The final stages of the project are worth 100% of your
final mark, much of which rides on the quality of the final
dissertation. Submitting drafts of your work to your
supervisor well in advance of final deadlines can be
rewarding.
Dissertation
Material from your earlier survey and analysis stage
report should be organically integrated into the final
dissertation. Modifications will be made to it based on
feedback from your supervisor, but also, the deeper
understanding you will have developed through your own
developments and analysis of your results means that you
will be able to produce a better-analysed literature
survey (or other type of survey). Likewise, the analysis
and requirements chapter will reflect your greater
understanding.
The contents of the dissertation (excluding references
and appendices etc., with the font size being 11 or 12 pt)
must be between 7000 and 14000 words in length for COM3610
and between 6000 and 12000 words for COM3500.Marks could be reduced by excessively breaching the word limit.
Dissertations come in a variety of types so it is
difficult to generalize but the following pages:
should help you get started. Please remember that if you are
unsure what to do you should discuss the problem with your
supervisor. In particular you are advised to discuss the project title and the abstract with your supervisor.
Be very careful to submit your work on time. If you do not, standard lateness penalties will apply which could have a significant impact on your work.
You must include the declaration in your work.
Assessment
The dissertation will be examined by both supervisor and
second examiner and, in some cases, by a third examiner. The
supervisor and second examiner will mark the final
dissertation independently but only your supervisor marks
your performance on the project.
Exceptionally you may be called to attend a viva for the
project which will be held before the end of semester 2.
This could be for a number of reasons, e.g. the Department
wishes to sample the cross-section of projects, there is a
problem with the project, the examiners need to question
certain things about the dissertation, etc.
The categories listed below are included on the
assessment form that each examiner will complete. Also
included below is a table that gives an indication
of what is being looked for in the overall work - note
however that this is only a guide.
- Quality of products: This covers the results
of the work, whether these be software or hardware
systems, models of systems, mathematical theorems and
conjectures, etc. Judgements will be made on the basis
of the complexity or difficulty of the task and the
degree of success achieved.
- Quality of processes: This covers the
processes involved in the development of the project
work and can include the initial analysis of the problem
with its theoretical foundations. It will also cover
design and testing processes, and how you handled
relevant legal, social or ethical issues. The use of the
literature, and of available tools and methodologies
will also be assessed here.
- Amount of work completed: somewhat
self-descriptive. This category includes (i) the
background learning you had to do which is distinct from
the final products that were produced or the processes
that were undertaken in producing the products, and (ii)
the amount of work done in relation to what could be
reasonably expected to be done on the particular
project, given its level of difficulty and the time
available.
- Quality of evaluation: This concerns your own
evaluation of the project in terms of how well the
objectives were satisfied, how appropriate the processes
turned out to be, the possible further directions of
study and the relationships with other people's work.
- Presentation of dissertation: The readability
of the dissertation and the precision of its language
will be judged here, along with the overall
presentation: sensible notation, diagrams, layout,
headings, references, etc.
- Presentation Session: See
the Presentation Session page
The following list gives an indication of what is
being looked for in the overall work. Note however that this
is only a guide.
| 70-100 |
Sensible subdivision of material into chapters and
sections to produce a coherent and well-balanced
report. Good introduction chapter that puts the case
for the project and its aims. Review is well
researched. Thorough understanding of subject.
Focussed on topic. Factually correct. Addresses
issues critically. Analysis of problem area is
in-depth and requirements of project are clear.
Project evaluation is addressed with insight and
testing is properly covered. Design is precise,
methodical and shows some flair. Implementation and
testing is thorough and and pertinent points are
discussed. Results are presented in a logical order
with perceptive and critical discussion and
evaluation. Discussion of further work is
appropriate to the evaluation of work done.
Conclusions are correct and show ability to
summarise with acumen. Diagrams/maths/tables should
be relevant and clearly presented. Unambiguous and
grammatically correct English. Perfection is not
essential. Some originality or innovation.
- 80-89: indicates that the work has some
originality and with some further work could be
of publishable quality.
- 90-100: indicates originality and work
of publishable quality.
|
| 60-69 |
Well-organised with a sensible subdivision of
material into chapters and sections. Decent
introduction that generally makes the project aims
clear. Review shows some evidence of research. Good
understanding of subject. Predominantly focussed on
topic. Largely factually accurate. May contain some
irrelevant material. Analysis is generally good and
project requirements are clear. Decent attempt at
addressing issues of testing and evaluation. Design
generally shows clarity. Implementation and testing
covers the main points, but may not be particularly
thorough. Main results are presented, although some
irrelevant material may be included. Discussion
shows some critical abilities. Further work is
perhaps a little over general. Conclusions are
competently covered. Diagrams/maths/tables should be
relevant and clearly presented. Predominantly
unambiguous and grammatically correct English. |
| 50-59 |
Logical structure with sensible subdivision into
chapters and sections. Introduction chapter is
generally OK. Review is competent but generally
exhibits a basic understanding of the subject.
Largely focussed on topic. Largely factually
correct, but may contain some irrelevant material or
miss some important points. Analysis and
requirements are adequate. Evaluation and testing is
covered. Design lacks depth. Implementation and
testing cover general points. Results and discussion
are generally competent but do not demonstrate real
depth in thinking. Further work is perhaps over
general or not particularly insightful. Conclusions
may ramble in parts. Some use of
diagrams/maths/tables, but may be poorly organised.
Clearly written overall, but may be ambiguous in
places and show lapses of grammar. |
| 40-49 |
Subdivided into chapters and sections, but not
particularly logical in flow of material within
chapters. Introduction chapter is unclear. Review,
analysis and requirements show an incomplete
understanding of subject. Poorly focussed with
either irrelevant material or a failure to
appreciate important points. Some material may be
incorrect. Analysis and requirements are rather
general. Design, implementation and testing are
unclear in places or miss important points or are
incomplete. Results, discussion and conclusions
generally show poor focus and lack of depth. Poor or
little use of diagrams/tables/maths. Style and
grammar poor. |
| 0-39 |
Some attempt, but unfocussed with high content of
irrelevant material. Some material may be incorrect.
Poorly organised with major omissions and/or major
errors. Inadequate style and/or grammar. |
|
