Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

COM00151M

Department of Computer Science

Independent Research Project

SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT BRIEF

Author	Andrea Palmer
Assessment	Summative assignment
Weighting	100%
Release	Week 3
Deadline	Wednesday of week 16, 13:00 (UK time) *

* If this date falls on a UK public holiday or a University of York closure day, the submission date will change. Please check the submission point in the ‘Assignments’ area of the module in Canvas for the exact submission deadline.

I. Module Learning Outcomes

The module learning outcomes for this module are as follows:

MLO 1. Critically evaluate and apply new techniques and tools.

MLO 2. Develop artefact, as appropriate, serving the purpose of the experiment.

MLO 3. Apply knowledge of research philosophy and methods to undertake empirical research involving collection of primary data (where appropriate).

MLO 4. Undertake secondary analysis of existing data and information (where appropriate).

MLO 5. Critically analyse significant bodies of literature in the chosen topic area particularly in the context of the research findings.

MLO 6. Communicate complex computational problems and their solutions in well-presented written format.

This assessment addresses all the module learning outcomes listed above.

II. Assessment Background/Scenario

Using either the research proposal developed in your research proposal module, an adapted version of this, or a new proposal developed with guidance from your supervisor, undertake a significant and independent investigation into a problem/area of interest. Your project should clearly demonstrate your ability to conceive, define, manage, complete (successfully or unsuccessfully) and conclude the work independently.

Your supervisor is there to mentor you and raise critical questions/concerns to help you consider the best approach. They are not there to give you specific instructions or direction.

Your project work will then provide you with the substance and context to produce a substantial report that demonstrates your understanding, critical thinking, and rigorous approach to the project. It is your report that will gain you credit here and which is the main output from your project. However, it will be the quality of your project that will determine the quality of what you write. You are strongly advised to give the project considerable time and attention so you have something relevant and meaningful to discuss and that can be validated as your own independent work.

In addition to your report, your project should also produce a set of agreed outputs, with your supervisor, that will form part of your final submission. This will be different for each project and their main purpose is to demonstrate that your work:

· is reproducible and valid

· is your own and independent

III. Assessment Task

Your report should be written in an objective way, avoiding personal pronouns, and should consist of an initial executive summary and a main body, as follows:

Executive summary

At most a single (1) page, aimed at a non-specialist, knowledgeable authorial peer. This page is NOT included in your word count but must adhere to the formatting guidelines. This should present the following areas given the nature of your project:

· state the aim of the reported work,

· motivation for the work,

· state methods used,

· state results found, and

· highlight any legal, social, ethical, professional, and commercial issues as appropriate to the topic of study (if none, then this should be explicitly stated).

The main body

You should write 8000 words (+/- 10%), aimed at an academic in Computer Science, but one who is not necessarily a specialist in your field of study.

While no particular structure is mandated, it is expected that the following sections will be covered and clearly identifiable:

· Introductory material

· Background and review of related work

· Description of methodology, experimental design, or design

· Results or analysis

· Concluding material

Appendices

At most, fifteen (15) pages. For example, supplementary data, screen shots, diagrams. While not directly marked, appendices support points made in the main body and must all be cross-referenced and/or discussed from your main body to be considered as supporting evidence. These are NOT included in your word count.

Agreed Artefacts

These should not be included in your report directly, unless they are part of, or support, your discussion. For example, include the detailed structure or relevant parts of a survey because you think it is important to discuss how this was devised or how it affected the results gathered.

Do NOT included a complete printout or screenshots of code. Where you need samples to demonstrate/support a point, be selective and ensure that all images are clearly readable and embedded in the report, all code text well structured and commented on where required. Do NOT expect the reader of your report to resize images or text. Treat your work as though it were going to print/be published.

All agreed artefacts should be submitted as part of a single zipped file. This file should NOT include your project report, or any extra report related images/text. However, it should include all the material needed to replicate and/or verify your results, all ethics approval documentation, and raw data must be included. Your artefacts do not count towards your grade; they are there to verify you have undertaken a project and that it is your own independent work.

