End of Module Assignment

Individual e-Portfolio including 1000-word reflective piece

Author: Anja Kosar

e-Portfolio link: Home ANJA KOSAR

Research Skills and Professional Practice

Professor Karen Outram

MSc Cyber Security (online)

Introduction

This assignment evaluates academic and personal growth throughout the twelve-week module, presenting an analysis of key artefacts, assessing various skills, and concluding with how these will inform future academic and professional development, aligned with a professional development skills matrix (McLeod, 2024). Using Rolfe et al.’s reflective model (What? So What? Now What?), the assignment includes a SWOT analysis and reference artefacts via direct (blue) links to the e-portfolio.

Review of artifacts

Week 1

The module began with a Collaborative Discussion on Rogue services, unregulated internet platforms associated with malware, raising ethical and professional concerns (Acm.org, 2024). The discussion focused on evaluating services based on academic integrity, legality, and professional values. Initially, where was a cautious approach to critique, partly due to a lack of familiarity with ethical frameworks like the ACM Code of Ethics. This revealed a gap in confidence when articulating ethical arguments. However, peer interaction and academic reading increased awareness of unethical practices and the importance of maintaining professional integrity in digital environments. This was complimented by the first E-Portfolio Activity, on computing in the age of generative AI. Reviewing 200 documents from 37 countries published between 2014 and 2022 identified 17 core lack of ethical AI principles, including transparency, justice, privacy and accountability (Corrêa et al., 2023; Press, 2023). This activity sparked both excitement and concern. The potential for innovation is exhilarating, yet the risks of such innovation, without proper frameworks can be slight unsettling. While digital innovation presents immense possibilities, it also loses touch with what is authentic, leaving a feeling of how can these benefits be embraced whilst safeguarding moments and tokens of authenticity?

Week 2

In week 2 Peer Responses, students had to engage with the initial posts made in week 1. This was valuable in demonstrating the difference between agreement and critical engagement, providing opportunities to encounter diverse viewpoints and begin developing the capacity for constructive academic critique. The initial feedback was police and affirming, but it lacked depth in analysis. Effective peer review necessitated identifying strengths and offering improvement suggestions. This was realized through Yuji Watanabe’s response, who stated “It is also important to discuss the issue of international jurisdiction in this case. We must also consider how to regulate companies that are based in countries where it is easy to avoid legal liability, such as Rogue” (Watanabe, 2025; my-course.co.uk, 2025). The task improved interpersonal academic skills and shifted emotional discomfort from critique to appreciation for collaborative learning, fostering stronger interpersonal skills.

Week 3

The week’s Summary Post concluded the first discussion. Creating the summary was more demanding than anticipated, as it required a combination of analytical clarity and careful interpretation to combine multiple perspectives into a coherent narrative. One key learning point was the necessity of maintaining an objective tone while acknowledging contrasting viewpoints. This helped reinforce the importance of academic neutrality and synthesis skills, a valuable skill in both professional and academic research environments.
Alongside the summary post, a second E-Portfolio Activity was submitted, for the research proposal, focusing on mobile app development in emergency healthcare. Initially, confusion arose from managing two separate proposal topics, however narrowing focus clarified the direction for future assignments, requiring a clear research question and appropriate methodology.

Week 4

Week 4 focused on submitting a Literature Review Outline, creating a foundation for the week 7 assignment. The initial draft was too broad, lacking specific alignment between sources and the research question. Feedback from the tutor was pivotal in this week’s development, highlighting the lack of focus and encouraging narrowing the scope to one key area. The emotional response to this feedback was mixed. Initially, there was disappointment, but also recognition that the feedback was an opportunity. This shifted the perspective from defensiveness to adaptive learning, an essential skill noted in the Professional Skills Matrix.

Week 5

The E-Portfolio Activity in week 5 focused on inappropriate use of online surveys for data harvesting, particularly in relation to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. This task involved analyzing the boundaries of informed consent, lawful data collection, and participant manipulation, through an app called “thisisyourdigitallife” created by Aleksandr Kogan (Rehman, 2019). This exercise evoked strong emotional reactions of frustration and concern, due to the real-world implications of unethical research. It reinforced the legal and ethical principles of GDPR, BPS Code of Human Research Ethics and informed consent (European Commission, 2018). This deepened understanding of researcher responsibility and raised awareness of ethical red flags in digital data practices, a beneficial skill for future assignments and the Skills Matrix.

