School of Computer Science and Mathematics
Dissertation
Guidelines
MSc
COURSES
NDC |
Networking & Data Communications |
NDC (B) |
Networking & Data Communications (Business) |
NIS |
Network and Information Security |
NIS (B) |
Network and Information Security (Business) |
ES |
Embedded Systems |
ES (B) |
Embedded Systems (Business) |
ES (V) |
Embedded Systems (Vision) |
ES (VB) |
Embedded Systems (Vision with Business) |
SE |
Software Engineering |
SE (B) |
Software Engineering (Business) |
IS |
Information Systems |
IS (HIM) |
Information Systems (Health Information Management) |
IT IS |
IT & Strategic Innovation |
Staff |
Name |
Extension |
Room |
Contact: |
Module Leader |
Dr. Nada Philip (NP) |
62827 |
SB1006 |
N.Philip@kingston.ac.uk Consultation Hours Mondays 1100-1300 Thursdays 1100-1300 |
1.
Learning Objectives
The Aims and Learning Outcomes for this module
include developing an ability to identify a real-world problem or a topic of
state-of-the-art research, setting this problem in the context of applicable
academic concepts and methods, and providing a solution by organising and
carrying out an extended piece of work, independently and in-depth. Students should also engage in academic and
professional communication and act within actual constraints.
It follows that the
driving force behind this module is primarily the student, but also the
supervisor and, where applicable, an external client. The university provides supervision and some
support, but the initiative and responsibility for planning and conducting the
project rests ultimately with the student.
2.
Topics
The
project is equivalent to 2 (30 credit) taught modules (minimum of 16 full-time
weeks work), and the final report becomes a published document. Thus, this
activity should not be undertaken lightly - producing work of high quality
requires time and effort.
Projects will normally be of the following types (or
mix of types), depending on the specific MSc course taken:
·Evaluative: this requires the student to critically evaluate a
given system, procedures, business models, etc. identify strengths and
weaknesses and propose improvements.
·Analytic: this entails the
analysis of particular policies or strategies and
solutions, identify strengths and weaknesses and propose improvements.
·Design and development: this entails
designing, implementing and testing a system or sub system
·Empirical or
investigative:
research into particular systems or problems, comparisons of alternatives and
in most cases a demonstrable improvement of current methods.
3.
Deliverables
The
module deliverables are:
- Project registration form.
- Individual project definition and
research proposal (10% of the total marks)
- Formative Viva/Presentation - this is a
formative assessment for students to gain some early feedback and used as
an exercise for the final Viva/Presentation.
- Dissertation (electronic copy via Canvas) (%80 of the
total mark)
- Viva/Presentation to explain/defend the
finding of the project to the supervisor and the second marker,
within 2 weeks of submitting the dissertation (10%
of the total marks)
Please note
that if a student does not demonstrate/present his/her work, we reserve the
right to withhold his/her project dissertation mark until a
demonstration/presentation takes place.
The
timings for submitting each of the above deliverables depend on your mode of
study (full-time or part-time) and time of entry (September or January). In
what follows, '*' means “online submission via Canvas by 11.59pm” and '†' means
“make an appointment with your supervisor and with your second marker”.
Full-time Students that
started January 2020:
•
Project
registration form 22nd May 2020
•
Individual
project definition
and
research proposal 13th July 2020
•
Formative
Viva/Presentations 07th September 2020
•
Dissertation
* 17th March 2021
•
Demonstration/Presentation† Between 17th to 31st
March 2021
Submission of
deliverables:
You should follow the
instructions for the deliverable submission given in the dissertation
guidelines. You are reminded of the faculty policy for the late submission of
coursework. Any work submitted up to a week late will be capped at 40%,
anything submitted later than this will receive a zero mark.
If you are ill or have
problems affecting your studies, the University
Mitigating Circumstances policy may apply.
You will need to complete a form and attach suitable independent
documentation. Remember if you submit a piece of work or attend an examination,
you have judged yourself fit to undertake the assessment and cannot claim
mitigating circumstances retrospectively.
Students who wish to
make a mitigation claim submission may do so via the webpage (or
My Kingston – My
Faculty – Science, Engineering and Computing – SEC Mitigating Circumstances).
Late
Feedback
We are committed to our
students receiving timely feedback and would like to remind you that you can
let us know of any delays that occur in receiving feedback from work you have
submitted for marking. We have set up an electronic noticeboard for this
purpose:
SEC_Assessment_Feedback_Delay_-_PG_NB@kingston.ac.uk
If you have not
received feedback within the timeframe you expected then please send us the
details – we need the module code and the date you submitted the work. We
will then pick up your message and look into the matter.
Allocation of supervisors
The allocation of
project supervisors is done by the project module leader, balancing students’
preferences (if any), supervisors’ expertise and their workload.
Consequently, there is no guarantee that a student will get their preferred
supervisor. Irrespective of the allocation, all students may seek
technical advice from any member of academic staff. Should there be serious
problems with supervision, a student should discuss the matter with their
Course Director and/or Personal Tutor. If no satisfactory solution is found,
the matter should be brought to the attention of the Head of Department.
