COM4401 Foundations of Computer Science and Academic Skills Assignment Brief 2025/26

1 Assignment Brief:

COM4401 Foundations of Computer Science and Academic Skills (2025-26)

1.1.1 Module Learning Outcomes Assessed

• LO1: Demonstrate foundational knowledge of core computing systems and practices.
• LO2: Apply evidence-based learning and study strategies to personal academic work.
• LO3: Produce clearly structured and correctly referenced academic outputs to explain computing concepts in written, oral, and collaborative formats.

1.1.2 Assessment Overview

This assessment is a portfolio consisting of both an individual element as well as a Team (group) component. 

You have been hired as a junior systems consultant commissioned by a small but growing technology firm that needs prototype environments developed and associated documentation to support its mixed Windows and Linux infrastructure.

Your task is to research, configure, and report on solutions across operating systems, databases, networking, programming, and cyber security, while also demonstrating your academic writing, research, and reflective skills. Academic outputs are weighted as heavily as technical outputs: a technically correct project without a properly structured, referenced report and reflective journal will not pass.

The group element will require you to come together with fellow consultants as a consultancy team that must prepare and deliver a briefing to the firm’s leadership on emerging trends, requiring genuine teamwork and collaborative delivery.

The portfolio is Pass/Fail. To pass, students must successfully complete all required elements.

1.2 Overall Marking and Weighting

Although the module is officially Pass/Fail, each submission will also receive an indicative numerical grade to show what mark would have been achieved on a 0–100 scale. This is broken down as follows:

• Individual Project (60%): Theme-specific marking structures apply (baseline environment + graded criteria for each theme).
• Group Project (40%): Marking structure for presentation and teamwork applies.

1.2.1 Weighting and Scale

• Pass threshold: 40% overall.
• Weighted average calculated from individual (60%) and group (40%) marks.
• Final result reported as Pass/Fail with indicative numeric grade returned to students for feedback and professional and academic development.

1.3 Assessment Components

A) Individual Portfolio (ZIP via VLE) — 60%
You will build a two-OS lab environment, complete one theme, and submit a single ZIP containing your report, reflection, evidence, and artefacts. See Submission Format for the required folder structure and other details.

B) Group Presentation — 40%
In teams, deliver a short technical presentation (10 minutes + 3 minutes Q&A) showcasing a coherent slice of your cohort’s learning techniques. A simple Teamwork Log is required. Peer adjustment (±10% cap) may slightly increase or decrease your individual share of the group mark; see Peer Adjustment.

1.4 AI-Use Declaration (Mandatory)

You may use AI tools for brainstorming, editing, and code review, idea generation and debugging. You must Include a short AI-use note in your report stating which tools, for what, and how you verified the outputs and reference as you have been taught. 
Direct copy–paste of content generated without understanding or citing properly will risk accusations of Academic Misconduct.

2 Individual Project (60%)

Each student will select one project theme from the three below. Regardless of the theme chosen, there is a core set of requirements that must be met by all students before theme-specific work is considered:

2.1. Minimum Pass Criteria (Baseline: 40–49%)

To achieve a Pass, you must demonstrate all of the following:

Core two-OS environment (required at Pass)

-Two VMs: Windows 10 and Xubuntu installed in VirtualBox on the same host.
-Networking: Both VMs attached to Host-only and NAT as directed. Provide evidence of bidirectional connectivity between the two VMs (e.g., ping and tracert/traceroute).
-Accounts: On each VM, create one administrator/root account and one standard user. Show successful login for each.
-CLI basics: Demonstrate basic command-line navigation on PowerShell (Windows) and Bash (Xubuntu).

Tooling (single-OS at Pass)

-Install one IDE on both Windows or Xubuntu (your choice).
-Install SQLite (CLI and DB Browser) on both Windows or Xubuntu (your choice). A minimal create–insert–select pipeline must be demonstrated.

Theme evidence (choose one theme)

-Complete the Pass-band tasks for Theme 1 – Software Engineering or Theme 2 – Computing Systems or Theme 3 – Cyber. Capture outputs/screenshots in your report.

