Updated September 2020 1 of 5
Department of Computer Science
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Main Objectives of the assessment ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Description of the Assessment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Learning Outcomes and Marking Criteria ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2
Format of the Assessment …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Submission Instructions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
Avoiding Plagiarism…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4
Late Coursework ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Assessment Title Coursework Assignment
Module Leader Dr Kathy McGrath
Distribution Date During w/c 26 October 2020
Submission Deadline Monday 11 January 2021 11:00 a.m.
Feedback by 22/2/21
Contribution to overall module assessment 100%
Indicative student time working on assessment 70 Hours
Word or Page Limit (if applicable) 2500 – 3000 Words (not including references)
Assessment Type (individual or group) Individual
MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSMENT
The coursework for the Ethics and Governance module is an individual analysis and critical reflection on the use
of facial recognition technology (FRT) in practice. Facial recognition systems use computer algorithms to
recognise a human face. These systems work by mapping specific facial features from a photograph or video,
converting them into a digital image, and then comparing the result with a database of known faces to find a
match. These systems are used in a wide variety of public places, including airports and train stations, as well
as in more personal settings such as online banking, unlocking phones or checking passports.
This assignment aims to assess the following learning outcomes (LOs):
LO1: Identify and appraise existing research related to the handling and governance of digital information;
LO2: Evaluate the legal, social and ethical concerns and consequences related to the use of digital systems
in practice;
LO3: Reflect critically on the governance implications of adopting digital technologies in the modern
working environment and society.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT
The requirements of the assessment for the Ethics and Governance module are as follows:
1. To search for and review the literature on the use of facial recognition technology (FRT), highlighting for
each paper you read the stance it develops on FRT and in what circumstances. Therefore, the requirement
for this part of the coursework is to discuss which aspect(s) of FRT are raised in each paper and whether
the authors’ reasoning is primarily universalist or relativist, as discussed in the lectures. Please note: You
should consider both universalist and relativist strands of literature in your submission and search for
literature in addition to the readings provided by your tutors;
2. To provide a brief description of a specific instance of FRT use in one of the following domains:
CS5805 Ethics and Governance of Digital Systems
Assessment/Coursework for 2020/21
Updated September 2020 2 of 5
Department of Computer Science
a. Use of live facial recognition by the British police in public places. The report by the Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO, 2019) contains detailed information about this deployment, from
which you should extract relevant details to write a description of what was done in public places
in London and Cardiff;
b. Use of facial recognition technologies in schools. The paper by Andrejevic and Selwyn (2020) is the
detailed source you should use to prepare a description on this topic;
c. Use of facial recognition technology for audience evaluation at performing arts events. The paper
by Samardzic (2018) is the recommended source for this topic.
The aim of the description you produce is to provide your reader with sufficient background information
to understand your argument in later sections of your submission;
References
Andrejevic, M. and Selwyn, N. (2020). Facial recognition technology in schools: critical questions and
concerns, Learning, Media and Technology, 45:2, pp. 115-128
ICO (2019). ICO Investigation into how the Police Use Facial Recognition Technology in Public Places,
Information Commissioner’s Office, Wilmslow, 31 October
Samardzic, A. (2018). Audience evaluation and biometric technology: challenges and opportunities, in
Proceedings of the 24th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), New Orleans, pp.
1-10.
3. To outline your ethical stance on the use of FRT in your chosen domain, together with a justification of the
ethical perspective which underlies your position. You will be expected to refer to relevant literature and
module learning materials on ethical perspectives in your arguments;
4. A discussion of whether and how you believe regulation on FRT in your chosen domain should be
implemented. Your position on regulation should not be inconsistent with your ethical stance on FRT. You
must provide a justification for your arguments which references relevant regulatory principles and module
learning materials, whether you argue for or against regulation;
5. Reflections on the theoretical and practical implications of your arguments and the possibilities for future
research.
