Discussion: summarise key findings or insights from your evaluation of related
literature and describe their implications for future research.
6) Reference List: should include all articles and other sources in the report.
7) Appendix: include three (3) screenshots of the first page of your (most relevant) search results
from three (3) different databases/ sources that you have used to identify related literature. The
three (3) screenshots should include at least one of your reference list articles.
NB: At least one (1) of the screenshots should be from an industry source (e.g., reports from
government, NGOs, industry, or market research companies; ICT industry or business magazines and
journals; white papers); and at least one (1) from academic journal databases accessible from theUTS
Library website.
Submission Instructions
Assessment Task 2 is an Individual submission.
1) File name: The file name should use the naming convention:
Task2_StudentName_TutorName_Tutorial number.docx OR pdf
2) Dropbox: Assignments should be submitted through UTS Canvas
Canvas -> 32144 TRP -> Assignments -> Assessment Task 2 Literature Report (folder)
University of Technology Sydney
NB: Submitting to both the Dropbox and tutors is the responsibility of each student. Please send
the Literature Report to tutors to avoid a 10% penalty.
Marking Criteria
Task 2 is marked out of 100pts, weighing 45%. Reports are assessed according to six markingcriteria,
including the quality and completeness of the: (1) Introduction – 20pts, (2) Critical Evaluation 15pts, (3)
Literature Review 20pts, (4) Conclusion/ Discussion 15pts, (5) Organisation and Presentation 15pts, and
(6) Citation & Referencing 15pts. Details of the six marking criteria are contained in the assessment
rubric below.
Criteria
Ratings
MASTERY
20 to >18.0 pts
PROFICIENT
17 to >12.0 pts
DEVELOPING
11 to >8.0 pts
BEGINNING
7 to >0.0 pts
Pts
INTRODUCTION
Presents the problem,
sets up the field, and
states the student’s
point of view; Clearly
stated and well-written
aims, objectives and
significance of the
knowledge contribution
of the review; Orients
the reader to the report
by providing an
overview.
Superior statement
of the research
problem. States aim
of research and
communicates
importance of topic.
States main findings.
Brief but complete
overview of report
organisation.
Clear statement of
the research
problem. States aim
of research and
mentions importance
of topic. States main
findings. Incomplete
overview of report
organisation.
Vague or unclear
statement of the
research problem.
States aim of
research. States
main findings.
Incomplete overview
of report
organisation.
Vague or unclear
statement of the
research problem.
Vague or missing
aim of research
statement. States
some findings.
Incomplete or
missing overview of
report organisation.
20
pts
Criteria
Ratings
MASTERY
15 to >12.0 pts
PROFICIENT
12 to >8.0 pts
DEVELOPING
8 to >3.0 pts
BEGINNING
3 to >0.0 pts
Pts
CRITICAL EVALUATION
Critical evaluation
process that sets out an
appropriate logic and
consistent method;
Ability to search
sources appropriate to
the topic to locate
relevant, high-quality
articles; Ability to
evaluate whether the
articles are appropriate
to the research,
applying evaluation
criteria.
Critical, clear and
logical evaluation
process in support of
the research topic
and objectives.
Justifies & defines
appropriate critical
evaluation methods.
Describes structured
search activities and
locates two relevant
high-quality sources.
Application of
evaluation criteria is
consistent and
logical across the
two sources.
Justifies & defines
appropriate critical
evaluation process
for the topic. Some
appropriate
evaluation methods
and criteria. Defines
search activities
breakdown and
locates two relevant
sources. Some
evaluation criteria
mentioned in relation
to one or both texts.
Some critical
evaluation process
and methods
described in support
of the topic. Justifies
some aspects of the
research question or
objectives. Mentions
search activities and
locates sources with
some relevance.
Vague on how
evaluation criteria
were applied
consistently to each
source.
Some critical
evaluation process
for topic, but some
unjustified or
irrelevant evaluation
methods. Incomplete
search activities
breakdown and
justification for the
relevance and/or
quality of the articles
sourced is lacking.
Vague on how
evaluation criteria
were applied to each
source in a logical
and consistent
manner.