Academic outputs

Submit both a technical report and a reflective journal that meet the word counts and Harvard referencing requirements below.

2.2 Assessment Themes. 

Choose one, and only one of the following themes. You are free to choose which ever you wish but it might be sane to pick one that aligns with your subject specialism. 

2.3 Theme 1 — Software Engineering 

Scenario: You are part of a consultancy team asked to prototype a cross‑platform business tool to be developed, tested, and deployed across heterogeneous environments.

Project Task: Build and document a small client–server application (e.g., Python chat, task tracker, or inventory manager) that runs across Windows and Linux VMs, storing data in SQLite. The client on one VM must query/update data hosted on the other.

Indicative bands (feedback only):

40–49% (Pass): Baseline environment fully configured (Windows + Linux, connectivity proven, IDE + SQLite installed). Application runs on both VMs with simple database read/write. Networking allows basic client–server communication. Short report with some referencing. Reflective journal submitted (descriptive acceptable).

50–59%: Environment documented clearly (installation steps/screenshots). Functionality explained and tested on both OSs; networking reliable and described. Database integration more consistent. Report structured with references. Reflection begins to link learning strategies to outcomes.

60–69%: System lifecycle (design, testing, deployment) explained. Application extended beyond basic CRUD (e.g., UI enhancements or multiple queries). Database queries demonstrated with evidence. Report includes critical discussion with academic sources. Reflection shows self‑evaluation and application of study strategies.

70–79%: Stable cross‑platform system with polished functionality (e.g., web interface, error handling, security considerations). Version control used with meaningful commits. Report insightful and well referenced. Reflection thoughtful and applied.

80–100%: Professional‑quality solution: fully documented cross‑platform tool with advanced features (GUI/web interface, error logging, security best‑practice considerations). Report near professional standard with strong analysis/synthesis. Reflection shows originality and links strategies to professional practice.

LO mapping: LO1 (system understanding), LO2 (learning strategies), LO3 (communication/referencing).

Deliverables: Technical Report (1800 words), Reflective Journal (500 words), code/scripts, configuration files, screenshots.

2.4 Theme 2: Networking 

Scenario: As a junior Network Engineer in a start-up, you must ensure Windows and Linux systems communicate securely and efficiently  by comparing networking tools and showing how protocols function. 

Project Task: maintaining communications Investigate and show basic networking on your Windows and Linux VMs. Check IP settings and routing, run connectivity tests (ping, traceroute, DNS), link each task to the TCP/IP layers, compare results between the two systems, and record them in SQLite.

2.4.1 Indicative bands (feedback only):

Indicative Bands (for feedback)

40–49% (Pass):Baseline environment complete (Windows + Linux VMs, connectivity proven, IDE + SQLite installed). One host configured with two network interfaces: one Host-Only (internal) and one NAT (external) connecting to the wider internet. Screenshots showing IP configuration and routing on both OSs. At least one successful connectivity test (e.g., ping between VMs). At least one DNS lookup demonstrated on each system. Activities are briefly related to TCP/IP layers. A short technical report with some referencing. A reflective journal (descriptive acceptable).

50–59%:Clearer documentation of setup and tools. Multiple networking tests (ping, traceroute, DNS) explained with screenshots, with some reference to relevant TCP/IP layers. Networking functionality described. SQLite used consistently for logging. Report is structured with basic Harvard referencing. Reflection begins to link learning strategies to outcomes.

60–69%:Systematic comparison of Windows vs Linux networking. Clear explanation of TCP/IP principles and DNS operation with reference to theory. SQLite queries demonstrated for analysis. Report critically discusses findings with academic support. Reflection shows self-evaluation and connection to study strategies.

70–79%:Thorough and well-evidenced networking analysis, including error cases or troubleshooting, with clear explanation of the specific tasks performed (e.g., additional connectivity tests, DNS resolution variations, or interface configuration). Concepts extended beyond basics (such as ports, firewall checks, or protocol differences). Explicit mapping of tests to TCP/IP layers is included. Report should be insightful, well-referenced, and coherent. Reflection must be thoughtful, applied, and explicitly linked to professional skills.