Problems with supervision
If
you encounter serious problems with supervision, you should discuss the matter
with your Module leader, Course Leader and/or your Personal Tutor. If no
satisfactory solution is found, they will bring the matter to the attention of
the Head of School. If, after this, you are still not satisfied with your
supervision arrangements, you should make a complaint through the University’s
Complaints Procedure http://www.kingston.ac.uk/aboutkingstonuniversity/howtheuniversityworks/policiesandregulations/
Requesting a change of supervisor
A student may request a change
of supervisor by emailing the module leader of the project module. However
there must be a very strong reason for any such request. A lack of expertise in
the specific area of the student’s project is not grounds for a change.
Part-time Students
There are special procedures that
apply to part-time students. Please make sure that you understand them fully:
Part-time students can complete (by
submission of their dissertation) in either 2, 2 ½ or 3 years. For example, a
part-time student who started in Sept 2015, can submit either in Sept 2017 (2
years), Jan 2018 (2 ½ years) or Sept 2018 (3 years).
To help us manage projects more
effectively it is a MUST that
part-time students let us know formally when they intend to submit their
dissertation before the submission date of the Individual Project
Definition and Research Proposal of their 2nd
year. To inform us of when you intend to
submit, you will need to complete and hand in form “PART-TIME MSc DISSERTATION
REGISTRATION” that can be found in the Appendices of this document. If part time students do not submit such a
form and inform us officially then we will presume that they are completing
their dissertation during their 2nd year.
Once we know when you intend to
submit, we will allocate you to the same cohort of students submitting in that
semester. For example, if you have told us that you will submit in January 2019,
you will join the same cohort of full-time students who started in January 2018.
This will be your cohort and it is important that you comply with the
deadlines for that cohort.
Should a
part-time or full-time student suspend studies or repeat the project, they can
only follow one of the project schedules as above (subject to regulations
regarding maximum period of study, which is currently 4 years including any
additional time needed in case of repeating modules including the
dissertation).
4.
Roles and responsibilities of
staff and students
Module leader:
The module leader assigns each
student a project. Project allocation is done by balancing student's preference
(if any), supervisor's expertise and supervisor's loading. Consequently,
there is no guarantee that a student will get his/her preferred supervisor,
even if an academic has provisionally agreed to supervise, because of the need
to balance the supervisory load fairly.
Should there be difficulties with the
supervision, the student should try to discuss
them with the supervisor and agree an action plan / timetable of further meetings. It is important that the
student and supervisor attempt to resolve
any difficulties as soon as possible. If the student is still not satisfied they should contact the module leader and
their Course Director and/or Personal
Tutor. If no satisfactory solution is found, the matter should be brought to the attention of the Head of
School.
Supervisor should:
·
Read the module guide and be
aware of all deadlines and keep up to date with Canvas announcement and emails.
·
Be prepared to meet student at
least once a fortnight during term time to review progress. Meetings are not
expected to be longer than 30 minutes for each student. At the beginning of the
project more advice and support than this may be appropriate.
·
Respond to any request for a
meeting within 3 working days. Students should arrange meetings in advance by e-mail
or in person.
·
Ensure adequate resources are
in place for the project and arrange any specialist training or support
required.
·
Supply at least some references
or other pertinent information at the start of the project.
·
Record meetings with project students
and report any significant absences to the module leader.
·
Assessment
·
Give advice on the general form
and contents of an assessment e.g., style of introduction, the presentation and
discussion of results and the style of writing appropriate to the piece of
assessment (report/ poster/ presentation).
·
Encourage the student to
produce a draft of an assessment in good time.
·
Give feedback on draft work
(proposal, report etc.) within one/two working week/s. Supervisors cannot be
expected to provide feedback on anything submitted after agreed or published
deadlines.
·
Provide comments or editing on
only small parts of individual sections of the draft assessment (e.g. 1 page)
this is for feedforward purposes and give general comments on the remainder of
the draft work.
·
Only expected to read one draft
of an assessment and not assist with continual revision. The supervisor's
approval of a report cannot be taken to imply any particular grade has been
achieved.
·
Subject specific
If relevant check student risk and hazard
assessment before laboratory work
performed.
Student should:
·
read the module guide, be aware
of and meet all submission deadlines, keep up to date with Canvas announcement
and emails;
·
arrange first meeting with
supervisor and agree a system for arranging subsequent meetings;
·
make sure that the resources
needed are available- all resource requirements and training should be
discussed with the supervisor at the proposal stage;
·
take responsibility for how the
work progresses, and keep supervisor up to date with frequent progress reports;
·
notify supervisor of any
absences and produce evidence of any reason for such absences;
· submit draft work according to agreed or published deadlines, in
order to allow supervisor time to provide feedback.
4. Marking Criteria
Project marking criteria are listed
in the appendix. To meet many of these, the topic must be of sufficient
complexity – a topic of trivial scope, for which standard solutions already
exist or that could normally be done at undergraduate level, is not
suitable for a Master’s level project dissertation. You should always seek
advice from your supervisor on what is considered Master's level.
