COM00150M Department of Computer ScienceProlog

Java Python COM00150M

Department of Computer Science

Research Proposal

SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT BRIEF

I. Module Learning Outcomes

The module learning outcomes for this module are as follows:

MLO 1. Identify an individual research project within the area of specialism of the degree programme.

MLO 2. Apply knowledge of research philosophy and methods to justify an appropriate approach for a specific research question.

MLO 3. Critically analyse significant bodies of literature in the chosen topic area to justify an area of research.

MLO 4. Develop a research plan for a researchable problem.

MLO 5. Identify and address ethical issues associated with a specific piece of research, and attain ethical approval for the project.

This assessment addresses all the module learning outcomes listed above.

II. Assessment Background/Scenario

The foundation of any project lies in the planning, and assessment of its viability as a project. Fundamentally, this is what the research proposal concerns itself with and helps ascertain whether the final project is worth planning for.

In the formative assessment you were asked to present 2 project ideas; at this stage you will need to eliminate one of these ideas and select the project idea you wish to take forward for your summative assignment submission. This idea now needs to be planned in sufficient depth in order to present a viable project proposal.

Choosing a project and writing a proposal are all part of the foundations of a project. Your proposal is the preparation for your project - a deficiency in this area can cause a project to fail.

III. Assessment Task

For the summative assessment you need to produce a 3,000-word, written research proposal which may later be used to inform. your Independent Research Project (IRP).

The word counts and indicative structure below are what we think a typical proposal requires; however, you may choose to allocate your word count differently. You should remember to be succinct and precise, and that quantity does not imply quality.

Suggested structure

Suggested word count	Section	Contents
300 words	Introduction/Focus of Research	● Field of study ● Topic/Research object ● Unit of analysis ● Justification of the project – why is it important? ● Aims and objectives ● Make a clear statement as to the hypothesis/hypotheses and/or research question(s) you are seeking to address. o This may be supported by additional aims/objectives or questions ● Provide justification for your hypothesis/hypotheses and/or research question(s).
1000 words	Literature Review	● Select relevant academic texts that are linked to your topic of study. These should include a mixture of academic books, peer-refereed academic journals and conference papers ● Synthesise and critically analyse them ● You should comment on the main argument/interpretation developed and explain why the text is relevant to your topic ● You should identify any concepts and theories relevant to the research project, noting why they are important
1500 words	Philosophical approach/ Research Methodology	● Your philosophical approach and research methodology should clearly support the requirements of your research question/hypothesis ● Identify the research method(s) to be used to undertake the study, and justification of that choice ● Outline of data/sources – where will your data/source material come from?
	Project Management (Computational approach)	● Discuss and include your overall project plan (timetable) and computational approach ● This should clearly demonstrate your major milestones, and required resources ● You should include a timeframe. for undertaking the whole project, noting that the total project time is 16 weeks ● You should clearly identify any potential risks or limitations to your approach
200 words	Ethical implications of your study	● Identify and comment upon any ethical implications of the study ● This should be related to the university’s ethics policy ● You should consider the ethical implications for stakeholders, participants, for the university, and for yourself

NOTE: Do not attach a copy of your ethics form. as this will have identifying information and the proposal is marked anonymously

IV. Deliverables

Your assignment should be laid out following the formatting guidelines that are specified in the ‘Submission Formatting’ page in Canvas. This includes restrictions on the length of the appendices, expectations on how your work should be presented and any penalties when these expectations are not met.

Your report should not exceed 3,000 words in total and consist of clear sections to address the main task. Your response to one section will not contribute to grades in another. Further formatting details and essential points are given below.

· Your submission must include a cover sheet and a table of contents.

o The cover sheet should include:

§ the module name and module code;

§ the title of your submission.

NOTE: To ensure your work is marked anonymously, do not put any identifying information, such as name, exam number or student ID, on your submission (including the cover sheet). Please refer to the Summative Assessment Policies page for guidance on anonymising your submission.

Referencing

You are required to use the IEEE referencing style for citing books, articles, and all other sources (like websites) used in your assignment.

Good referencing is essential in order to meet the standards of academic integrity set by the University. All of your sources must be acknowledged, regardless of whether you included direct quotes or not. Visit your Academic Integrity Tutorial module in Canvas for additional guidance on effective referencing.

V. Marking Criteria

Address all of the relevant parts of the Proposal, making note of the word count limit. Any parts of your proposal that go beyond the limit will not be marked. Any references or other sources used must be listed at the end of the document and do not count towards the word count.

These are expected in your proposal and constitute what you are marked on.