80–100%:Professional-quality submission: comprehensive networking analysis (multi-tool, multi-layer approach) with consistent reference to the TCP/IP model, presented with clear synthesis of lab work and theory. Strong integration of SQLite for structured evidence. Report of near professional standard with critical analysis. Reflection original, forward-looking, and connected to professional practice and lifelong learning.

LO mapping: LO1 (core systems), LO2 (investigation/strategy), LO3 (academic communication).

Deliverables: Technical Report (2000 words), Reflective Journal (500 words), screenshots, scripts/programs, SQLite database files.

2.5 Theme 3: Cyber Security

Goal: Conduct safe, scoped discovery scans of your own VMs and record findings.
Project Task: Using tools such as Nmap, compare the security posture of Windows and Linux by scanning your own VMs under different conditions, and document findings. Store and analyse results using SQLite.

Indicative bands (feedback only):

40–49% (Pass): Baseline environment completed. Nmap installed and at least one scan run on both OSs. Results recorded in a simple SQLite table. Short report; reflective journal descriptive.
50–59%: Multiple scans performed (e.g., firewall on/off). Database table structured (host, ports, protocols). Screenshots/logs included. Report structured with references. Reflection connects strategies with tasks.
60–69%: Service detection attempted and logged; database queried to compare results; analysis of firewall differences. Report evaluates findings with sources. Reflection shows thoughtful analysis of learning.
70–79%: Comprehensive comparison of firewall states; multiple services analysed. SQLite used to aggregate/present data. Report insightful and well referenced. Reflection demonstrates clear self‑analysis and application of strategies.
80–100%: Professional‑level red‑team style submission. Advanced scanning (e.g., version detection, safe scripts). Data aggregated/visualised with SQLite queries. Report near professional standard with exceptional critical evaluation. Reflection outstanding.

LO mapping: LO1 (systems/security understanding), LO2 (method/strategy), LO3 (communication/referencing/ethics).

Deliverables: Technical Report (2000 words), Reflective Journal (500 words), Nmap scan outputs, SQLite database, configuration files, screenshots.

Ethics & Scanning Scope (Mandatory)

All scanning must be confined to your own VMs on Host-only/NAT networks inside the sandbox lab or your local host. Scanning any external or campus networks is prohibited. Any scans on computers/networks beyond your control and without express written permission can be seen as illegal activity and you may face prosecution. 

Include the following one-line Scope of Authority in your report:
“All scans in this report target my own Windows/Xubuntu VMs on host-only/NAT networks (VirtualBox), with no traffic to external hosts.”

2.6 Individual Written Portfolio Deliverables

1.Technical Report (2000 words max)

The report must follow formal academic conventions and include:

• Title page with student ID and project theme.
• Abstract (150–200 words).
• Table of contents, list of figures, tables, and plates.
• Clear structure with numbered sections (Introduction, Methodology/Configuration, Results/Findings, Discussion, Conclusion).
• Project documentation (architecture, configuration, testing, outcomes).
• Integration of OS, networking, database, programming, and cyber security concepts.
• Figures, tables, and diagrams correctly labelled and referenced in-text.
• Correct academic referencing (Harvard style) with a full bibliography.
• Accurate spelling, punctuation, and grammar throughout (SPaG will be assessed).

2.Reflective Journal (500 words)

The journal must include:

• Structured analysis of personal learning strategies and study skills.
• Reflection on strengths, challenges, and areas for improvement.
• Explicit discussion of evidence-based learning techniques applied during the project.
• Proper academic writing standards, including referencing where appropriate.

2.7 Submission Format & Deadlines

Upload one ZIP to the VLE named COM4401_<StudentID>.zip containing exactly this structure:

/report/Report <StudentID>.docx       (or .odt)
/reflection/Reflection<StudentID>.docx (or .odt)
/evidence/                (numbered screenshots cited in Report)
/code/                    (programs/scripts with README.md)
/db/                      (SQLite .db or .sql export)
/configs/                 (any configuration files used)

/other (just what it says – with a reason why you included it)

In addition to the Zip file the Report and Reflection must also be uploaded to Turnitin for Plagiarism and AI checking. 