LEARNING OUTCOMES AND MARKING CRITERIA
Learning outcomes and marking criteria Assessment
outcomes
Learning outcome 1: Identify and appraise existing research related to the handling and
governance of digital information Grades
There is no evidence from the submission of an ability to demonstrate this learning
outcome.
F
Unacceptable
There is very little evidence from the submission of an ability to demonstrate this learning
outcome.
E (E+, E, E-)
Unsatisfactory
The submission fails to meet the threshold requirements for this task. However, there is
some evidence that the work overall is very close to demonstrating this learning outcome.
D (D+, D, D-)
Below
Masters
Threshold
Threshold Requirements: The literature review demonstrates a basic understanding of
both universalist and relativist perspectives and related research on FRT. However, the
arguments linking the former to the latter need further development. There is evidence
of well referenced sources from existing work.
C (C+, C, C-)
Acceptable
Merit Requirements: The threshold requirements have been exceeded, but the literature
review falls short of a distinctive attempt to analyse existing research in terms of the issues
raised and related theoretical perspectives.
B (B+, B, B-)
Good/Very
Good
Distinction Requirements: The literature review demonstrates critical judgement in the
selection and discussion of existing research and its evaluation in terms of the issues raised
and related universalist and relativist perspectives.
A (A*, A+, A,
A-)
Excellent/
Exceptional
Updated September 2020 3 of 5
Department of Computer Science
Learning outcome 2: Evaluate the legal, social and ethical concerns and consequences
related to the use of digital systems in practice Grades
There is no evidence from the submission of an ability to demonstrate this learning
outcome.
F
Unacceptable
There is very little evidence from the submission of an ability to demonstrate this learning
outcome.
E (E+, E, E-)
Unsatisfactory
The submission fails to meet the threshold requirements for this task. However, there is
some evidence that the work overall is very close to demonstrating this learning outcome.
D (D+, D, D-)
Below
Masters
Threshold
Threshold requirements: The submission provides a rudimentary analysis of the ethical
and regulatory concerns and consequences related to the use of FRT in practice The
description of FRT use in the chosen domain clearly summarises key points for a nonexpert audience.
C (C+, C, C-)
Acceptable
Merit requirements: The threshold requirements have been exceeded, but the description
and analysis fall short of a distinctive attempt to evaluate the use of FRT in practice.
B (B+, B, B-)
Good/Very
Good
Distinction requirements: The description skilfully summarises important points about the
use of FRT in the chosen domain, providing an excellent basis for the analysis. The analysis
shows a thorough understanding of the ethical and regulatory concerns and consequences
related to the use of FRT in practice and provides an insightful account of its use in the
chosen domain.
A (A*, A+, A,
A-)
Excellent/
Exceptional
Learning outcome 3: Reflect critically on the governance implications of adopting digital
technologies in the modern working environment and society Grades
There is no evidence from the submission of an ability to demonstrate this learning
outcome.
F
Unacceptable
There is very little evidence from the submission of an ability to demonstrate this learning
outcome.
E (E+, E, E-)
Unsatisfactory
The submission fails to meet the threshold requirements for this task. However, there is
some evidence that the work overall is very close to demonstrating this learning outcome.
D (D+, D, D-)
Below
Masters
Threshold
Threshold requirements: The reflections demonstrate an understanding of the
governance implications of adopting FRT in the modern working environment and society.
Some further research directions are identified. The submission contains the required
material in the required format (see below) and is presented in a professional style.
Citations and references are provided in the house (Harvard) style.
C (C+, C, C-)
Acceptable
Merit requirements: The threshold requirements have been exceeded, but the reflections
fall short of a distinctive attempt to reflect on the governance implications of adopting
FRT in the modern working environment and society.
B (B+, B, B-)
Good/Very
Good
Distinction requirements: The reflections demonstrate a convincing critical understanding
of the governance implications of adopting FRT in the modern working environment and
society. Directions for further research are thoughtful and sensible. The submission
contains all of the required material in the required format (see below) and is presented
in a highly professional style with excellent structure, coherence and use of language.