Note: the title page, tables of contents/figures/diagrams/etc., executive summary, dedication, bibliography and appendices are NOT included in your word count.

IV. Deliverables

Your assignment should be laid out following the formatting guidelines that are specified in the ‘Submission Formatting’ page in Canvas.

You should make two file submissions as follows:

· A completed report answering the given questions as a single file in ONLY a .docx format. This should NOT be included in the zipped file and should not exceed any specified word/page counts.

· A single zipped file containing your agreed artefacts. This file should NOT include your project report, or any extra report-related images/text. However, it should include all the material needed to replicate and/or verify your results, all ethics approval documentation, and any raw data used within your project.

Report Formatting Guidelines

Your report must adhere to the following formatting:

· The main text must be word-processed in 12-point Arial font, double-line spacing, with margins all around of at least 2cm.

· All images and diagrams must be clear and viewable on the page without scaling.

· All source material that is used, whether by direct quotation or not, must be acknowledged, following the IEEE referencing style. See the University of York Academic Integrity site.

· You are advised to use direct quotes minimally. They should only be used to support your points, and do not attract marks directly.

Artefact directory

Students must supply something called an “artefact directory”, which contains all the materials we need to replicate their work along with their artefact. This includes:

· All agreed artefacts (models, outputs, policies (if they have written one and it’s longer)) should be submitted as part of a single zipped file (artefact directory).

· The artefact directory must include all the material needed to replicate and/or verify the results (raw data, analysis etc.), all ethics approval documentation.

· There must be a clear traceability between the data/models/analysis etc. in the artefact directory, and the final contributions (i.e. recommendations/policies etc.) students are claiming.

· This file should NOT include the project report, or any extra report-related images/text.

· All agreed artefacts and the contents of the artefact folder should be listed as part of the appendices in the report

· The artefacts do not count towards the grade; they are there to verify you have undertaken a project and that it is your own independent work.

Students cannot upload more than 5 GB of data in their artefact directories. If a student has more data than this, they should instead store it on the university Google Drive and provide a link in their artefact directory (e.g. in a text file). Supervisors should then obtain it from Google Drive, so make sure it is a shareable link to anyone within the University of York. Please discuss this with your supervisor to obtain their agreement before submitting this. Note that you still need to provide an artefact directory with all your other materials (ethics forms and approvals, analysis etc.).

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

The University of York Computer Science Department
MLO	Section		Marks
2	Agreed Artefacts	Pass/fail	0
All	Executive Summary		10
6	Written Communication & Referencing		10
5	Introductory Material/Motivation/Background		20
1, 3, 4	Methodology/Design/Implementation Discussion		30
1, 3, 4, 5	Results/Analysis/Evaluation/Testing/Conclusion		30
	TOTAL		100

NOTE: Failure to submit ALL agreed artefacts by the deadline will result in a zero grade.

VI. Marking Criteria: Grade breakdown

Executive Summary 10%

0-39%	Fail	The executive summary is not present and/or is not relevant to the report. It covers little to none of the required areas.
40-49%	Potentially compensatable fail	The executive summary is not clear or concise and is not easily accessible to an appropriate audience. It covers little to none of the required areas.
50%-59%	Pass	The executive summary gives a somewhat concise overview of the report, which is accessible to an appropriate audience to some degree, covering some of the required areas.
60%-69%	Merit	The executive summary gives a mostly clear and concise overview of the report, which is accessible to an appropriate audience, covering most of the required areas.
70%-100%	Distinction	The executive summary gives a clear and concise overview of the report, which is accessible to an appropriate audience, covering all the required areas.

