KF7029 MSc Computer Science and Digital Technologies Project Assessment Brief Semester 2, 2025/26

KF7029 Assessment Brief:

Module Learning Outcomes:

The learning outcomes (LOs) for this module are:

Knowledge & Understanding: 

LO1. Apply in depth specialist technical and academic knowledge and critical understanding of research methodologies and project management in the context of an independent academic research project related to your programme of study and at the forefront of the computer science and digital technology field.

Intellectual / Professional skills & abilities:

LO2. Identify, plan, and execute a substantial independent research project demonstrating originality, critical and innovative thinking and problem solving.

Personal Values Attributes (Global / Cultural awareness, Ethics, Curiosity) (PVA):

LO3. Critically evaluate and address professional, ethical, legal, risk, societal and sustainability issues in an appropriate manner within an academic research environment.
LO4. Effectively communicate the outcomes of a significant individual research project in both written and oral forms.

This assessment addresses all these four learning outcomes LO1- LO4.

Assignment Specification

The individual MSc Computer Science and Digital Technologies Project constitutes the final part of your MSc and is the culmination from your previous studies. You are required to undertake an in-depth and original research project, produce a dissertation based on this research work and present your findings in a viva.

You will experience the full life cycle of a research project from development of a research proposal, through a critical review of the literature, planning, design, implementation, and analysis of your main research project, to final evaluation, reflection, and dissemination. 

You will have access to a directory of possible research topics (and supervisors) to develop your research proposal and project ethics application. These must be completed and signed-off through the module approval process. It is your responsibility to ensure that you meet the necessary deadlines for proposal feedback and ethics approval (Week 3).

You are expected to apply your expertise, project management and research/practical skills within your specific domain of computer science and digital technologies to demonstrate critical and innovative thinking and problem solving within a research environment. You are also expected to consider and address the professional, ethical, legal, security and social issues related to this academic research project. 
This research project is a large undertaking, representing approximately 600 hours of work and equating to 60 credit points. If you are a full-time student, you should expect to work 40 hours per week across one semester (15 weeks). If you are a part time and distance learning student, you typically carry out the project over one year and need to dedicate 10-15 hours per week to it.

A supervisor and second supervisor will be allocated to you at the start of the semester by the MSc project tutor. If you have not been assigned a supervisory team, it is your responsibility to notify the MSc project tutor immediately. You are expected to meet regularly with your supervisor (either face to face for on campus students, and via online mechanisms for distance learning students). You will meet with your supervisor weekly. Each week you are expected to update and maintain a project log, outlining your work and outputs to date and actions going forward. You must update your project log, regardless of meeting your supervisor or not. Supervisor meetings provide the mechanism for receiving informal feedback on your work and progress.

Projects submitted without obtaining research ethics approvals will be awarded a zero mark and no feedback. 

Further information on the research project, dissertation and viva are provided in the module guide, available to students on the eLearning Portal.

Assessment Criteria/Mark Scheme:

A: Top-Down Measures of Quality

In reaching a final mark for the project, dissertation and viva, a top down and bottom-up approach will be adopted. The top-down measures of quality are as follows:

0 - 39% Clear Fail: Attainment is consistently and clearly below Masters level.  The reason(s) for this may include some or all the following:

• Failure to request and obtain the necessary research ethics approvals to support the practical research.
• An inadequate survey of the available literature in the study.
• Failure to meet one or more of the objectives of the project.
• Inadequate rigour in the application of techniques/tools.
• Lack of a disciplined, ethical, and professional approach to tackling the project.
• Failure to address a central computer science and digital technology issue in necessary depth.
• The absence of a required section in the dissertation.
• A partial or no demonstration/presentation was given, or the demonstration/presentation gave no useful information. 
• The student could not answer some of the viva questions in any meaningful way.
• A missing or incomplete project log with limited evidence or understanding of the practical work carried out.

40 - 49% Marginal failure: Attainment generally below acceptable level, although there is potential for it to reach a pass standard. The dissertation and viva and their response to questions in the viva should show that higher achievement could be reached if more time was devoted to it, or another approach had been taken.

50 - 59% Basic Pass: Close to the minimum acceptable standard for a pass.  Work in this mark range may fail to fulfil one of the major objectives of the project yet must exhibit a reasonable understanding of the fundamentals of computer science and digital technologies relevant to their chosen project and adequate use of technical communication skills, problem solving, independent study, knowledge of the literature and a disciplined, ethical, and professional approach to tackling a substantial research project. The viva demonstrated an acceptable level of understanding.

60 - 69% Good Pass: Attainment which is overall better than acceptable but is not outstanding.  There is evidence from the dissertation and viva of a sound understanding of the major computer science and digital technologies relevant to their chosen project together with a reasonable attempt to tackle more advanced topics and issues. There should be a convincing demonstration of technical communication skills, problem solving, independent study, knowledge and application of the literature and a disciplined, ethical, and professional approach to tackling a substantial project.  

