代写MSc CS+ Project 23-24代做留学生SQL 程序

日期：2024-06-28 06:49

MScCS+ Project 23-24

1.  Introduction

All MSc CS+ students undertake an independent project in the third semester. For many, this will be the most substantial piece of work they produce in their time at university. This is an excellent opportunity to showcase their computing science skills and expertise, putting into practice what they have learned during their studies to tackle a challenging problem. The aim of the project is not just to address this problem, but to demonstrate excellent use of computing science skills and professional conduct in developing and evaluating a solution.

This document describes the assessment criteria for the MSc CS+ project and provides guidance for students, supervisors and readers.

José Cano Reyes (MSc CS+ Projects Coordinator)

Euan Freeman (Deputy Director for MSc Programmes)

Kevin Bryson (MSc CS Programme Director)

Yehia Elkhatib (MSc DS Programme Director)

2. Assessment

2.1.Assessment Process

The MSc CS+ project will be assessed by at least two examiners (typically the project supervisor and anominated reader) . Examiners will assess the dissertation (90% of the overall grade) and the student’sprofessional conduct (10% of the overall grade) . Both examiners will mark the dissertation, but only the project supervisor will assess professional conduct.

Both examiners will independently assess the project by deciding on a grade band for each assessment criterion and providing written justification. These assessment criteria are weighted to calculate an overall grade.

Examiners need to exercise judgement regarding the difficulty level of the project and the achievements of the student. A less challenging project maybe easily completed, whilst a more challenging project may appear incomplete but represent a more considerable achievement.

Students and supervisors should also remember that the main objective of the project is not to deliver an excellent research output or software product, but to demonstrate an excellent process in conducting the work, and in encountering and overcoming significant challenges. Attainment of assessment criteria should therefore be judged accordingly.

2.2.Assessment Components

Assessed work consists of:

•    A written dissertation with a maximum page limit of 30 pages (not including appendices) (90% overall) .

o Submitted with appropriate source code, supplementary materials, data, etc.

•    An appraisal of the student’s professional conduct during the year (10% overall) .

The dissertation provides the primary evidence of project outcomes – it is the lens through which project achievements will be judged. No matter how well a student does in the supervisor’s eyes, it is the dissertation that will be assessed. It must therefore be possible to justify awarded grade bands from the dissertation, without reference to other achievements or outputs during the project.

The supervisor will also make a judgement of professional conduct during the project, reflecting aspects like engagement with supervisor, independence, organisation, and professionalism. These projects are conducted in a professional setting and should betaken seriously.

2.3.Assessment Criteria

A description of assessment criteria and their weightings are provided below. Detailed grade descriptors for each component will be provided in Section 3.

2.3.1.   Problem Analysis (15%)

An assessment of how well the student has analysed and demonstrated their understanding of the problem that their project addresses. This reflects their understanding of the project context, the clarity with which they present their thoughts, and the extent to which they formulate and justify a potential solution to the given problem.

Consider : How well has the student analysed the problem and devised a suitable approach for developing and evaluating a solution? Have they surveyed relevant literature, existing products, etc and demonstrated critical insight and understanding of these? Have they used existing knowledge to justify their approach, support claims, etc? Have clear project requirements or research questions been developed?

2.3.2.   Outcome (Research Insight or Software Product) (40%)

An assessment of the project outcome and the quality of work leading to this. This will vary from project to project and requires judgement on the extent to which a good outcome has been achieved. This may reflect the quality and rigour with which research is conducted and technical accomplishments in software development. This should consider the quality of the process used by the student in conducting their work and overcoming challenges. Project outcomes must be appropriately evidenced via the dissertation. For example, the dissertation needs to adequately discuss what was implemented, what work was carried out, what problems were encountered and how they were addressed, how the research ideas or software were evaluated, etc.

Consider : Were research ideas evaluated using appropriate and well-justified experimental methods? Are software or other technical artefacts well designed, functional, reliable – are they fit for purpose in addressing the given problem? Does the dissertation describe the design and implementation of these? Does it provide adequate justification for key design decisions? Are technical accomplishments (including solutions to encountered problems) reflected via the dissertation? Was software tested using appropriate evaluation methods? Is there evidence of critical thinking and insight in how the work was carried out and described in the dissertation? Does the dissertation communicate and justify the process used in achieving these outcomes?

2.3.3. Reflection (10%)

An assessment of how well the student has critically analysed and reflected on their evaluation findings and project. This includes judging the appropriateness and depth of analysis, and the extent and quality of critical reflection on the findings.