3 Group Project (40%)

Each group (4–5 students) will  Design and deliver a short, evidence-based presentation that teaches a specific academic skill to first-year peers. Your presentation must integrate reputable learning-science sources (e.g., metacognition, Bloom’s taxonomy, study cycle, active reading, academic integrity, collaboration) and model strong academic practice (structure, citation, visuals, delivery) – including good design and delivery practice. 

This is an integral part of the module and of the Learning outcomes. As such failure to deliver and contribute to this assignment will result in you failing the assignment

Format: 10 minutes delivery + 5 minutes Q&A. Present a technically coherent story tied to your chosen theme, problem → method/strategy → evidence → practical takeaway

What we’re looking for: accuracy, clarity, sensible scoping, clean visuals, and the ability to answer basic questions about your own work.

Teamwork Log (required): one page per meeting/activity noting attendees, tasks allocated, and progress. Keep it short; bullet points are fine.

3.1.1 Group Topics (Choose 1 of these or make a proposal to your module tutor)

1.Active Reading & Note-Making: SQ3R/previewing, identifying claims/evidence, structured notes.
2.Academic Integrity: Paraphrasing & Referencing (Harvard, integrating sources, avoiding plagiarism, use of AI)
3.Critical Thinking & Argument: claims, reasons, evidence, counterarguments, synthesis
4.Time & Energy Management: spaced practice, interleaving, realistic weekly plans

You are expected to ground your recommendations in study skills literature from the text books provided and broader web searches.

3.1.2 Group Deliverables

1.Collaborative Presentation (10 minutes + 5 min Q&A – from students)
 The presentation must meet academic and professional standards:

• Title slide with group members’ IDs and project title.
• Clear structure with agenda, introduction, main sections, and conclusion.
• Harvard in-slide citations; full reference list at the end.
• Visuals (figures, tables, diagrams) correctly labelled and cited.
• Professional delivery with clear roles for each team member.
• Full slide deck submitted as PDF with references and bibliography.

2.Teamwork Log (shared)

Meetings, attendance, task allocation, collaboration tools, brief reflections on what improved learning/coordination.
Annotated Bibliography

Each member to contribute - list academic and professional sources consulted with a short annotation (2–3 sentences) explaining the relevance of each source.

3.Appendices

• Copies of planning documents, draft materials, and peer feedback.
• Screenshots or evidence of tools used to support collaboration.

3.1.3 Group Project Marking Structure

• 40–49% (Pass): Presentation delivered, covering the topic with some reference to all three domains; minimum of 3 references including a teamwork log demonstrates basic coordination; annotated bibliography submitted but limited.
• 50–59%: Presentation clearer and more structured; correct Harvard citation in slides, teamwork log shows regular meetings and shared responsibility; annotated bibliography contains at least 5 sources; appendices included.
• 60–69%: Presentation well-organised with critical insight across domains; 8+ academic sources integrated; visuals and figures appropriately used and referenced; teamwork log demonstrates consistent collaboration and peer review; annotated bibliography well-structured; appendices show iterative development.
• 70–79%: Professional and engaging presentation, integrating technical and academic perspectives across domains; 10+ high-quality references used; teamwork log shows clear evidence of shared ownership and reflection; annotated bibliography detailed and analytical; appendices evidence strong project management.
• 80–100%: Presentation delivered to professional standard,  fluent and confident, demonstrating strong synthesis of sources and critical evaluation; 12+ references, including journal articles; teamwork log shows advanced collaboration practices (e.g., use of Git, Trello, or equivalent); annotated bibliography critically appraises sources; appendices demonstrate excellent project planning.

3.2 Peer Adjustment (±10% cap)

Purpose: Fairly apportion the group mark to reflect each person’s contribution without creating stress or loopholes.

What students submit

1.Give out 100 points across your teammates (not yourself). Use whole numbers.
2.For each teammate, add one sentence using the four criteria: Contribution, Reliability, Quality, Collegiality.