Good grades, and in
particular an A (distinction), reflect originality, insight, critical and evaluative
discussion, systematic and comprehensive treatment and demonstrably valid
results. It would be exceptional for a report to achieve a Distinction, without a substantial
evaluative Discussion section, citations in the text to relevant research publications
and other contemporary sources and the demonstration of a novel solution or
novel ideas. In this context it is normally expected that a Distinction will
only be awarded when the project has produced tangible results (“artefact”).
What are tangible results will depend on the type of project undertaken (please
see section 2), so for example for an empirical or investigative project,
tangible results might be a new algorithm and its extensive performance
evaluation, while for an analytical project tangible results might be new
procedures and policies fully developed with and introduced at a host
organisation.
Poor grades, in particular an F
(fail), reflect bad organisation, presence of errors and omissions, poor logic,
failure to understand and apply theoretical concepts, failure to apply
consistently the chosen methods and
techniques, and/or failure to give a demonstration/presentation.
Also note that the university takes a
strict view on plagiarism (i.e. failing to properly attribute work from others),
specially for the dissertation which should be an original piece of work. We
will always investigate possible plagiarism.
5. Process
Proposal Phase
Each project is
supervised by an academic staff. We publish a list of academic staff who
supervise MSc projects together with an indicative list of their areas of
interest and possible topics for their MSc projects. You can find more about
the academic, professional and research activities of these academic staff by
browsing the Faculty's web pages (under “Research” and “People”). Once you have
found a member of staff whose interests or projects you are interested in, you
should contact them to discuss their project ideas. In most cases you will then
be able to formulate a project guided by a member of staff who would then
normally accept to being your supervisor. Note that it is also important that
your proposed project is in the field of your MSc Course (e.g. normally an
e-commerce project would not be acceptable for an embedded systems student and
so will not be accepted by the student's Field Leader).
Some students (specially
those in employment) could, exceptionally, themselves identify a specific
problem suitable for their MSc programme, typically for their employer. If you
would like to do this it is vital that you consult with your Field Leader for
approval while at the same time identify an academic staff in the field of the
proposed project to ensure that what you are proposing is within scope and at
the level of an MSc project.
Under the guidance of your
potential supervisor you should then develop a Project Proposal to define the project's scope, consider relevant objectives, propose
how access to the necessary technologies will be gained, identify required
resources, estimate the risks and constraints, list expected deliverables
and milestones, etc.
You should start thinking about
your project as soon as the course begins, and in any case at least 6-8 weeks
before the ‘Project registration form’ submission deadline
Consider and discuss alternatives in the light of your interests, abilities and career aspirations, those of the members of staff (and industrial host if appropriate) and of the resources/opportunities available. There is a limit to the number of projects any member of staff can take, so begin early to avoid disappointment. Then after submitting your project registration form, you need to start building your Individual project definition gradually develop an increasingly clear and complete statement of the project’s background, aims, literature review, methods, risks and deliverables.
Project
registration form (formative)
You
need to submit the project registration form (see Appendix –project
registration form). This form includes – title of your project, overview, aims and objectives and supervisors’ name (see Appendix).
The Projects registration forms are
then formally approved by the Field Leader who also confirms/names the
supervisor and allocate the second marker. Once this is done, the project can
formally start.
For information on the marking
criteria of this element can be found in the appendices section of this
document.
Every student must submit
a project registration form by the deadline specified. Students who do not
submit a project registration form must
contact their Field Leader.
Individual
project definition and research proposal (Summative – 10%)
The
Project Proposal is between 3000 – 4000 words in length excluding Appendices. It comprises:
·
Introduction (Motivation, Background,
Context & Research Problem)
·
Aims and Objectives (Suitability
& SMARTness)
·
Initial Literature Review (Review and
References)
·
Ethics Relevance & Progress
·
Technologies & Resources
(Relevance, Alternatives)
·
Research Method & Work Plan
For
information on the marking criteria of this element can be found in the
appendices section of this document.
Note that a project that uses human subjects/data
requires approval by the Faculty's Research Ethics Committee. This includes
projects that involve people surveys/questionnaires. Please seek advice from
your Field Leader and Supervisor as you should allow enough time to apply for
ethics approval.
Where
relevant, proposals should clarify Intellectual Property Rights (Industrial or
KU Research Hosts may wish to claim copyright, particularly if they pay the
student for any work done), the arrangements for demonstrations, and approval
for academic access to the code (it may be inspected to be assessed, and
displayed to students and staff in the Kingston University library).
Project Phase
During
the Project phase, students plan and carry out their work, and initiate
and maintain contact with the academic supervisor. It is expected that students will have
regular meetings with their supervisors, at least every two weeks (and ideally
weekly). The student should monitor his/her progress as well as review and
evaluate the work, reporting significant issues which may affect the project in
a timely manner to the supervisor, . We suggest that students at least create an audit trail for their
project (for example, by keeping a log book for notes, a spreadsheet indicating
hours dedicated to various tasks, and a folder for e-mail messages). If milestones are not being met, then the
project plan needs to be changed.