Consider : Is the evaluation an honest and fair assessment of the work? Does the evaluation or experiment provide sufficient critical insight, e.g., to provide reasonable answers to the research questions or to assess the success of the project outcomes? Does the student demonstrate an understanding of what they found from their analysis? Is there evidence of critical reflection on findings that,e.g., leads to good suggestions for future work? Has the student critically reflected on what they did and learned from this process?

2.3.4.   Dissertation Quality (25%)

An assessment of dissertation quality and how well the student has presented their work. This reflects the completeness of the dissertation, its organisation and use of an appropriate structure, the quality of writing, the ways in which complex ideas arepresented, and the appropriate use of external references.

Consider : Is the dissertation complete, containing detailed evidence of analysis, outcomes, and evaluation? Is the dissertation well organised with an appropriate structure? Does the dissertation clearly explain the problem, what was designed and developed during the project, and the evaluation? Does the project make good use of appropriate technical imagery and illustration? Are evaluation results presented clearly, including appropriate use of information visualisation? Does the dissertation contain a bibliography and is work appropriately cited?

2.3.5.   Professional Conduct (10%)

An assessment of professionalism and conduct during the project. This reflects the student’s independence in leading the project, their use of appropriate professional practice (including tools, research methods, software engineering practice, etc), the quality of project planning and management, and the extent to which the student made good use of their own (and their supervisor’s time) .

Consider : Did the student attend meetings and engage effectively with their supervisor? Did they show up well prepared for meetings and was meeting time used effectively? Were suitable tools used to manage the project (e.g., reference management software, version control software)? Did the student plan the project well and manage their time effectively? Did the student lead the project and work independently?

Note that the MSc project requires full commitment and students are expected to make significant progress each week. Students should not be working full time or undertaking an internship during the project semester. A lack of engagement will be reflected in whole project outcomes, not just in  professional conduct.

3. Grade Descriptors

The following tables present grade descriptors for both the individual assessment components and the overall project. Because projects vary so much in content and style, examiners will have to use   their own judgement when interpreting these.

3.1. Problem Analysis

3.2. Outcome (Research Insight or Software Product)

3.3. Reflection

3.4.Dissertation

3.5. Professional Conduct

Professional conduct varies according to supervisor style. Use your judgement to decide what  aspects are relevant but be clear with students about what you expect and how you will assess professional conduct if you deviate from these guidelines.

Good professional conduct should demonstrate independence, courtesy, organisation, time management, adherence to legal and ethical guidelines, and technical project management. The following grade descriptors outline expectations for professional conduct. Further guidance follows, identifying questions you may wish to consider when judging professional conduct.

3.6.Overall

The overall grade is calculated automatically by weighting the components described previously. The following grade descriptors are provided for reference only.

Note that the award of MSc requires an overall band of at least D3 in the project. Students who achieve E1 or worse in the project do not meet the requirements for MSc and will be awarded the appropriate Postgraduate Diploma instead. Students who achieve an E1 or worse maybe able to resubmit.

4. Reconciliation and Arbitration

Each project is first assessed by two examiners, whose overall grade bands may differ. There are protocols in place for agreeing on a final overall grade for the project (discussed below) .

In some cases, negotiation and/or arbitration maybe necessary. This may involve requesting the supervisor and reader discuss their appraisal of the work and try to reach agreement (negotiation) . Alternatively, a third examiner maybe asked to assess the project independently, then all three markers will discuss a final grade (arbitration) . The Projects Coordinator has absolute discretion to invoke arbitration for any reason, e.g., if two marks fallon either side of a critical borderline, if one of the examiners requests it, if an agreed mark seems unreasonably high or low, or if there are questions of collusion or conflict of interest in marking. In rare cases where arbitration does not resolve disputes, the Projects Coordinator has the ultimate authority to assign a mark.

•    If grades differ by 1 secondary band (e.g. [B1,B2]),the supervisor’s overall mark is taken as the final mark.

•    If grades differ by 2 secondary bands (e.g. [B1,B3]), the middle mark is taken as the final mark (in this case, [B2]) .

•    If grades differ by 3 or 4 secondary bands (e.g. [B1,C1], [B1,C2]), both examiners must

discuss to reconcile their marks and agree on a negotiated final grade. The supervisor must initiate this process.

o If both examiners agree on a final grade, they must jointly produce written

justification for the negotiated award and the supervisor should enter this into the project system to complete the marking process.

o If both examiners cannot agree on a final grade, the Project Co-ordinator will arrange for arbitration to take place.

•    If grades differ by more than 4 grade bands (eg. [B1,C3]) , the Project Co-ordinator will arrange for arbitration to take place.

•    If a project receives a reconciled grade below D3, the Project Co-ordinator may aska third marker to assess it.

•    If a project receives a grade of A1 or A2, the Project Co-ordinator may aska third marker to assess it.