3.2.1 How markers calculate the adjustment

We total the points each person received from teammates. 
We compute the team average (μ) and calculate your adjustment factor: Aᵢ = (your received points ÷ team average), then the mark is capped using am multiplier of 0.90–1.10. 

Therefore, your individual group mark = (Group Mark) × Aᵢ

Worked example (team of 4; Group Mark = 62)

Anti-gaming & moderation

• No self-ratings!
• Obvious reciprocal boosts are flagged and may be normalised.
• Extremely high/low rates are normalised to team mean.
• Teamwork Log evidence overrides peer scores if inconsistent. Submission of peer adjustment:
  Peer adjustment must be submitted separately and in private. The individual comments will not be seen by fellow students but the mark you give will be used to transparently calculate the grade for the group work. 

4 Appendix A — Assignment 1 Tick-Sheet 

I have provided you with this check list as broken down in the assignment brief requirements. This is a good habit to get into for future assignments. Academic colleagues are not required to do this for you as it is also a skill – breaking down complex tasks is something to learn. 

Student ID: __________ Theme: SE / CS / CYB

1) Pass Gate: environment & required artefacts (all must be ✓)

• Windows 11 VM present — screenshot at login as admin and standard user; include CLI open. Label “Fig. W11-login”. 
• Xubuntu VM present — screenshot at login as root and standard user; include CLI open. “Fig. Xub-login”. 
• Networking set — Host-only and NAT configured; show ping both ways and tracert/traceroute. “Fig. Net-settings”, “Fig. Ping/Trace”. 
• IDE installed (at least one OS) — About/version screen or a tiny “Hello” run output. “Fig. IDE-about”. 
• SQLite installed (at least one OS) — show schema creation and a successful SELECT. “Fig. SQL-schema”, “Fig. SQL-query”. 
• Theme pass evidence (pick your theme and include the minimum proof below):
• SE: cross-VM exchange (e.g., curl/nc/script) or single-OS CRUD app + cross-VM reachability.
• CS: processes/permissions shown on both OSs; one package installed; SQLite table.
• CYB: run Nmap from both OSs (≥1 scan each); store results in SQLite; Scope of Authority line in report.
• Report (≤2,000 words) is structured with Harvard in-text citations and a full bibliography; include an AI-Use note. 
• Reflective element (≤500 words) included. 
  Tip: Use the Evidence Pack table at the front of your report to map every figure to a page/figure number so markers can find proof fast. 

2) Evidence Pack mapping (paste into your report front-matter)
For each item above, complete Item / Evidence / Location (page or figure). Do not submit until every row is filled (no “TBD”). 

3) Academic writing quality checks (quick self-audit)

• Answers the brief/title; scope is appropriate; the most important points get the most space. 
• Clear line of reasoning; claims are backed by sources; conclusion follows logically. 
• Paragraphing and signposting (headings, topic sentences) make structure obvious. 
• Harvard is correct and complete (every in-text citation has a reference; formatting consistent). 
• Style: precise, formal, succinct; avoids chatty tone; reads smoothly aloud. 
• Redraft & edit: leave time to revise; grammar/punctuation checked. 

4) Reflection (LO2) — minimum evidence

• Explains what you changed in your approach (study strategy, planning, debugging workflow).
• Links change to learning-science (e.g., retrieval practice, spacing, metacognition) or feedback received. 

5) File & submission hygiene

• Figure labels match the Evidence Pack table. 
• AI-Use Declaration included (tools, purpose, how you verified). 
• Word counts respected (2,000 + 500 max). 
• Submission format confirmed on the VLE announcement (your brief currently states ZIP via VLE earlier and PPTX/ODP via Turnitin later—follow the final instruction posted for this run).

