CRCK7042 Data Analytics Final

Assignment
University of Cumbria and Robert Kennedy College

General Instructions – Please read carefully

You are required to complete the assignment outlined below and submit your completed final
document through the RKC Online Campus by the end of Unit 6. Your grade will be based 100% on
this final document, to which you will also receive written feedback.

In addition, you must upload part of your draft of the above document by the end of Unit 3 (see
Interim Assignment, below). This draft will not be graded, but it is an important way of monitoring
your progress. Formative feedback on your draft will be given, and general feedback with respect to
the topic(s) covered in the interim assignment will be posted on the Forum after Unit 3 has been
completed.

Your paper must have a clear structure and must include:

• Cover page (an example is available to you in Induction/Unit 4)

• Abstract (no more than 150 words, a single paragraph)
• Table of contents (Table of tables/figures if necessary) – numbered sections, page numbers
• A subsection for each of the four questions of the assessment - no more than 4’000 words
in total
• A list of references – at Master level you must use in-text citations to support your
arguments and any work cited must appear in the References list at the end of the work.

Please ask any questions about the interim assignment and final assignment in the class discussion
forums.
Final Assignment – 4,000 words
For all questions below, you should either:

1. Use the CSV file provided (dataanalytics-class-data.csv)

2. Collect your own data using an online survey
3. Use other data sources that are publicly available

Questions:
1. Conduct a literature review that critically discusses the concepts of
a. Data Science
b. Data Analytics

and the difference between the two concepts in academic and practitioner literature. Find
and discuss relevant literature (peer-reviewed literature is preferred, such as journal articles,
conference articles, with books, white papers, practitioner literature, and blog articles having a little
less weight).

Weight: 20% of the final mark (roughly 1’000 words)

2. Using concepts discussed in the module, define your data analytics problem. You should be
clear about the problem and the questions you are asking. You should also consider your
audience explicitly. You can also discuss here data wrangling issues, problem identification
challenges, and show some basic exploratory analysis.

Weight: 30% of the final mark (roughly 1’500 words)

3. Using best practices in storytelling with data, prepare a presentation of the findings of your
analysis that could be used in a board room setting in order to lead to a decision on the
original problem previously defined. This presentation can either be embedded as a
PowerPoint document in the Word file you submit or be a (sub)section of the document
itself.

Weight: 20% of the final mark (roughly 1’000 words, with use of graphics)

4. Using an established framework (for example, principles of data analytics (see Hicks and
Peng (2019) for reference)), consider the limitations of your analysis, and possible ways in
which this could have been improved had you had more data, time, etc. Focus more on your
analysis more than on the quality of the dataset itself.

Weight: 20% of the final mark (roughly 500 words)

The remaining 10% of the final mark will be dependent on the quality of Harvard referencing
and overall presentation professionalism of the paper.

Interim Assignment
The Interim assignment requires you to submit, by the end of Unit 3, a draft of the final assignment
through the OnlineCampus. Formative feedback will be given to you on it, so do try to have roughly a
1’500 to 2’000 words paper, with a full structure for the final paper, and some content on each of
the questions (a plan for what you intend to do is ok too).
 To obtain a Fail grade of To obtain a substantial fail
Criteria and Weighting To obtain 70% or above: To obtain 60% or above: To obtain 55 – 59%: To obtain 50% - 54%:
between 49 - 40 %:- of between 39 - 0%:-

An excellent review, A good review that A good review, showing A reasonably good review, A poor review, showing little A very poor review, with little
demonstrating independent demonstrates some independent research, showing little independent or no evidence of independent or no sources, and/or little or
research (relevant and recent independent research and although sources are not research, although sources are research and critical thinking. no critical engagement with
A critical literature
sources, from academic as well critical engagement with always trustworthy, are taken not always trustworthy, are said sources.
review on Data Science as practitioner sources) and sources. at face value, or are outdated. taken at face value, or are
and Data Analytics critical thinking (engaging with outdated.
sources rather than taking
(20%) them at face value; discussing
their limitations, strengths and
weaknesses)