Supervisors
discuss and indicate the suitability of intended deliverables, suggest starting
points for consideration of background research, and discuss the nature of the
dissertation and comment on drafts. They
also provide advice, where possible, on issues associated with the project such
as design, implementation, proof of concept and project management.
Formative Viva/presentation (formative)
This is a
formative assessment for the final viva and a formative feedback for the rest
of the project and the final dissertation.
It is important to demonstrate the ability to summarise the results of
your work and present them to others. You will be asked to prepare a
presentation – 30 minutes Including 15 minutes questions and discussion - summarising
the progress you have made and your plans to complete the project. This will be
seen by your supervisor.
Dissertation (Summative – 80%)
The Dissertation should be between
12,000 and 18,000 words excluding Appendices. As the largest single piece of writing you
may have ever done, you will need considerable time after you have completed
the project work itself, to write your Dissertation (see Section 6).
A
typical structure for the Dissertation is as follows:
A
typical structure for the Dissertation is as follows:
· Title
Page (essential - see format in in the project dissertation guidelines on
Canvas)
· A
contents page (essential )
· List
of figures and/or tables
· Glossary
of Terms
· Abstract
(essential. A summary of the content of
the project – the problem and solution, and highlighting your main
contribution(s))
· Acknowledgements
· Introduction
and Background
o Background
research / current state of the art (For example, which theoretical concepts
are to be applied? What existing or parallel work by others is relevant? What
trends are evident in the marketplace?
What business strategies motivate this project?
o This
sets the context of the problem to be solved, and motivates your project – why
is your project of general relevance and importance? What contribution and
benefits do you expect to make?
o Discussion
regarding Ethics aspects, as well as data protection and safety relating to the
project
· Literature
Review (As in Proposal, & Progression to Full Literature Review)
· Contribution
Chapters (Suitability & Justification of Artefact, Design, Implementation
and Evaluation)
o Method
(how the project was achieved including selection of appropriate methods and
techniques, and technologies. Give
reasons for choosing the options you selected.)
o
Results (The main outcomes or deliverables
of the projects. For example, the
results for a development type project may comprise the design solution,
implementation, and testing. The results
for an evaluation type project may comprise the evaluative data gathered and
analysed.)
o Discussion
§
Critical evaluation and explanation of
recommendations (if any). For example,
why were these results obtained? Why are the results valid? Were there any
failures, anomalies or disappointments – what brought them about? Are your
results similar or different to other authors’?
§
Process review – For example, how well did
the methods work? Was the technology as relevant as expected?
·
Conclusions and future work
o
What
are your achievements, and how certain/uncertain are you? What are its limitations? How might future
work extend, or answer questions raised by your project?
o
Note,
however, that the best organisation and structure for each report is different
– it reflects the nature of the topic addressed, so expect to adapt the above
starting point to meet your individual needs. You can discuss the structure of
your dissertation with your supervisor.
Take care to give reasons for all decisions you make –
justify and explain. The same goals
could have been achieved differently – what are the advantages and
disadvantages of doing it your way?
An
integral part of the report is appropriate consideration to legal, professional
and ethical issues.
You are
expected to include in your project report ideas, methods and results produced
by other people - if you do not it probably indicates a lack of background
research and is likely to be penalised.
However, you must be scrupulously
careful to cite clearly the author/originator of any such work. If you fail
to indicate the source of such material you are, by implication, claiming
someone else’s work as your own. This is regarded as a serious matter in
academic circles and it carries severe penalties. (see Appendix on Academic Misconduct in the Student Handbook).
For
information on the marking criteria of this element can be found in the
appendices section.
Demonstration/Presentation (Summative – 10%)
Contact your supervisor and second
marker, typically by e-mail, to arrange a joint appointment within 2 weeks of
submission to demonstrate and/or present your project. Demonstrations are appropriate for projects
that have involved development work.
Special arrangements for demonstrations/presentation, such as
demonstration at an Industrial Host, will normally have been arranged at the
proposal stage. We reserve the right to
request a demonstration/presentation in person at Kingston University – it is
essential to be able to assess the project fairly and accurately.
A demonstration normally lasts around
30 minutes and proceeds typically as follows (discuss before hand with your
supervisor what is expected):
·
a summary of the project (5-10 .ppt
slides);
·
key functionality is demonstrated by
the student;
·
members of staff attempt to use the
system themselves;
·
examination of code. Staff may, for example, ask the student to
show them selected segments of the code to discuss its design, step through the
code describing it line by line, or to make small changes to the functionality. Questions may arise at any point.
Presentations normally take the form
of 5-10 slides accompanying a 15min talk to the supervisor and second marker
and followed by 15 min of questions.
For
information on the marking criteria of this element can be found in the
appendices section.
Electronic Copy
An electronic copy of your
dissertation must be submitted via the Turnitin system on Canvas.
All dissertations/final year projects in
SEC, which have achieved a grade of 60% or above, will be made available to
other students. If your dissertation/project needs to be exempt from this due
to confidentiality reasons, then you will need to ask to restrict access to
your dissertation (please contact your module leader regarding this).