70 - 85% Distinctive: The dissertation and viva clearly demonstrate a high degree of quality and originality in the application of standard techniques and indicate an excellent professional endeavour. The work includes novelty and invention that goes beyond the accurate, appropriate, and validated use of standard methods and tools, demonstrating strong technical communication skills, problem solving, independent study, knowledge and application of the literature and a disciplined, ethical, and professional approach to tackling a substantial project. The dissertation is fluent, coherent and of an excellent academic standard. The viva clearly outlined the research approach, its implementation and the key findings and outcomes and demonstrated a deep understanding. 

86-100% Distinctive and Outstanding: In addition to the distinction category, here the research work exhibits a high level of complexity and professional quality, evidence of an excellent understanding of the academic context of the work, a capacity for analytic thought, an ability to penetrate a complex application domain and a high quality of self-appraisal. The standards of proof and the quality of writing shown in the dissertation should be equivalent to that of publication in a good quality journal. The viva provided valuable and thoughtful insight into innovative research and its outcomes.

B: Bottom-Up Marks Breakdown

The following provides a breakdown by the four different elements that are assessed and should be used in conjunction with the top-down measures of quality outlined above.

Abstract, Introduction and Literature Review (20 marks): The abstract should make clear the main question/aim addressed, the broad methodology used and the main findings. The introduction should include a discussion of the context and potential benefits of the work, an explanation of the main aims, a list of the objectives and a breakdown of the structure of the report. If you have changed or added any objectives since the research proposal review, these changes should be made clear. The literature review should assess your presentation of a suitable range of literature relevant to the research. This section is a critical review, not a survey. This means that you should discuss the literature, explaining the range of validity, relevance to the project, strength of the findings, etc. rather than simply paraphrasing You should discuss the relevance and applicability of the literature to your own work. You should demonstrate the ability to critically evaluate the research of others and to assess the strength of the evidence/discussion presented and identify a suitable research gap for your own proposed research project. You may also provide some background information that is relevant to your research project and can be given credit for a clear explanation of difficult concepts.

Description of Practical Research Work Undertaken (20 marks): This section should outline and justify the research approach you have adopted. There should be a clear and rational discussion of the practical work you have done, for example, the requirements analysis, design, construction, installation, experimental work. Your testing and/or data collection approach should be included in this section although the results from this form part of the next section. You should include rationales for the approaches and techniques used. Finally, you should indicate your approach to ethics and identify any social, legal, security, professional and sustainability issues in your research and how you have approached them. You should also include a discussion of any ideas that have been rejected.

Results and Analysis (20 marks): This section should assess your results/findings and your analyses and discussion of these. You should present your results making sure any data analysis is using appropriate and rigorous techniques. You should then analyse and discuss your results demonstrating your understanding of what they are conveying, particularly considering your original research aim and the wider body of knowledge and research. You should also demonstrate that any techniques have been applied in an ethical and professional manner, including addressing any data protection issues. 

Critical Evaluation, Conclusions and Recommendations (20 marks): Your critical evaluation should assess the strength of the key findings, the limits of their applicability and their probable usefulness. You should discuss the extent to which the main aim has been achieved and which objectives have been satisfactorily met. There should also be a critical assessment and evaluation of your own work and your professional approach to this research project, including an appraisal of how you have addressed any ethical, legal, social, security, sustainability, and professional issues. You should draw on your project journal to provide evidence/examples to support this evaluation.  In the conclusions and recommendations, you should assess the strength and presentation of the findings and the recommendations. You should present your answer to the original research aim/question and should discuss how well the original problem has been solved. This should include reference to the results obtained by you. You should also discuss any interesting additional discoveries that have been made. Recommendations may include suggestions for further research, suggestions for improved practice based on your findings and suggestions for practical application of any new concepts that have been investigated.

Research Project Management and Reporting (20 mark): The overall management of the research project should be carefully thought through and evidenced. You should be preparing the necessary documentation, ethics applications and study materials; ensuring they meet a high standard and are delivered on time to allow the project to progress smoothly. You should ensure you are meeting module deadlines and deliverables as communicated by the MSc Project Tutor (i.e. research ethics application deadline) and agreed deliverables with your supervisory team. Throughout your practical research you should be preparing and maintaining research records including project logs; meeting minutes; draft chapters; datasets; study materials; code repositories and other relevant research artefacts to accompany your report. Students are expected to maintain communication with their research supervisor and provide regular reporting and updates on the research progress (including delays and changes to research deliverables). The aforementioned materials should all be provided at the point of submission (and must be accessible to the supervisory team and MSc Project Tutor).

Report Formatting and Referencing Style

You are required to use the submission template for the academic conference / journal (e.g. IEEE Journal, ACM SIGCHI Paper) that has been identified and agreed in your research proposal (this should have been recommended to you by your supervisor initially). We will assess your submission against the criteria for that academic venue, as such you should carefully read and prepare your submission according to those requirements (your supervisor can provide you with the relevant template). You will find guides and resources to help you with various referencing systems in module on Blackboard, the Library Skills+ website.

Assignment Weighting and Assessment Process

One overall mark will be agreed upon for the research project, which combines research management, practical work, academic report, and research viva. This assessment is worth 100% of the overall mark for this module. Your first and second supervisors will independently assess your work and provide a final set of marks and collated feedback.