15
pts
Criteria
Ratings
MASTERY
20 to >18.0 pts
PROFICIENT
17 to >12.0 pts
DEVELOPING
11 to >8.0 pts
BEGINNING
7 to >0.0 pts
Pts
LITERATURE REVIEW
Coherent syntheses of
literature; Ability to
critically analyse the
literature; Logical
progression of ideas
from one section to
another and within each
section, including good
paragraphing; Ability to
paraphrase and avoid
overdependence on
direct quotation.
Critically reviews
existing work,
synthesizes relevant
research areas and
opposing views.
Clearly links the
research question,
aims and objectives
to the research gaps
identified by the
review.
Reviews existing
work & synthesizes
relevant research
areas. Clearly links
the research
problem and
objectives to the
research gaps
identified in the
review.
Reviews existing
work & identifies
some research
areas. Some linkage
between the
research question/
objectives and the
research gaps
identified in the
review.
Descriptive or
narrative review of
existing work,
unclear or vague
research areas.
Missing linkage
between the
research problem
and objectives to the
research gaps (or no
gaps articulated) by
the review.
20
pts
University of Technology Sydney
Criteria
Ratings
MASTERY
15 to >12.0 pts
PROFICIENT
12 to >8.0 pts
DEVELOPING
8 to >3.0 pts
BEGINNING
3 to >0.0 pts
Pts
CONCLUSION /
DISCUSSION
Ability to make a
convincing argument in
the concluding
discussion; Ability to
fully justify the
concluding argument
based on the analysis
and synthesis of the
literature presented in
the Literature Review.
Superior conclusions
/ discussion linking
all components into
a coherent, logically
flowing summary.
Refers to research
problems and
significance.
Clear conclusion /
discussion linking all
components but
missing a logical or
compelling flow or
argument. Some
reference to
research problems
or significance.
Conclusions/
discussion links all
components but
missing a logical or
compelling flow or
argument. Vague
references to
research problems
or significance.
Conclusion/
discussion does not
link all components
clearly. Missing
references to
research problem or
significance.
15
pts
ORGANISATION &
PRESENTATION
Self-explanatory title;
Table of Contents;
Logical organisation
following a coherent
report structure,
including appropriate
use of sections and
headings/ subsections
and sub-headings;
Correct grammar,
spelling and English
expression.
Complete and
professionally
presented literature based report with all
required sections.
Excellent grammar,
spelling, and layout.
Introduction and
conclusion are
succinct and
complete with
findings and/or
recommendations
derived from the
critical evaluation
methods applied and
insights & gaps
identified in the
literature review.
Contains complete
reference list.
Complete literature based report with all
required sections.
Good grammar and
spelling with minor
mistakes.
Introduction and
conclusions are
succinct and
complete with some
findings and/or
recommendations
come from the
insights/ gaps
identified in the
literature review.
Reference list is
complete.
Literature-based
report mostly
complete with all
required sections.
Minor grammar or
spelling mistakes.
Introduction and
concluding sections
are succinct and
mostly complete.
Might be missing
findings/
recommendations
from the review.
Reference List is
complete or partially
complete.
Missing sections or
poorly presented
proposal. Poor
grammar and
spelling. Introduction
and Conclusion are
incomplete or
incoherent.
Incomplete or
missing reference
list.
15
pts
CITATION &
REFERENCING
Correct in-text citations
in UTS APA referencing
style; Reference List
conforms to UTS APA
referencing style and is
complete and accurate.
Cites relevant
information
accurately in APA
format. Reference
list fully conforms
with APA format and
is contained within a
dedicated Reference
section of the report.
Mostly cites
information
accurately in APA
format throughout
the main body of the
text. Contains
complete Reference
List in APA format
that is largely error free and/or does not
contain missing
references.
Cites only some
information in APA
format in the main
body of the text.
Reference List is in
APA format but
contains a number of
omissions or has
non-cited references
present.
In-text citation is
poor or uses
incorrect formatting
throughout the main
body of the text.
Incomplete and
inaccurate APA
format used in
Reference List, and
or contains missing
references.