6. Structure
Some
of the aspects assessed include:
o Organisation of the dissertation
into chapters and/or sections
o Overall logical structure (links
between sections and paragraphs)
o Use of appendices, graphs,
equations, and tables, as appropriate
o Consistent style
o Clarity of expression
o Correct use of language
o Layout and appearance to
facilitate readability
o Logic, coherence and
persuasiveness of arguments
o Overall coherence of report
Further
guidance on some of these aspects are given below:
Write
concisely and clearly, using jargon only when it is appropriate to convey
precise meaning. Define all your variables and parameters and the units used -
a glossary of technical terms may also be helpful in certain circumstances.
Make sure that you are consistent in your use of fonts throughout. Pay
particular attention to spelling, punctuation and grammar - you are writing an
academic publication. It is essential to carefully proof‑read your report and,
if possible, to get someone else to check it. Also use any spell-checking
software that is available. Note that as an academic/technical piece of
writing, the use of the first and second persons (“I”, “me”, “my”, “you”, “as
you can see”...) is discouraged. Also
use gender-neutral forms e.g. “they” or “he/she” instead of “he”.
Structure/Organisation
The
dissertation requires a narrative and, therefore, there should be a logical
progression from an introduction through a beginning and a middle to an end.
However, this should not be of the ‘first I did this, then I did that’ variety,
which is unacceptable. It should introduce the topic area first, then introduce
specific findings about the topic area, normally collected as a product of the
literature search, then introduce the specific project, the approach to the
project, present findings and results, and finally draw conclusions.
Ensure that
material is easy to find: use page numbers, a contents page, clear chapter and
section headings, clearly numbered self-contained appendices etc. Ensure that
all graphs, diagrams and tables are captioned and given a figure or table
number.
Create and
maintain a logical structure: divide material into sensible sections and ensure
that these are arranged in a logical order. Start with an abstract and state
the objectives of your dissertation. End with a critical review and a
conclusion.
Produce a
coherent document: proceed from the starting point to a meaningful conclusion
in a relatively direct manner. Discard irrelevant material. If material is
relevant but interferes with the flow of your arguments include it in an
appendix; for example, put any large tables of data, lengthy extracts of
computer code into appendices. It is often
useful to include a diary. Use references to condense your descriptions of
elementary standard material.
References & Bibliography
Ensure that
you have searched the literature to provide a comprehensive list of relevant
references both to justify your assertions and to allow you to give a very
concise description of other work in the field. Check thoroughly to make
certain that all references cited in the text are listed in full in the
reference list - and vice versa. (A bibliography is a list of texts that a
reader may find useful to acquire further knowledge of the field - please note
that this usually includes works not referenced in the text and is quite
distinct from the list of references).
APPENDICES
PART-TIME
MSc DISSERTATION REGISTRATION
Name: …………………………………..
K Number: …………………………………..
Course: …………………………………...
First Registered: September/January* 20__
I confirm that I plan to submit my Project
Dissertation on September/January* 20__
* delete as appropriate
Signed: ……………………………………
Date: …………………………………….
Project registration form
Course:_____________________________Field
Leader ____________
Student Name: ______________________________K Number:___________________
Project
Title: ………………………………..
Overview:
(350 words max)
Aims
and Objectives: (About 100 words)
Supervisor: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Project registration
form feedback sheet and marking criteria
K
Number:
Supervisor: (Name
and Signature) Date marked:
Criteria |
Feedback |
Did the student seek advice prior to
submission? (Y/N) |
|
Has feedback been taken on board prior to
submission? (Y/N) |
|
Are overview, aims and objectives clear?
(Y/N) |
|
Are ethics, data protection and safety
aspects of the project discussed (including dates/deadlines for research
ethics approval)? (Y/N) |
|
Any other initial comments by
supervisor |
|
(This is formative and
no marks is allocated)
Project
definition and research proposal - Feedback Sheet
Student:
K Number:
Supervisor: Date
marked:
Grade |
Exceeded Expectations 100-70% |
Met Expectations 69-60% |
Close to Expectations 59-50% |
Below Expectations 49-1% |
Project proposal |
Performance in
all criteria exceeded expectations |
Performance in
all criteria either exceeded or met expectations |
Performance
broadly met expectations |
Performance in
some or most criteria was below expectations |
Criteria
|
Feedback |
Mark |
Introduction (Motivation,
Background, Context & Research Problem, 10%)
Is motivation and background explained? Is the research problem stated, and set in
context? |
|
|
Aims and Objectives (Suitability
& SMARTness, 10%)
Are
aims and objectives suitable for the MSc Programme? Are the objectives SMART?
[https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/smart-goals.php]. S - specific, significant,
stretching. M - measurable, meaningful, motivational. A - agreed upon,
attainable, achievable, acceptable, action-oriented. R - realistic, relevant, reasonable,
rewarding, results-oriented. T -
time-based, time-bound, timely, tangible, trackable. |
|
|
Initial Literature Review (Review,
References, 30%)
Is reviewed literature relevant to the project? Is reviewed literature up-to-date? Is topic
sufficiently covered? Is there
sufficient discussion and critical analysis? Is referencing style and usage
correct? Are important, key references identified? Are used references of
suitable type (i.e. not only online resources)? |
|
|
Ethics Relevance & Progress (10%)
If applicable: have initially raised ethics issues been addressed?