Written Communication and Referencing 10%

0-39%	Fail	The report is not well organised or structured and the writing style is unclear and inconsistent. Diagrams, tables and images are not used appropriately for the information being presented. Citations are incorrect or absent and are not applied in a consistent style; there is referencing within the document.
40-49%	Potentially compensatable fail	The report is limited in its organisation and structure, and the writing style is mostly unclear and/or inconsistent. Diagrams, tables and images are mostly inappropriate for the information being presented, or not relevant within the context of the report. Citations are incorrect in most places, and are not applied in a consistent style; there is incomplete referencing within the document.
50%-59%	Pass	The report is quite well organised and logically structured, using a fairly consistent writing style. Diagrams, tables and images are used in a fairly appropriate way for the information being presented. Citations are correct, and applied in a fairly consistent style, with appropriate referencing within the document.
60%-69%	Merit	The report is mostly well organised and logically structured, using a mostly clear and consistent writing style. Diagrams, tables and images are used in a mostly effectively and appropriate way for the information being presented. Citations are correct and applied in a mostly consistent style, with appropriate referencing within the document.
70%-100%	Distinction	The report is well organised with clear and logical structuring, using clear and concise writing in a consistent style. Diagrams, tables and images are used effectively and are clear and appropriate for the information being presented. Citations are correct, complete and applied in a consistent style, with appropriate referencing within the document.

Introductory Material/Motivation/Background 20%

0-39%	Fail	The project scope, aims and objectives are not appropriate, and are not entirely clear or well defined. The motivation is not supported by the literature, or a relevant and clearly identified rational reason/approach.
40-49%	Potentially compensatable fail	The project scope, aims and objectives are barely appropriate, and are not entirely clear or well defined. The motivation is barely supported by the literature, and/or a relevant and clearly identified rational reason/approach.
50%-59%	Pass	The project scope, aims and objectives are fairly appropriate, clear and defined at an acceptable level. The motivation is mostly supported by the literature, and/or a relevant and clearly identified rational reason/approach.
60%-69%	Merit	The project scope, aims and objectives are mostly appropriate, clear and well defined. The motivation is mostly supported by the literature, and/or a relevant and clearly identified rational reason/approach.
70%-100%	Distinction	The project scope, aims and objectives are appropriate, clear and well defined. The motivation is clearly and effectively supported by the literature, and/or a relevant and clearly identified rational reason/approach.

Methodology/Design/Implementation Discussion 30%

0-39%	Fail	The report is not clear in its presentation and there are few, if any, aspects that are relevant or informative. The discussion demonstrates little or no understanding of the critical aspects and issues. Arguments for the decisions made are not coherent or rational within the context. There is little or no relevant discussion of the approach to the investigation or experimentation, and the artefacts developed do not support the work. Specific ethical and professional issues are not clearly discussed and/or are not relevant to the topic of study.
40-49%	Potentially compensatable fail	The report is not wholly clear in its presentation and few aspects are relevant or informative. The discussion is not clear and demonstrates limited general understanding of the critical aspects and issues. Arguments for the decisions made are not coherent or rational within the context. There is limited relevant discussion of the approach to the investigation or experimentation, and the artefacts developed do not support the work. Specific ethical and professional issues are not clearly discussed and/or are not relevant to the topic of study.
50%-59%	Pass	The report presents somewhat relevant and informative aspects of the design and development process. The discussion indicates, to some degree, a general understanding of the critical aspects and issues. Arguments for the decisions made are quite coherent and rational within the context. There is a fairly clear rationale for the approach to the investigation or experimentation and the artefacts developed support this to some degree. Specific ethical and professional issues are discussed in regard to how methods were applied, which is quite effective for the topic of study.
60%-69%	Merit	The report presents mostly relevant and informative aspects of the design and development process. The discussion mostly indicates an appreciation and understanding of the critical aspects and issues. Arguments for the decisions made are mostly coherent and rational within the context. There is a mostly clear rationale for the approach to the investigation or experimentation and the artefacts developed mostly support this. Specific ethical and professional issues are discussed in regard to how methods were applied, which is mostly effective for the topic of study.
70%-100%	Distinction	The report presents clear, relevant and informative aspects of the design and development process. The discussion indicates a clear appreciation and understanding of the critical aspects and the current issues. Arguments for the decisions made are coherent and rational within the context. There is a clear rationale for the approach to the investigation or experimentation and the artefacts developed support this effectively. Specific ethical and professional issues are discussed effectively in regard to how methods were applied, as appropriate for the topic of study.