15
pts
Grading Bands
High Distinction
(85-100%)
An outstanding literature-based report that provides the reader with a comprehensive and insightful
understanding of the topic and the significance of the research contribution. The report masters all criteria
set out in ‘Academic Rigour, & Robustness’, and in ‘Written Communication’.
The literature-based report resembles a highly professional critical review for an engineering R&D or an
academic research project. Definition of the problem domain is focused and clear. An up-to-date and
appropriate critical evaluation process is presented and supported by wide range of literature. The suitability
of the chosen texts and their (social/ economic/ ethical/ technical/ environmental) consequences are critically
analysed and discussed.
The report demonstrates an excellent synthesis of the literature and a highly convincing argument, which
has been fully justified throughout the report in a clear and continuous manner. The report therefore has a
consistent thread woven throughout each section of the report (Introduction, Critical Evaluation, Literature
Review and Conclusion), and presented in logical progression of ideas.
Language use is error free and of a high degree of professional accuracy. The report is extremely well
presented and organised.
The report is accurately referenced throughout.
University of Technology Sydney
Grading Bands
Distinction
(75-84%)
A superior literature-based report that provides the reader with a solid understanding of the topic and the
significance of its contribution to knowledge. The report is proficient in most of the criteria set out in
‘Academic Rigour, & Robustness’, and in ‘Written Communication’.
The report resembles a professional literature-based report for an engineering R&D or an academic research
project. Definition of the problem is focused and clear. The suitability of the selected texts under review and
their (social/ economic/ ethical/ technical/ environmental) consequences are critically discussed. An
appropriate critical evaluation process is presented and supported by sufficient literature.
The report demonstrates proficient rationality and argument, but which is only partially justified. Some
inconsistencies and gaps in the evidence and arguments that thread the four sections of the report
(Introduction, Literature Review and Conclusion) are evident. The progression of ideas presented tis mostly
logical however, some holes exist in the analysis and synthesis of the literature.
Language use is largely error free and there exists a good degree of professional accuracy. The report is
well presented and organised.
Accurately referenced throughout with minor or occasional lapses.
Credit
(65-74%)
The literature-based report provides the reader with a satisfactory understanding of the topic and the themes
that it addresses. The significance of the research contribution is less clear. The report demonstrates
developing skills in the criteria set out in ‘Academic Rigour, & Robustness’, and in ‘Written Communication’.
Definition of the problem is somewhat clear. The suitability of the selected texts under review and their
(social/ economic/ ethical/ technical/ environmental) impacts are presented but lack critical discussion. The
critical evaluation process presented is also lacking in terms of a convincing justification of the
appropriateness of the literature.
The report demonstrates some rationality and argument, presenting a limited justification, as evidenced by a
rudimentary thread that spans all four sections of the report (Introduction, Literature Review and Conclusion).
Gaps in the progression of the ideas presented throughout sections of the report are evident.
Language use is comprehensible and mostly professional with some lapses in formality or accuracy. The
report is mostly well presented and organised with some areas for improvement.
There is limited or inaccurate referencing in places.
Pass
(50-64%)
The literature-based report provides the reader with a brief or confused understanding of the research topic.
The significance of the research contribution is also unclear. The report demonstrates developing skills in the
criteria set out in ‘Academic Rigour, & Robustness’, and in ‘Written Communication’.
Definition of the problem is mostly clear. The suitability of the selected texts under review and their (social/
economic/ ethical/ technical/ environmental) impacts are discussed. An appropriate critical evaluation process
is presented but is only supported by limited literature or literature that is not up-to-date.
The report demonstrates limited rationality and argument, and their justification is largely absent, as evidenced
by inconsistencies in the content and a lack of a thread that spans all four sections of the report (Introduction,
Literature Review and Conclusion). Significant gaps in the progression of the ideas presented throughout
sections of the report are evident.
Language use is comprehensible and mostly professional with some lapses in formality or accuracy. Writing
style in places may lead to vagueness of understanding for the reader. The report is presented and organised
with some areas needing improvement.
There is limited or inaccurate referencing in places. Referencing might also be absent.
Not Passed
(0-49%)
The literature-based report has not demonstrated the level required for a pass.
To receive a pass grade, the report needs to be improved as advised in feedback.