Are there any additional ethics issues?
|
|
|
Technologies & Resources
(Relevance, Alternatives, 10%)
Are relevant technologies and resources stated? Are reasons for
decisions given? Are alternatives discussed? |
|
|
Research Method & Work Plan (10%)
Is the research method appropriate, feasible and complete? Is a
basic diagrammatic work plan provided, containing timeline and
milestones/deliverables? |
|
|
Overall Content and Presentation
(20%)
Language
(Spelling, Grammar, Style) - Are
spellings and use of grammar correct? Is writing style clear and
concise? Are phrasing and sentence
lengths appropriate?
Scope
(Breadth and Depth of the Report, Technical Accuracy)- How broad is the
overall scope of the report? How in-depth is the report content? How
technically accurate is the report?
Logical Coherence (Clarity of
Expression and Explanations) - How clear is the overall exposition? How well are complex
facts explained?
Adherence to Formatting Instructions - Is title page, font and line spacing
correct? Is table of contents created automatically?
Quality of Diagrams - Is aspect-ratio respected if copied
from third-party image? Diagram readable, not blurred?
|
|
|
Comments:
Mark (out
of 100):
%
(This element of the
project accounts for 10% of the total project mark)
MSc Formative
Viva/presentation
Student: |
ID Number: |
Supervisor: |
||
Project Title: |
|
|||
Date: |
Course: MSc in |
Marker’s Initials: |
||
Supervisor's assessment of
student's presentation skills (5-10 ppt slides): This includes a summary of the project and key
functionality of the product developed by the student. The feedback received considers
the following items: Objectives achieved, Problem solving competence, Technical
skill competence, Context understanding and Critical thinking.
Comments:
(This is formative and
no marks is allocated)
FACULTY OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND
COMPUTING
School of (insert School
name)
MSc
DEGREE
IN
WARRANTY STATEMENT
This
is a student project. Therefore, neither
the student nor Kingston University
makes any warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the data or
conclusion of the work performed in the project and will not be held
responsible for any consequences arising out of any inaccuracies or
omissions therein.
Faculty
of Science, Engineering and Computing
Postgraduate Project Marking Criteria*
Criteria |
Exceeded Expectations 100-80% |
Met Expectations 79-60% |
Close to Expectations 59-40% |
Below Expectations 39-1% |
|
Introduction |
10% |
All relevant elements have been
addressed expertly |
Most relevant elements have been
addressed appropriately or only some have been addressed expertly |
Some elements have been addressed
appropriately whereas others have been addressed ineffectively |
Most elements have been used
ineffectively or failure to use appropriate techniques |
Literature Review |
30% |
Well-structured, detailed and
exhaustive review of relevant research. Strengths and limitations are clearly
identified. |
Most relevant research has been
reviewed in a structured manner with technical details. Awareness of main strengths
and limitations. |
Incomplete review of relevant
research performed, but inclusion of essential work. Some structure and
technical content are provided |
Poor structure and review of relevant
research where essential work is missing. |
Contribution Chapters (Existence,
Suitability & Justification of Artefact, Design, Implementation and
Evaluation. |
30% |
All relevant techniques have been
used expertly |
Most relevant techniques have been
used appropriately or only some have been used expertly |
Some techniques have been used
appropriately whereas others have been used ineffectively |
Most techniques have been used
ineffectively or failure to use appropriate techniques |
Conclusion (Summary of Work, Reflection, Future work.
|
10% |
Excellent Summary of work, future
work and critical perspective on lessons learned, insightful comparisons with
existing / similar systems |
Gave Summary of work, future work and
critical perspective and comparison with previous / existing systems |
Gave some Summary of work, future
work and critical perspective and/or comparison with previous / existing systems |
Failed to provide a Summary of work,
future work and critical perspective,
no lessons learned or comparison with previous / existing systems |
Faculty of Science,
Engineering and Computing
MSc Project Dissertation
Marking
Student: |
ID Number: |
Supervisor: |
||
Project Title: |
2nd Marker: |
|||
Date: |
Course: MSc in |
Marker’s Initials: |
||
Category |
Comments |
Mark |
Introduction (As in
Proposal, & Abstract, Aims and Objectives, Summary of Thesis
Contributions and Thesis Outline, 10%).
Has it evolved well compared to proposal
introduction? Is abstract succinct and summarises thesis correctly? Does it
describe aims and objectives? Does it discuss main thesis contributions? Does
it outline thesis structure? |
|
|
Literature Review (As in
Proposal, & Progression to Full Literature Review, 30%)
Is reviewed literature
relevant to the project? Is reviewed literature up-to-date? Is topic
sufficiently covered? Is there sufficient discussion and critical analysis?