Results/Analysis/Evaluation/Testing/Conclusion 30%

0-39%	Fail	There is little or no relevant analysis of the results. There is no clear discussion of the results in the context of the research/investigation’s intended aims and objectives. There are no appropriate outcomes for the project, which are not discussed appropriately in the broader context of the field of study. The overall project’s approach and process have not been critically evaluated, and/or the selected criteria are irrelevant or inappropriate. There is no consideration of any limitations. The conclusion is inappropriate or irrational in the context of the project and little or no relevant reference to the rest of the report. Future work is irrelevant or not present.
40-49%	Potentially compensatable fail	The analysis of the results has been attempted in an ineffective or inappropriate way, and those results are not clearly discussed in the context of the research/investigation’s intended aims and objectives. There is a limited or inappropriate set of outcomes for the project, which are not clearly discussed in the broader context of the field of study. The overall project’s approach and process have not been critically evaluated, and/or the selected criteria are irrelevant or inappropriate. There is little or no consideration of any limitations. The conclusion is inappropriate or irrational in the context of the project and does not clearly refer back to relevant points raised within the report. Future work is not relevant or not present.
50%-59%	Pass	The results have been analysed in a fairly effective way and are discussed to some degree in the context of the research/investigation’s intended aims and objectives. There is a set of outcomes for the project that are to some extent appropriate, and these are given some discussion in the broader context of the field of study. The overall project’s approach and process have been critically evaluated to some degree, but only some of the criteria are relevant or appropriate, and limitations have been mostly identified, which are somewhat relevant. The conclusion is appropriate, to some degree, and refers back to points raised within the report in a minimal way. Future work is to some extent relevant to the discipline area and the context of the project.
60%-69%	Merit	The results have been analysed in a way which is mostly effective and are discussed in the context of the research/investigation’s intended aims and objectives. There is a mostly effective synthesised set of outcomes for the project that are discussed in the broader context of the field of study. The overall project’s approach and process have been critically evaluated, which is mostly effective, from the perspective of a number of mostly relevant criteria, and limitations have been mostly identified. The conclusion is mostly appropriate and effective and refers back to points raised within the report. Future work is mostly relevant to the discipline area and the context of the project.
70%-100%	Distinction	The results have been clearly and effectively analysed and are discussed in the context of the research/investigation’s intended aims and objectives. There is a clear and skilfully synthesised set of outcomes for the project that are discussed in the broader context of the field of study. The overall project’s approach and process are clearly and critically evaluated from the perspective of a number of relevant criteria, and any limitations clearly identified. The conclusion is appropriate, effective and clearly refers back to points raised within the report. Future work is clear and relevant to the discipline area and the context of the project.

VII. Assessment Submission

You will submit your assessment in the ‘Assignments’ area of the module in Canvas. Please check your Canvas module for the specific submission date for this assignment.

This assessment requires you to anonymously upload your submission to Canvas. If you are submitting multiple files, you must upload all files simultaneously to ensure that they are marked as a single submission. If you want to resubmit one component of your work, you need to re-upload all other files at the same time: every submission must include all files required by the assessment brief.

We recommend that you allow at least 30 minutes before the deadline to upload your submission, as failure to upload your assessment file within the allotted time is not admissible as an exceptional circumstance.

The webpage How do I submit an online assignment? provides further technical information on how to upload an assessment. The advice given here comes directly from Canvas. We do not recommend uploading assignments by mobile. We recommend you view the submission after uploading your work to ensure the correct file has been submitted and no technical errors have occurred.

If you face any technical difficulties whilst trying to submit this assessment, then contact Canvas support on [email protected] or +44 80 0060 8442 (available 24 hours) in advance of the deadline. You should also email [email protected] as a matter of urgency to report the issue and receive further instruction.

VIII. Assessment Policies

This assessment is subject to the policies stated on the ‘Summative Assessment Policies’ page in Canvas. These policies include (but are not limited to):

· Academic Integrity and submission of student work to Turnitin

· Advice on anonymising your assessment

· Penalties for late submission

· Marking policy for multiple submissions

· The Fit to Sit / Submit policy

· Passing mark and module reassessment

Please ensure that you have read and understood these policies before starting the assessment.

2023-06-16

Java

物理(Physical)

LINUX

C++