6) “What band am I aiming for?” — quick calibration (Individual element)

• 50–59%: functional environment; structured report with some references; reflective link to strategies.
• 60–69%: extended functionality; critical evaluation with academic support; considered reflection.
• 70–79%: polished system (e.g., version control shown); insightful, well-referenced report; thoughtful reflection.
• 80–100%: professional-quality build/testing; fluent, critically engaged report; strategy synthesis in reflection

5 Appendix B: Summary Rubric Table

Appendix B — Group Presentation Pre-Flight Checklist (Team Version)
1) Pass gate: must-have before you rehearse (all ✓)

• Topic approved (academic skill) + concise title that signals your take-home message.
• Deck structure: title with student IDs → agenda → sections → conclusion. 
• Time: 10 minutes delivery + 3 minutes Q&A. Rehearsed to ±30s. 
• In-slide Harvard citations wherever a claim or figure uses a source; full reference list at end. 
• Visuals labelled/cited (figures, tables, diagrams). 
• Speaking roles: every member presents; responsibilities clear on a one-line run-sheet. 
• Teamwork Log started (dates, attendees, tasks, progress; bullet points fine). 
• Annotated Bibliography begun (2–3 sentences on relevance/quality per source). 
• AI-Use note prepared (tools used, for what, how verified). 
• Export: submit slides as PDF with references and bibliography. 
  Tip: Build a one-page Slide Map: slide # → purpose → lead speaker → sources → figure labels. It accelerates Q&A and marking. (Back it up in your Teamwork Log.) 

2) Evidence Pack (paste into deck end or as an appendix)

Item / Evidence / Slide # or Appendix
Agenda aligns to topic scope · Key claims tied to learning-science sources · Each visual has a citation · Every team member’s role evident · Teamwork Log excerpts (screenshots of boards/chats/version control) · Peer feedback received + action taken. 

3) Quality checks by rubric criterion (self-audit)

A. Content & Evidence

• Defines the academic skill clearly (e.g., metacognition, study cycle, active reading, academic integrity) and explains why it works, not just what it is.
• Uses multiple credible sources; distinguishes findings from opinion; states limits. 

B. Structure & Slide Design

• One idea per slide; signalling headlines; readable figures; purposeful animations only.
• Story arc: problem → method/strategy → evidence → practical takeaway. 

C. Referencing & Integrity

• Harvard in-slide + complete list; no orphan claims; any AI assistance declared. 

D. Delivery & Q&A

• Confident hand-offs; timing within 10:00; anticipates three likely questions with evidence-based answers. 

E. Teamwork & Project Management

• Log shows meetings, roles, timeline; collaboration tools/screens show shared ownership; response to peer/tutor feedback recorded.

F. Annotated Bibliography & Appendices

• Annotations justify inclusion and quality; appendices evidence iteration (drafts/feedback/updates).

G. Peer Adjustment Ready

• 100 points allocated across teammates with one-line justification per person (Contribution, Reliability, Quality, Collegiality). 
• Peer-adjustment form completed individually after delivery. 

4) Submission hygiene

• Slides exported to PDF; bibliography included; any demo links accessible. 
• Teamwork Log + Annotated Bibliography appended or uploaded as instructed. 
• Peer adjustment submitted to the correct submission link

Rubric — Group Presentation (40% of module assessment)

Bands and expectations align with your brief; criteria below make the marking transparent and coachable. 

Band anchors (apply within each criterion)

• 40–49% (Pass): Topic covered with basic accuracy; ≥3 sources; some structure/signposting; teamwork log shows basic coordination; bibliography present but limited. 
• 50–59%: Clearer narrative; correct Harvard in slides; regular meetings and shared responsibility evidenced; ≥5 sources; appendices included. 
• 60–69%: Well-organised, critical discussion; 8+ academic sources integrated; effective, cited visuals; consistent collaboration and peer review; well-structured annotations; iterative development evident. 
• 70–79%: Professional, engaging synthesis; 10+ high-quality sources; clear shared ownership and reflective improvement; analytical annotations; strong project management. 
• 80–100%: Fluent, confident delivery; synthesis across sources with robust evaluation; 12+ sources incl. journals; advanced collaboration practices (version control/boards); incisive annotations; exemplary planning. 
• Peer Adjustment (unchanged)
  Individual group marks adjusted by Aᵢ = (points you received ÷ team mean) with 0.90–1.10 cap; anti-gaming and moderation rules apply.