Learning Outcome		Section/Task	Criteria	Available marks
ALL	Adherence to academic best practice, including referencing, appropriate and accurate language.			10
1,2	Project identification and justification. Research Question/ Hypothesis		Identify and critically evaluate the project topic selection and its suitability for IRP. Identify and critically analyse your hypothesis/hypotheses and/or research question(s) you are seeking to address. · This may be supported by additional aims/objectives or questions. Provide justification for your hypothesis/hypotheses and/or research question(s).	20
3	Literature Review		Review relevant and reliable literature to support your selected project. Identify the research gap based on your review of the relevant literature and demonstration of wider reading. Map the discussion to the proposed research aims, objectives and questions	26
2,4	Philosophical approach/ Research Methodology		Outline and critically analyse the philosophical approach, research methodology and methods you plan to use for your project and how they support your questions/hypotheses.	34
	Project Management		Outline, discuss and critically evaluate your plan. Clearly identify any potential risks or limitations to your approach.
5	Ethical Impl COM00150M Department of Computer ScienceProlog ications		Clearly state any ethical implications that may arise and identify how these may be mitigated.	10
	TOTAL:			100

VI. Marking Criteria: Grade breakdown

Written Communication and Referencing 10%

0-39%	Fail	· The report is not well organised or structured and the writing style. is unclear and inconsistent. · Citations are not correct or absent, and not applied in a consistent style. There is referencing within the document. · Little or no attempt to develop a line of argument or to link ideas to the wider field of computing knowledge. · Little or no referencing and citation details. · Little or no effort to research and embed in the paper up-to-date peer-reviewed knowledge.
40-49%	Marginal fail	· Limited in terms of structure, comprehensibility [clear, concise and orderly], and presentation. · Limited attempt to develop a line of argument or to link ideas to the wider field of computing knowledge. · Limited referencing and citation details. Limited effort to research and embed in the paper up-to-date peer-reviewed knowledge.
50%-59%	Pass	· Acceptable in terms of structure, comprehensibility, and quality of presentation. · A relevant line of argument is presented and the relationship of this to the wider field of computing knowledge is made explicit. · Appropriate referencing and citation details. · The references used show acceptable efforts to research and embed in the paper up-to-date peer-reviewed knowledge (papers).
60%-69%	Merit	· The work is appropriately structured, the lines of argument clear and well supported by the evidence. · A reasonably clear and relevant line of argument is presented and the relationship of the argument to the wider field of computing knowledge is made explicit and evaluated in a way which is sensitive to the competing claims of different views but offers a conclusion which is defensible and justifiable. · Well presented with appropriate referencing and citation details. · The references used show competent efforts to research and embed in the paper up-to-date peer-reviewed knowledge (papers).
70%-100%	Distinction	· The ideas are communicated with economy, precision and clarity. · A clear and relevant line of argument is presented and the relationship of the argument to the wider field of computing knowledge is made explicit and evaluated in a way which is sensitive to the competing claims of different views but offers a conclusion which is defensible and justifiable. · Well presented with appropriate referencing and citation details. · The references used show excellent efforts to research and embed in the paper up-to-date peer-reviewed knowledge (papers).

Project identification and justification/ Research Question / Hypothesis 20%

0-39%	Fail	· Little or no attempt to identify the project topic. · Little supporting evidence for the topic selection with little or no critical evaluation. · Little or inaccurate discussion on the topic’s suitability for IRP. · Little or no discussion or justification of the question and/or hypothesis.
40-49%	Marginal fail	· Limited attempt to identify the project topic. · Limited supporting evidence for the topic selection with limited critical evaluation. · Limited or inaccurate discussion on the topic’s suitability for IRP. · Limited discussion and justification of the question and/or hypothesis.
50%-59%	Pass	· Project topic identified to some degree. · Acceptable justification for the topic selection with acceptable critical evaluation. · Acceptable and reasonably accurate discussion on the topic’s suitability for IRP. · Question and/or hypothesis identified to some degree with acceptable justifications.
60%-69%	Merit	· Project topic clearly identified. · Competent justification for the topic selection with quite well reasoned critical evaluation. · Competent and accurate discussion on the topic’s suitability for IRP. · Question and/or hypothesis clearly identified with competent justifications.
70%-100%	Distinction	· Project topic explicitly identified. · Strong justification for the topic selection with well-reasoned critical evaluation. · Strong and accurate discussion on the topic’s suitability for IRP. · Question and/or hypothesis explicitly identified with strong justification.

Literature review 26%

0-39%	Fail	· Little or inaccurate evidence of appraisal and evaluation on any papers cited. · Little critical thinking evident. · Few supporting arguments. · Little to no demonstration of wider reading.
40-49%	Marginal fail	· Limited or inaccurate evidence of appraisal and evaluation on any papers cited. · Limited critical thinking evident. · Limited supporting arguments. · Limited demonstration of wider reading.
50%-59%	Pass	· Acceptable evidence of appraisal and evaluation on most papers cited with reasonably clear critical thinking to support your selected project. · Acceptable and reasonably accurate synthesis of a range of different arguments demonstrating both similar and contrasting views. · Acceptable demonstration of wider reading, appropriately chosen peer-reviewed literature, white papers, grey literature and traditional/alternative media.
60%-69%	Merit	· Competent evidence of appraisal and evaluation on most papers cited with reasonably clear critical thinking to support your selected project. · Competent synthesis of a range of different arguments demonstrating both similar and contrasting views. · Competent demonstration of wider reading, appropriately chosen peer-reviewed literature, white papers, grey literature and traditional/alternative media.
70%-100%	Distinction	· Strong evidence of appraisal and evaluation on most papers cited with clear critical thinking to support your selected project. · Strong synthesis of a range of different arguments demonstrating both similar and contrasting views. · Strong demonstration of wider reading, appropriately chosen peer-reviewed literature, white papers, grey literature and traditional/alternative media