Week 6

The sixth week did not involve any new deliverables, however it served as a crucial period for consolidation and catching up, highlighting the importance of time managemen. It allowed for revisiting feedback and re-watching lectures, highlighting the need for structured self-reflection to avoid overlooking valuable feedback and missed learning opportunities.

Week 7

This week was the most challenging, marking the second Collaborative Discussion, which highlighted a case by Abi, a researcher who faced a complex ethical dilemma in presenting research, highlighting the so-called publication bias (Mlinaric et al. 2017). This discussion revealed improved confidence in engaging academic peers, though anxiety remained around the quality of contributions. A further step to this realization was by a peer response from Nima Osman who stated “One area that could be further explored is the role of peer review and editorial processes in addressing public bias”, which marked a valid point (Osman, 2025; my-course.co.uk, 2025).

This unit also required the Literature Review, combining scholarly sources on app development in emergency healthcare systems, focusing on technical integration and interoperability. It was here that the feedback from the tutor in week 4 was the most visible, citations were tighter, and arguments better structured. However, the lack of source diversity and heavy reliance on UK based legislation limited the learning experience, requiring better time management for more research.
The Hypothesis Worksheets added further complexity to this unit, enhancing quantitative thinking skills, though they exposed weaknesses in statistical interpretation. This activity, while rewarding, highlighted a skills gap in data analysis.

Week 8

This week introduced the discussion Peer Responses, which demonstrated enhanced ability to structure responses, confidence gained from the previous discussion, showing a noticeable shift from week 2. Compared to prior discussions, responses were more confident, though there remained a tendency to be overly cautious when discussing within an academic setting.

This unit also required drafting a new Research Proposal Outline, focusing on cybercrime, building on the previous assignment but with a refined scope and clearer methodological alignment. This exercise highlighted the significance of reducing research questions to ensure feasibility, resulting in topic change due to resource scarcity in the previous assignment. This emphasized planning, critical thinking, and aligning research objectives, demonstrating significant progress.

Week 9

This unit introduced the collaborative discussion Summary Post, again highlighting multiple peer response perspectives into a cohesive narrative, deepening the understanding of ethical and methodological issues discussed during the week. This exercise reinforced skills in critical reflection and academic synthesis.

The Statistical Worksheets aimed to develop core skills in data analysis, including tasks on frequency distribution, data visualization, and basic statistical interpretation. This area was provided for students to explore various exercises using excel worksheets and data sets, however, the learning process was significantly hindered by missing content and poorly structured delivery by the portal layout. Several worksheets files were either unavailable or incorrectly uploaded. This disorganization led to confusion, causing unnecessary delays and frustration. To overcome these obstacles, it became necessary to reach out for peer support, and external research. While the process was time consuming, it resulted in a better grasp of statistical tools and an appreciation for independent problem solving. This experience highlighted a personal weakness in quantitative reasoning and revealed reliance on clearly guided instructions. However, it also demonstrated growth in self-management and resourcefulness, key components of the professional development skills matrix. Despite the rocky start, the exercise proved to be a valuable lesson in adapting these skills which will be valuable for the final capstone project.

Week 10

This unit focused on creating the Research Proposal Presentation, on cybercrime and transnational law enforcement, balancing multiple elements like PowerPoint slide design, written transcript, research synthesis, and voice recording, while considering legal, technical and ethical aspects, exposing the need for stronger multitasking strategies. The experience prompted reflection on workload prioritization, a key area within the professional development skills matrix. The task, initially overwhelming, emphasized the importance of planning and time management for a coherent output. Successfully delivering the presentation strengthened confidence in verbally delivering ideas and demonstrated digital communication growth, which is transferrable to professional settings.

