Microsoft Word XXXXXXXXXXT1 BN110 Assignment 2 MEL SYD V1.4 Assignment 2 Trimester T3 2021 Unit Code BN110 Unit Title Information Systems Fundamentals Assessment Type Assignment 2: Group Assignment...

Bn110 assignment 2


Microsoft Word - 2019 T1 BN110 Assignment 2 MEL SYD V1.4 Assignment 2 Trimester T3 2021 Unit Code BN110 Unit Title Information Systems Fundamentals Assessment Type Assignment 2: Group Assignment Assessment Title Research Report Purpose of the assessment (withULO Mapping) a. Understand the basic concepts of organisations, including business organisational structures, and the roles of individuals and groups in organisations. c. Students should be able to demonstrate their achievements in them. Apply appropriate systems analysis techniques and use design tools in solving business problems. d. Understand the impact of social and ethical standards in global business operations Weight 30% Total Marks 70 Marks Word limit 1500 (Excluding Cover page, Abstract, Table of Contents and References) Due Date 04/02/2020 by 23:59 PM Submission Guidelines · All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page. · The assignment must be in MSWordformat,1.5spacing, 11-pt Calibri(Body) font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings. · Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using IEEE referencing style. Extension □ If an extension of time to submit work is required, a Special Consideration Application must be submitted directly on AMS. You must submit this application three working days prior to the due date of the assignment. Further information is available at: http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies- procedures-and-guidelines/specialconsiderationdeferment Academic Misconduct □ Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of the case, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to exclusion from the course or rescinding the degree. Students should make themselves familiarwiththefullpolicyandprocedureavailableat: https://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-procedures- and-guidelines/AcademicIntegrityPolicyAndProcedure . For further information, please refer to the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description. 1 Assignment Description In this assignment you will work in a group of 3-4 students. You need to write around 1500-word research report on the given research topic. This assignment will require each group to research using academic resources such as books, conference papers and academic journal. Please follow the academic conventions in writing guidelines. Part 1: Newspaper Article Analysis In this section you need to find an online newspaper article that discussed privacy/ security breaches involving social media or on customer data stolen from an organization by cybercriminals Your Task: Provide a screenshot of the article from the website and also summarise the key ethical, privacy and security issues reported in the article. (5 Marks) Write a 150-word summary in your own words why this issue is important in the context of ethics, privacy and security. (7.5 Marks) Part 2: Written Report Format You also have to submit a research report on the topic ‘Usability Testing of a Website’ In this section your group will be selecting a website and evaluate the usability aspects of this website. You then need to interpret the results and recommendations if any changes are required. Your report should capture: 1) A discussion on the literature involving usability and how to evaluate usability aspects of website. (5 Marks) 2) You need to come up with the key usability criteria/instrument that you will be using to evaluate the selected website and describe them in detail. (10 Marks) 3) You need apply the usability criteria to the selected website and provide a detailed analysis of the usability aspects (what was good and which design element was poor) and key recommendations (10 Marks) 4) Would you recommend this website to others and if so provide explanation of your overall reflection as a group? (5 Marks) Report Format: The report should use the following format: Cover page News Paper Article Analysis (Part 1) Introduction (For Part 2) Literature Review involving usability and how to evaluate usability aspects of website Key usability criteria/instrument used to evaluate the selected website and description in detail Application of the usability criteria to the selected website and a detailed analysis of the usability aspects (what was good and which design element was poor) and key recommendations Overall reflection as a group on the usability aspects of the website Conclusion References (IEEE format) Submission details: Assignment 2 Marking Criteria Section Description of the section Marks Research Report Cover Page Use assessment cover sheet on Moodle Newspaper Article Provide a screenshot of the article from the website and the key ethical issue (5 Marks) Write a 150-word summary why this issue is important in the context of ethics, privacy and security (7.5 Marks) 12.5 Introduction Introduction to usability 5 Literature Review A discussion on the literature involving usability and how to evaluate usability aspects of website 10 Usability Instrument/Criteria Key usability criteria/instrument that was used to evaluate the selected website and describe them in detail 10 Application of usability criteria to website Applying usability criteria to the selected website and a detailed analysis of the usability aspects (what was good and which design element was poor) and key recommendations 10 Overall reflection of your thoughts as a group on usability aspects of the website Would you recommend this website to others and if so, provide explanation of your overall reflection as a group 5 Conclusion Summary of this research 5 Writing and Referencing □Style – spelling, grammar, formatting, proofread 2.5 □Referencing (Correct in text citations and reference list) 2.5 Total marks for Assignment 2 70 Weighted marks 30 Marking Rubric Grade Mark HD 80-100% D 70-79% CR 60-69% P 50-59% Fail <50% excellent very good good satisfactory unsatisfactory newspaper article /12.5 excellent description of and is very clear and concise. very good description good description but requires good integration of ideas attempt is made at describing the topic but it is not complete poor description of the topic introduction /5 excellent description of and is very clear and concise. very good description good description but requires good integration of ideas