Is referencing style and usage correct? Are important, key references
identified? Are used references of suitable type (i.e. not only online
resources)? How has the literature review progressed from initial review in
proposal? For research projects only:
this should include the state-of-the-art review that presents the key and the most current research in the
area(s) relevant to the research topics. |
|
|
Contribution Chapters
(Existence, Suitability & Justification of Artefact, Design, Implementation
and Evaluation, 30%)
Is thesis contribution based
on an artefact? Is artefact any of the following: Implementation, Simulation,
Data Collection & Analysis, Case Study or Research Contribution? Is
artefact suitable? Has choice of artefact been justified? If applicable: is
design phase documented (potentially in separate chapter)? If applicable: is
implementation documented (potentially in separate chapter)? Is artefact
contribution tested/evaluated (potentially in separate chapter)? For implementation type of
projects: this should include separated sections or chapters of the
following: Analysis, Design, Implementation and testing and validation. For design type of projects:
this should include separated sections or chapters of the following:
Analysis, design, proof of concept and validation and evaluation. For research type of projects:
Methodology, experiments and results discussion, and evaluation. |
|
|
Conclusion (Summary of Work,
Reflection, Future work, 10%)
Is the thesis summarised? Is there a
critical reflection on the successful outcomes? Are items for future
work/research given? |
|
|
Overall Content and Presentation (20%)
Language
(Spelling, Grammar, Style) - Are spellings and use of
grammar correct? Is writing style clear and concise? Are phrasing and sentence lengths
appropriate?
Scope
(Breadth and Depth of the Report, Technical Accuracy)- How broad is the
overall scope of the report? How in-depth is the report content? How
technically accurate is the report?
Logical Coherence (Clarity of
Expression and Explanations) - How clear is the overall exposition? How well are complex
facts explained?
Adherence to Formatting Instructions
- Is title page, font
and line spacing correct? Is table of contents created automatically?
Quality of Diagrams - Is aspect-ratio
respected if copied from third-party image? Diagram readable, not blurred?
|
|
|
|
TOTAL MARK
(%) _______________ AGREED MARK
(%) _______________ |
|
(This element of the project accounts for 80% of the total
project mark) |
Faculty of Science,
Engineering and Computing
MSc Project Viva/presentation
Grade |
Exceeded Expectations 100-80% |
Met Expectations 79-60% |
Close to Expectations 59-40% |
Below Expectations 39-1% |
Viva |
Performance in all criteria exceeded
expectations |
Performance in all criteria either
exceeded or met expectations |
Performance broadly met expectations |
Performance in some or most criteria
was below expectations |
Student: |
ID Number: |
Supervisor: |
||
Project Title: |
|
|||
Date: |
Course: MSc in |
Marker’s Initials: |
||
Supervisor's
assessment of student's presentation skills (5-10 ppt slides): This includes:
Presentation Skills (Clarity of
Verbal Explanations, Quality of Slides)
·
How clear was the
presentation?
·
Good quality of slides?
Practical
Demonstration (for Implementation and Simulation)
·
Has a proof of concept been
fully demonstrated during viva?
·
Is student able to explain
aspects of system/code?
Discussion
(Quality, Depth, Answering of Questions, Critical Thinking)
·
Did an in-depth discussion take
place?
·
Was the student able to answer
questions?
·
Has the student demonstrated
ability of critical thinking?
Comments:
Mark (out of 100):
%
(This element of the project accounts for 10% of the total
project mark)
CI7000 Module Descriptor
CI7000
Module Descriptor
MODULE CODE:
CI7000 LEVEL: 7 CREDITS: 60
TITLE: Project
Dissertation
PRE-REQUISITES: Completion of 2 modules
CO-REQUISITES: None
MODULE
SUMMARY (INDICATIVE)
This module constitutes the major individual
piece of work of the Masters Programme where the student carries out a project
involving independent critical research, design and implementation (where
applicable).
AIMS (DEFINITIVE)
- Apply established research methods for independent research.
- Develop an ability to organise and carry out an extended and
independent study of work at postgraduate level.
- Pursue in-depth studies of professional or academic relevance to
the student and an organisation or a company.
- Extend the knowledge and skills developed in the taught component
of the course.
LEARNING
OUTCOMES (DEFINITIVE)
On
successful completion of the module, students will be able to:
- Select, justify and use effectively the research methods and
techniques appropriate for particular cases in order to carry out a
literature search and an independent work of research
- Critically identify the need to position their research in the
wider academic or business context and structure the dissertation format
to agreed conventions
- Plan, manage and critically evaluate the project using the
techniques and tools needed in order to bring it in successfully on time
and within resourcing limits
- Identify and critically analyse real-world problems or knowledge
gaps to which academic concepts and methods can be realistically applied
to improve or resolve the problem situation
- Apply skills to show an ability to engage in academic and
professional communication with others in their field through report and
presentation
- Present critical awareness in applying appropriate legal, social
or ethical obligations and when required, respond to the financial and
other constraints of a corresponding business environment.