An excellent problem A good problem definition, A good problem definition, A reasonably good problem A poorly written problem A very poor or missing
definition, very well written, well written, with some making some use of existing definition, making some use of definition, with limited problem definition, with little
making full use of one or more integration of theoretical theoretical frameworks to existing theoretical support from existing if any link between theory and
theoretical frameworks to frameworks in its build and support the frameworks to build and theoretical frameworks, and practice, or not at all
structure the section. presentation. argument, which may support the argument, which no or little consideration of the attempted.
Problem definition sometimes lack in clarity. Few may sometimes lack in clarity. audience.
(30%) The audience is clearly The audience is partially issues may be weakly
considered and the questions considered in defining the explored. The audience may be weakly
to be answered and questions to be answered. explored.
preparation for analysis are The audience may be weakly
clearly tailored to the considered.
audience.

An excellent communication of A good communication of the A reasonably good The communication of the The communication is Little evidence of
the analysis’ findings, with analysis’ findings, with good communication of the analysis’ findings is relatively weak, confusing and/or incomplete, understanding of the issues
excellent choices for visual choices for visual elements findings, with reasonable needing stronger support from with little or no visual support. surrounding communication of
Communication of elements that fully support the that support the argument and choices for visual elements visual elements and a stronger findings post analysis.
findings (20%) argument and help address help address the original that partially support the answer to the original
the original question. question. argument and help address question.
the original question to some
extent.

An excellent review of the A good review of the analysis A reasonable review of the A shallow look at the strengths A poor review of the analysis Little evidence of
Critical review of your analysis and its strengths and and its strengths and analysis and its strengths and / weaknesses of your own and its limitations, with no use understanding of the issues
analysis and its weaknesses, using appropriate weaknesses, using appropriate weaknesses. Stronger use of analysis, with little if any use of of theoretical frameworks. surrounding data analysis
theoretical frameworks. theoretical frameworks. appropriate theoretical theoretical frameworks to limitations.
limitations (20%) frameworks was needed. structure the review.

Excellent Harvard referencing Very minor Harvard Minor Harvard referencing Harvard Referencing issues Very poor Harvard referencing Either no Harvard referencing
Referencing and throughout the paper and an referencing errors throughout issues throughout the paper throughout the paper and throughout the paper and and/or spelling and grammar
presentation (10%) excellent the paper and bibliography. and bibliography which does bibliography detract from the bibliography and/or a poorly detracts from the academic
bibliography/references list. The paper itself is presented not detract from the academic academic level of study and/or constructed paper. level required. The paper is not
The paper itself is presented in level of the work. The paper the spelling and grammar adequate for Master level
a clear, logical way, and would with some style itself is presented clearly and errors cause the whole to be work.
be appropriate for peer-review coherently poorly presented.
publication.
Assessment Feedback Sheet and Marking scheme

Max Mark Mark

Criteria Achievable Awarded
Comments

A critical literature review on Data Science and Data Analytics 20%

Is there good use of academic, reliable sources (journal articles, books,

etc.)? Is there a balanced view of the two concepts? Are sources
compared, contrasted, and discussed in the bigger picture?

Problem definition 30%

Is the problem clearly defined? Are theoretical frameworks used to

identify elements and principles of the data analysis that need to be
used? Is the audience identified and is the question or are the questions
to be answered tailored to the audience?

Communication of findings 20%

Is there good use of graphics? Do they support the analysis and convey
the answer to the question? Is the focus on relevant aspects?

Critical review of your analysis and its limitations 20%

Is there good use of theoretical frameworks for the analysis of the data
analysis? Are limitations realistically explored?

Referencing and presentation 10%

Is referencing accurate, abiding by the Harvard standard? Is the overall

presentation professional and helping the reader follow the argument?

Total
Overall Comments
100%