Citations and references match and are provided in the house (Harvard) style.
A (A*, A+, A,
A-)
Excellent/
Exceptional
Overall Grading
The overall grading for the module is achieved as follows:
1. Where a C grade has not been achieved in all LOs, the overall grade for the task will
be equal to the grade of the lowest LO achieved.
Grades
e.g. At least one F in any LO F
Unacceptable
Updated September 2020 4 of 5
Department of Computer Science
e.g. At least one E (E+, E, E-) in any LO and no Fs in the remaining LOs E (E+, E, E-)
Unsatisfactory
e.g. At least one D (D+, D, D-) in any LO and no Es or Fs in the remaining LOs D (D+, D, D-)
Below
Masters
Threshold
2. Where C grade, and above, has been achieved in all LOs, the overall grade will be
given by the median grade.
The median is calculated by assigning a numeric value to the grade for each LO (A-, A, A+,
A* has values 14-17; B-, B, B+ has values 11-13; C-, C, C+ has values 8-10 respectively) and
then dividing the result by the number of LOs, in this case, 3.
e.g.
C-,C-,A- = 8 + 8 + 14 / 3 = 10, thus a grade of C+;
C-,C-,B- = 8 + 8 + 11 / 3 = 9, thus a grade of C;
C-,C-,C- = 8 + 8 + 8 / 3 = 8, thus a grade of CC (C+, C, C-)
Acceptable
e.g.
C+,B+,A+ = 10 + 13 + 16 / 3 = 13, thus a grade of B+;
B,B,B = 12 + 12 + 12 / 3 = 12, thus a grade of B;
C,B,B = 9 + 12 + 12 / 3 = 11, thus a grade of BB (B+, B, B-)
Good/Very
Good
e.g.
A*,A*,A* = 17 + 17 + 17 / 3 = 17, thus a grade of A*;
A,A+,A* = 15 + 16 + 17 / 3 = 16, thus a grade of A+;
B+,A+,A+ = 13 + 16 + 16 / 3 = 15, thus a grade of A;
B+,A-,A = 13 + 14 + 15 / 3 = 14, thus a grade of AA (A*, A+, A,
A-)
Excellent/
Exceptional
FORMAT OF THE ASSESSMENT
Your submission should adhere to the following format:
1) A cover page with your student ID, the module code and title, the academic year, and the assignment
title;
2) The main body of your assignment, which must include all of the following:
a. A brief Introduction;
b. Literature Review;
c. Description of the use of FRT in the chosen domain;
d. Analysis and Discussion of FRT use in the chosen domain from an ethical and regulatory perspective;
e. Reflections;
3) A list of all the references used in your submission, following the Harvard style;
4) Appendices, if any. These should be kept to a minimum.
You should set a footer for your submission which includes:
Your student registration number on every page.
Page numbers on every page (preferably in the format page x of y)
SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
Your assignment must be submitted as a PDF file on Wiseflow by 11:00 a.m. on 11 January 2021.
You can follow the link to Wiseflow through the module section on Blackboard or login in directly at
https://uk.wiseflow.net/brunel. You should use your student ID number as the file name (e.g. 0123456.pdf).
AVOIDING PLAGIARISM
Please ensure that you understand the meaning of plagiarism and the seriousness of the offence. Information
on plagiarism can be found in the College’s Student Handbook.
Updated September 2020 5 of 5
Department of Computer Science
LATE COURSEWORK
The clear expectation is that you will submit your coursework by the submission deadline stated in the study
guide. In line with the University’s policy on the late submission of coursework (revised in July 2016),
coursework submitted up to 48 hours late will be accepted, but capped at a threshold pass (C- for
postgraduate). Work submitted over 48 hours after the stated deadline will automatically be given a fail grade
(F).
Please refer to the College’s Student Handbook for information on submitting late, penalties applied and
procedures in the case of mitigating circumstances.