CURRICULUM CONTENT (INDICATIVE)
- This consists of two components:
- Research
method lectures
- Students carry out an individual project under the
supervision of a member of staff
TEACHING AND LEARNING
STRATEGY (INDICATIVE)
Students will submit, in consultation with an
academic advisor or potential project
supervisor, a project definition and research
proposal report. This report will
contain literature review, details of research methods used, project aims,
project plan and deliverables, preliminary results, problems encountered and
indicative table of contents. The
project is conducted throughout the second half of study period.
The specific deliverables for each
individual’s project must be discussed and decided
upon in consultation with the academic and (if
relevant) industrial supervisors. The
roles and responsibilities are outlined below:
Student:
•
To identify and
scope a suitable problem
•
To plan and
control the project
•
To carry out
the necessary project work
•
To review and
evaluate the work done
•
To prepare and
present the project deliverables
•
To initiate and
maintain contact with the academic supervisor
Academic Supervisor:
•
To guide the
student on the identification and scoping of a suitable problem
•
To comment on
the suitability of the selected project
•
To discuss the
mapping of the project onto the course requirements
•
To discuss and
approve the intended deliverables
•
To suggest
starting points for consideration of background research
•
To discuss the
nature of the dissertation and comment on early drafts
•
To provide
advice on issues associated with the project such as design, implementation,
and proof of concept or project management as appropriate.
•
To attend any
presentation or demonstration of the project
•
To visit the
student and client at the project site, as appropriate
Industrial Supervisor (if
applicable):
•
To act as
mentor and facilitator throughout the project
•
To provide help
on management, resourcing or organisational issues affecting
the project
•
To agree the
scope and timescale of the project and approve the nature of the
intended deliverables
BREAKDOWN OF
TEACHING AND LEARNING HOURS
DEFINITIVE
KIS CATEGORY |
INDICATIVE DESCRIPTION |
HOURS |
Scheduled learning and teaching |
Research methods - Lectures |
12 |
Guided independent study |
student independent study |
588 |
Study abroad / placement |
|
|
|
Total (number of
credits x 10) |
600 |
ASSESSMENT
STRATEGY (INDICATIVE)
Assessment is a combination of coursework and
practical exam and this include the following components:
- Individual project definition and research proposal (10% of the
total marks)
- Formative Viva/Presentation - this is a formative assessment for
students to gain some early feedback and used as an exercise for the final
Viva/Presentation.
- Dissertation (80% of the
total mark)
- Viva/Presentation to explain/defend the findings of the project
to the supervisor and the second marker (10% of the total marks)
The main output of the Module is a
self-contained dissertation of between 12,000 and 18,000 words that is assessed
by the supervisor and an additional academic member of staff. The dissertation
is expected to satisfy the following criteria:
- A novel proposed solution to a real-world
problem or a gap in knowledge
- Demonstration of the validity of the
proposed solution
- Clear indication of knowledge of relevant
work by others in the field
- The selection and application of
appropriate theoretical concepts and methods.
Students
receive formative feedback from their supervisor in regular supervisory
meetings and normally a draft dissertation would be a part of this process.
MAPPING
OF LEARNING OUTCOMES TO ASSESSMENT STRATEGY (INDICATIVE)
LEARNING OUTCOME On completion of the
module, students will be able to: |
ASSESSMENT
STRATEGY |
1)
Select, justify and use effectively the
research methods and techniques appropriate for particular cases in order to
carry out a literature search and an independent work of research |
Coursework - Project definition and research proposal
report |
2)
Critically identify the need to position
their research in the wider academic or business context and structure the
dissertation format to agreed conventions |
Coursework – Dissertation |
3)
Plan, manage and critically evaluate the
project using the techniques and tools needed in order to bring it in
successfully on time and within resourcing limits |
Coursework - Project definition and research proposal
report and Dissertation |
4)
Identify and critically analyse real-world
problems or knowledge gaps to which academic concepts and methods can be
realistically applied to improve or resolve the problem situation |
Coursework |
5)
Apply skills to show an ability to engage in
academic and professional communication with others in their field through
report and presentation |
Practical Exam - Formative and summative Viva/Presentation |
6)
Present critical awareness in applying appropriate
legal, social or ethical obligations and when required, respond to the
financial and other constraints of a corresponding business environment. |
Coursework - Project definition and research proposal
report and Dissertation |
|
|
ELEMENTS
OF ASSESSMENT (DEFINITIVE)
DESCRIPTION of ASSESSMENT |
DEFINITIVE KIS CATEGORY |
PERCENTAGE |
Project definition and research proposal report |
Coursework |
10% |
Viva/Presentation |
Practical Exam |
10% |
Dissertation |
Coursework |
80% |
Total |
|
100% |
|
|
|
ACHIEVING
A PASS (DEFINITIVE)
It IS NOT a requirement that any major element
of assessment is passed separately in order to achieve an overall pass for the
module.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(INDICATIVE):
Core Text(s):
Kathleen McMillan, Jonathan Weyers (2011), How to Write Dissertations
and Project Reports, Pearson Education
Recommended
Reading:
Reading as advised by the supervisor(s)
Rowena Murray (2006), How to Write a Thesis., Open University Press
0 comments:
Post a Comment