Week 11

This unit focused on the final assignment, identifying key components such as the skills matrix, SWOT analysis, and creating the e-portfolio, helping organize the reflection and ensuring all skills developed throughout the module were effectively showcased. Challenge of this module was that the instructions were not clear on the portal. Thankfully, the tutors in depth mention of these artifacts and where to find them highlighted the importance of completion.

Week 12

This unit focused on the end of module assignment, which included two parts, a comprehensive 1500-word module overview, and a 1000-word reflection piece. The first part summarized key learnings from the module, while the second part offered a deeper, reflective analysis of personal and academic growth. The assignment allowed applying the skills matrix and SWOT analysis to evaluate progress, challenges and how these experiences would influence future academic and professional development. Although sounding straight forward, challenges arose with balancing the in-depth analysis with the constraints of the word limit. The skills matrix played a crucial role in guiding this process, helping to identify strengths and areas for improvement.

Wolfe et al. Reflection

What?

Throughout the twelve-week module, multiple artefacts were completed, each offering unique insights into ethical awareness, academic communication, research methodology, and statistical competence. Activities like the collaborative discussions, peer responses, literature reviews, and statistical worksheets provided opportunities to engage critically with contemporary issues and personal capabilities. The module also encouraged reflection on digital ethics (Rogue services), professional integrity, and the integration of digital tools for research and communication.

So What?

The artefacts collectively revealed strengths in written communication, ethical reasoning, and adaptability, but also underlined recurring challenges in time management, and quantitative analysis. The Week 1 discussion on Rogue services highlighted an initial discomfort with applying ethical frameworks such as the ACM Code of Ethics (Acm.org, 2024). This discomfort sparked a sense of uncertainty, revealing a need for deeper grounding in professional guidelines beyond those familiar in current practice. While peer feedback improved collaborative articulation, initial posts were often cautious or overly general.

Peer engagement in Week 2 showed that while polite and affirming language came naturally, genuine critical response required effort. There was an internal conflict to challenge peer ideas, stemming from uncertainty about academic tone and fear of offending peers. Over time, feedback like Watanabe’s remark on international jurisdiction broadened understanding of cyber legal complexities, and Osman’s encouragement to further explore addressing public bias, pushed for reflective growth (Watanabe, 2025; Osman, 2025; my-course.co.uk, 2025).

By Week 4, feedback on literature review outline revealed a tendency to overextend ideas without tightly aligning them to research objectives. Although initially disappointing, this became a turning point. The emotional sting of critique gave way to a recognition of its value. Embracing this shift helped build resilience and a stronger capacity to receive feedback constructively, which proved instrumental preparing for the assignments ahead.

One of the more emotional learning experiences occurred in Week 1, analyzing the ethical violations in the use of generative AI. As someone deeply fascinated by the capabilities and rapid growth of AI, it is difficult to ignore the glaring lack of ethical considerations surrounding its development (Press, 2023). This technology is developing at an unprecedent rate, yet it feels like there is little thought given to what it should do, rather than what it can do. This realization was unsettling, and left with questioning how can we responsibly harness this technology.

Statistical activities in week 9 were particularly difficult. The lack of structured guidance and missing content led to confusion, frustration and reliance on peer support. These difficulties underscored a personal weakness in quantitative reasoning and revealed an over dependence on clearer written instructions, leaving a genuine feeling of being overwhelmed. Despite this, eagerness to complete the task led to a better understanding of statistical tools, though this area remains a clear priority for more development. This is especially relevant in the current global climate, where economic uncertainty, amplified by ongoing trade disputes and tariffs by major powers such as the US, demands strong data literacy. It is increasingly evident that modern wars are no longer limited to physical conflict involving just weapons, but now manifest through economic warfare, like these trade tariffs and sanctions, which require a deep understanding of global data and patterns. A limited ability to interpret these economic shifts could impact future roles in policy or business strategy where accurate economic forecasting is essential to prepare for rising costs and supply chain (Clarke, 2025).

The final research proposal and presentation tasks in Weeks 10-12 were more successful, demonstrating stronger integration of learning, improved sources and better articulation of research questions. However, the multitasking demands of these assignments exposed gaps in workload prioritization and time management. Balancing narrative, technical details and delivery proved more challenging than anticipated.

Now What?