attempt is made at describing the topic but it is not complete poor description of the topic a discussion on the literature involving usability and how to evaluate usability aspects of website key usability criteria/instrument that was used to evaluate the selected website and describe them in detail demonstrated excellent ability to think critically and sourced reference material appropriately. logic is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments demonstrated ability to think critically and sourced reference material appropriately. consistency logical and convincing demonstrated ability to think critically and sourced reference material appropriately. mostly consistent logical and convincing demonstrated ability to think critically and but not source reference material appropriately adequate cohesion and conviction did not demonstrate ability to think critically and did not source reference material appropriately argument is confused and disjointed applying usability criteria to the selected website and a detailed analysis of the usability aspects (what was good and which design element was poor) and key recommendations /30 overall reflection of your thoughts as a group on usability aspects of the website /5 logic is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments. consistent, logical and convincing. mostly consistent logical and convincing. adequate cohesion and conviction. argument is confused and disjointed. conclusion /5 summary is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments. consistent, logical and convincing. mostly consistent logical and convincing. adequate cohesion and conviction. summary is confused and disjointed. writing style /2.5 correct spelling and grammar. formatting correct and consistent. proofread. minor lapses in style and formatting. proofread. some lapses in style and formatting. proofreading could be improved formatting and styles could be improved. proofreading also need improving no attempt made to correctly formatting or style the report. no proofreading done. reference list and in- text citation /2.5 accurate referencing style clear referencing style. generally good referencing style sometimes clear referencing style lacks consistency with many errors research sources /5 excellent sources (10 sources) uses journal, websites and conference papers very good sources good sources but mostly websites satisfactory sources poor sources not peer reviewed 8 excellent="" very="" good="" good="" satisfactory="" unsatisfactory="" newspaper="" article="" 12.5="" excellent="" description="" of="" and="" is="" very="" clear="" and="" concise.="" very="" good="" description="" good="" description="" but="" requires="" good="" integration="" of="" ideas="" attempt="" is="" made="" at="" describing="" the="" topic="" but="" it="" is="" not="" complete="" poor="" description="" of="" the="" topic="" introduction="" 5="" excellent="" description="" of="" and="" is="" very="" clear="" and="" concise.="" very="" good="" description="" good="" description="" but="" requires="" good="" integration="" of="" ideas="" attempt="" is="" made="" at="" describing="" the="" topic="" but="" it="" is="" not="" complete="" poor="" description="" of="" the="" topic="" a="" discussion="" on="" the="" literature="" involving="" usability="" and="" how="" to="" evaluate="" usability="" aspects="" of="" website="" key="" usability="" criteria/instrument="" that="" was="" used="" to="" evaluate="" the="" selected="" website="" and="" describe="" them="" in="" detail="" demonstrated="" excellent="" ability="" to="" think="" critically="" and="" sourced="" reference="" material="" appropriately.="" logic="" is="" clear="" and="" easy="" to="" follow="" with="" strong="" arguments="" demonstrated="" ability="" to="" think="" critically="" and="" sourced="" reference="" material="" appropriately.="" consistency="" logical="" and="" convincing="" demonstrated="" ability="" to="" think="" critically="" and="" sourced="" reference="" material="" appropriately.="" mostly="" consistent="" logical="" and="" convincing="" demonstrated="" ability="" to="" think="" critically="" and="" but="" not="" source="" reference="" material="" appropriately="" adequate="" cohesion="" and="" conviction="" did="" not="" demonstrate="" ability="" to="" think="" critically="" and="" did="" not="" source="" reference="" material="" appropriately="" argument="" is="" confused="" and="" disjointed="" applying="" usability="" criteria="" to="" the="" selected="" website="" and="" a="" detailed="" analysis="" of="" the="" usability="" aspects="" (what="" was="" good="" and="" which="" design="" element="" was="" poor)="" and="" key="" recommendations="" 30="" overall="" reflection="" of="" your="" thoughts="" as="" a="" group="" on="" usability="" aspects="" of="" the="" website="" 5="" logic="" is="" clear="" and="" easy="" to="" follow="" with="" strong="" arguments.="" consistent,="" logical="" and="" convincing.="" mostly="" consistent="" logical="" and="" convincing.="" adequate="" cohesion="" and="" conviction.="" argument="" is="" confused="" and="" disjointed.="" conclusion="" 5="" summary="" is="" clear="" and="" easy="" to="" follow="" with="" strong="" arguments.="" consistent,="" logical="" and="" convincing.="" mostly="" consistent="" logical="" and="" convincing.="" adequate="" cohesion="" and="" conviction.="" summary="" is="" confused="" and="" disjointed.="" writing="" style="" 2.5="" correct="" spelling="" and="" grammar.="" formatting="" correct="" and="" consistent.="" proofread.="" minor="" lapses="" in="" style="" and="" formatting.="" proofread.="" some="" lapses="" in="" style="" and="" formatting.="" proofreading="" could="" be="" improved="" formatting="" and="" styles="" could="" be="" improved.="" proofreading="" also="" need="" improving="" no="" attempt="" made="" to="" correctly="" formatting="" or="" style="" the="" report.="" no="" proofreading="" done.="" reference="" list="" and="" in-="" text="" citation="" 2.5="" accurate="" referencing="" style="" clear="" referencing="" style.="" generally="" good="" referencing="" style="" sometimes="" clear="" referencing="" style="" lacks="" consistency="" with="" many="" errors="" research="" sources="" 5="" excellent="" sources="" (10="" sources)="" uses="" journal,="" websites="" and="" conference="" papers="" very="" good="" sources="" good="" sources="" but="" mostly="" websites="" satisfactory="" sources="" poor="" sources="" not="" peer="" reviewed="">