Marking guidance for COMP3931 and COMP3932 Criterion % Notes and examples
Background Research
• Problem and context explained at a level suitable for non-experts.
• Evidence of a systematic and scholarly approach to background re-
search and relevant literature review.
• Critical analysis of existing solutions and techniques.
Depending on the nature of the project, could include: • Description of software prototypes.
• An empirical study to clarify context.
• Application of existing theoretical techniques to own examples. • Requirements and risk analysis, possibly from a stakeholder.
• Design of the solution, supported by justification of choices made.
• For software, evidence that code was properly managed using a version
control system, and followed standard good practice in structure. Depending on the nature of the project, could include:
• Evidence of data collection and preparation.
• Schematic diagrams and description of overall software architecture. • Details of project management methodology, e.g. sprints.
Results and Discussion
• Implementation, with evidence of appropriate validation/testing.
• Quantitative and systematic approach providing objective evidence of
the quality of the solution.
• Appropriate technical and/or user evaluation.
• Results clearly related to motivation/goals as appropriate.
• Outcome of the study and ideas for future work.
Depending on the nature of the project, could include:
• Detailed description of software implementation, with justifications. • Software validation, e.g. unit tests, reproduction of known results etc. • Performance/complexity/accuracy analysis and interpretation.
• Results and discussion of user evaluation questionnaires.
• Derivation of theoretical proofs and their evaluation.
Presentation
• Clear, concise and precise presentation and writing style.
• Language suitable for technical/academic articles.
• Effective use of display items (figures, tables etc.) and appendices,
properly cited from the main text.
• Conforms to the required structure and within the length limit.
Self– appraisal
• A critical self-evaluation of the project process, including personal reflection and lessons learned.
• Discussion of legal, social, ethical and professional aspects.
English Competency
Pass/ Fail
Paragraphs are used. There are links between and within paragraphs al- though these may be ineffective at times. There are attempts at referenc- ing. Word choice and grammar do not seriously undermine the meaning and comprehensibility of the argument. Word choice and grammar are generally appropriate to an academic text
Programming Help
Systematic and ex- haustive literature review/market survey that follows a scholarly approach and is close to publishable standard. Outstanding introduc- tion, explanation of context, and analysis of existing solutions.
Outstanding justifi- cation of all design choices in the context of project require- ments. Use of any and all tools, such as version control, of professional standard. If relevant, excellent planning methodology (e.g. sprints).
Challenge was sig- nificant and goals outstandingly achieved. The resulting solution has substantial com- plexity and has been thoroughly evaluated. Excellent, detailed ideas for future work.
Outstanding pre- sentation, structure (including appendices), and clarity of writing, all in a suitable language. Exceptional use of display items. Citations correctly formatted.
Excellent discus- sion of the project process, personal re- flection, and lessons learned. Thorough discussion of each of legal, social, pro- fessional and ethical issues, including explanations if not relevant.
Systematic and thor- ough literature re- view/market survey that follows a scholarly approach. Context explained very clearly and at a suitable level. Strong analysis of existing solutions.
Excellent justification of design choices in the context of project requirements. Effec- tive and proper use of any and all tools, such as version con- trol. If relevant, plan- ning methodology (e.g. sprints) clearly related to project goals.
Challenge was signifi- cant and most goals were achieved with compe- tence. The resulting solution has substantial complexity and has been appropriately evaluated. Ideas for future work thought through in some detail.
Clear presentation, structure (including ap- pendices), and writing, in a suitable language. Very good use of dis- play items. Citations correctly formatted.
Insightful discus- sion of the project process, personal re- flection, and lessons learned. Suitable discussion of each of legal, social, pro- fessional and ethical issues, including explanations if not relevant.
Thorough literature re- view/market survey that mostly follows a schol- arly approach. Context explained clearly and at a suitable level. Good analysis of existing solu- tions.
Good justification of design choices in the context of project re- quirements. Proper use of any and all tools, such as version con- trol. If relevant, plan- ning methodology (e.g. sprints) described and explained.
The project had a degree of challenge and most of the goals have been achieved. The resulting solution has no serious experimental or proce- dural shortcomings, and if there were, they were minimal and did not pre- vent a solid and thor- ough product. Good ideas for future work.
Well organised into chapters and appen- dices, and mostly clear writing in a suitable language. Good use of display items. Citations formatted correctly and consistently on the whole.
Fair and honest dis- cussion of the project process, personal re- flection, and lessons learned. Some dis- cussion of each of legal, social, profes- sional and ethical is- sues, including expla- nations if not rele- vant.
Marking Rubric for COMP3931 Individual Project and COMP3932 Synoptic Project.
Select the rubric item that most closely matches your assessment of the project.
Background Research
Results and Discussion
Presentation
Self–appraisal
Continued overpage …
Programming Help, Add QQ: 749389476
The literature re- view/market survey covered the main topics but could have been more extensive and/or scholarly in nature. Description of context was clear enough, and there is some analysis of existing solutions.
Some justification of design choices, not nec- essarily always linked project requirements. Some use of relevant tools, such as version control. If relevant, planning methodol- ogy (e.g. sprints) described.
Project had a degree of challenge and some of the goals have been achieved. The result- ing solution could have been improved within the project timescale, but any shortcomings did not prevent a clear although perhaps basic conclusion. Some ideas for future work.
Reasonably well struc- tured, and language is clear enough to un- derstand the meaning. Display items could have been more effectively deployed. Citations formatted correctly and consistently on the whole.
Some discussion of the project process, personal reflection, and lessons learned. Discussion of some of legal, social, pro- fessional and ethical issues.
The literature re- view/market survey exhibited some notable omissions and included secondary and/or non– authoritative sources. Context not clearly explained. Analysis of existing solutions was not critical.
Minimal justification of design choices, and those given not linked to project require- ments. Some evidence of using relevant tools, such as version control. If relevant, limited planning methodology (e.g. sprints) given.
Author has used techni- cal knowledge of taught material to deliver a solution that achieves something. Some min- imal evaluation is evi- dent. Few ideas for fu- ture work described with little or no detail.
Structure could have been significantly im- proved. Some text required careful reading, and language not always suitable for a technical report. Limited use of display items. Citation formatting inconsistent.
Limited discussion of the project process, personal reflection, and lessons learned. Discussion of some of legal, social, pro- fessional and ethical issues.
The literature re- view/market survey exhibited significant omissions and relied on secondary and/or non– authoritative sources. Context barely or not explained. Analysis of existing solutions largely or entirely absent.
Little to no justifica- tion of design choices. Limited use of relevant tools, such as version control. Brief or no description of relevant planning methodology (e.g. sprints).
Basically no challeng- ing goals have been achieved, and little to no evidence has been pro- vided in the way of eval- uation or ideas for future work.
Poor presentation and structure, with unclear/confusing de- scriptions. Language not suitable for a techni- cal report. Very limited use of display items. Citation formatting frequently inconsistent and/or incorrect.
Very limited discus- sion of the project process, personal re- flection, and lessons learned. Some of legal, social, profes- sional and ethical is- sues not addressed.
English Competency Pass/Fail
Paragraphs are used. There are links between and within paragraphs although these may be ineffective at times. There are attempts at referencing. Word choice and grammar do not seriously undermine the meaning and comprehensibility of the argument. Word choice and grammar are generally appropriate to an academic text
Background Research
Results and Discussion
Presentation
Self–appraisal
Marking rubric continued …
Code Help, Add WeChat: cstutorcs