Looking ahead, these reflections underscore several actionable areas for improvement. First, building confidence in ethical reasoning and academic critique is essential. Engaging more proactively with professional guidelines (like the ACM codes). It is also important to continue developing the ability to challenge ideas respectfully, an academic skill that translates well into professional collaboration.

Second, time management and task planning must be more strategic. While Week 6 allowed time to catch up, it also made one ask the question “what if we didn’t get that break?” Developing and maintaining a study schedule would reduce last minute pressure.

Third, quantitative skills require more effort. While the statistical worksheets eventually made sense once the portal was adjusted, the emotional response to confusion and frustration suggests the need for deeper skill building.

Furthermore, future assignments should place greater emphasis on source diversity and international context. The literature review in Week 7 relied heavily on UK based legislation, limiting the scope of analysis and criticality. Expanding this to include global perspectives would not only have strengthened the criticality, but also enhanced cross cultural competence. This area highlighted the need for better time management for research.

Lastly, digital communication and presentation skills, while much improved, still require refinement. The cybercrime presentation in Week 10 was well received, but the process of producing a recording is an area of personal weakness with public speaking. Further practice with presentation tools and seeking early feedback will help improve confidence in future professional scenarios.

3.1 SWOT Analysis

Strengths

Developed strong ethical awareness and academic integrity through reflective tasks, assignments and peer discussions.

Improved academic writing and research planning through literature review and presentation assignments.

Constructive engagement in peer discussions improved confidence.

Weaknesses

Initial difficulties with time management, particularly during peak assessment weeks.

Lack of confidence in statistical tasks in Week 9.

Tendency to rely heavily on clear instructions rather than independent interpretation. Although, this is difficult to achieve when preset expectations are to be met within an academic setting.

Opportunities

Future growth in data analysis and quantitative skills through targeted training and dissertation project.

Applying structured study planning to improve consistency across tasks.

Building an independent critical judgement and self-reflection in dissertation research project.

Threats

Repetition of time-related issues in high pressure and content in academic contexts.

Risk of underperformance if support is not sought when encountering ambiguous tasks.

Limited confidence in data analysis and public speaking.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this module has not only enhanced academic growth, but also encouraged deep ethical reflection and emotional growth. The experiences and challenges encountered have laid a strong foundation for continued development, particularly in navigating complex research landscapes. These insights will be carried forward into future academic pursuits, and professional practice, especially the final capstone project.

References:

Acm.org. (2024). Case Study: Malware Disruption. [online] Available from: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics/case-studies/malware-disruption. [Accessed 14 April 2025].

Clarke, J. (2025). What are tariffs and why is Trump using them? BBC. [online] 3 Feb. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn93e12rypgo. [Accessed 16 April 2025].

Corrêa, N. K., Galvão, C., Santos, J. W., Del Pino, C., Pinto, E. P., Barbosa, C., Massmann, D., Mambrini, R., Galvão, L., Terem, E., & de Oliveira, N. (2023). Worldwide AI ethics: A review of 200 guidelines and recommendations for AI governance. Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 4(10), 100857. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100857 [Accessed 14 April 2025].

European Commission (2023). Data protection. [online] commission.europa.eu. Available from: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection_en. [Accessed 28 February 2025].

McLeod, S. (2024). What? So What? Now What? Critical Reflection Model. [online] Simply Psychology. Available from: https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-so-what-now-what.html. [Accessed 10 April 2025].

Mlinarić, A., Horvat, M. and Šupak Smolčić, V. (2017). Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results. Biochemia Medica, [online] 27(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2017.030201. [Accessed 14 April 2025].

My-course.co.uk. (2025). Log in to the site UoEO. [online] Available from: https://www.my-course.co.uk/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=277585 [Accessed 14 April 2025].

Ur Rehman, I. (2019). Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data harvesting: What you need to know. [online] Available from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5833&context=libphilprac. [Accessed 14 April 2025].

Press, C. (2023). Researchers measure global consensus over the ethical use of AI. [online] Techxplore.com. Available from: https://techxplore.com/news/2023-10-global-consensus-ethical-ai.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com#google_vignette [Accessed 14 April 2025].