I have the same problem. I think that generally the emphasis of the course is the extent to which the Romans changed Britain- 'Romanised' it, and whether this was a good or bad thing.
I love making tables, so if you wanted to draw up a massive table (or use excel) it might be helpful if you had columns down the side with the headings: Villas, government & admin, army, town, religion, roads, economy, art (the things on the spec)
With rows you could have: Evidence in favour of 'romanisation', evidence against, and then successes and failures.
So for example, with government:
Evidence in favour of 'romanisation': - Established a procurator and governor in the province. Britain did not have these pre-conquest.
Evidence against: The fact that many systems were based on pre-existing social structures
(so this would be answering the question of whether or not this particular element was 'romanised' although there's more detail and other evidence to be used)
Successes: - Creating client kingdoms were less of a strain on finance and resources on the Roman's behalf and it allowed the locals to have some sense of autonomy.
Failures: - Boudiccan revolt. Shows how sometimes the gov & admin was unsuccessful and there was civil unrest.
I think all the information needed to fill in such a table is found in the two set texts: Salway and Hill & Ireland.
This website also has great pages about specific topics
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Great_Britain/_Periods/Roman/_Texts/WARREB/home.htmlHope this is helpful.