School of Computer Science

Writing mini-project and project reports MSc in Advanced Computer Science MSc in Human-Computer Interaction MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation MRes in Natural Computation MSc in Robotics

Contents
General formats for mini-project and summer project reports .................................................. 1 Planning in advance ................................................................................................................. 3 Audience.................................................................................................................................... 3 Structuring your report ........................................................................................................... 4 Producing the report ................................................................................................................ 5 Style ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Feedback and comments ......................................................................................................... 6 Avoiding plagiarism ................................................................................................................. 6

Appendices I The form of the mini-project report

II The form of the MSc in Advanced Computer Science, MSc in Human-Computer Interaction and MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation project report III Guidance Notes on Plagiarism IV Marking guidelines for mini-projects V Marking guidelines for projects

General formats for mini-project and summer project reports

Depending on your degree programme, you have to complete between one and two miniprojects (one in semester 1 and one in semester 2), and one main project (during the Summer term). At the completion of each of these projects you will have to write a report. The formats for miniprojects and the main project are different. Mini-projects The mini-project report is to be written in the style of a technical report. There is no word or page limit on the mini-project reports. However, you are expected to be mindful of your readers and to produce a report that is of an appropriate and reasonable length. Appendix I gives detailed guidance on the form of the mini-project report. The mini-project marking guidelines are given in Appendix IV. The main (Summer) project The guidance in this handbook on the main Summer project only applies to students on the following programmes: MSc in Advanced Computer Science MSc in Human-Computer Interaction MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation There is separate project guidance for students on other Masters programmes. The Summer project report is to be written in the style of a journal paper. This report will have a word limit (to be determined). Detailed guidance on the form of the Summer project report and the project marking guidelines will be provided in Appendices II and V respectively.

Writing your first mini-project report can be a daunting prospect. This document gives some simple ideas to help you produce a good report.

Planning in advance
You should start to plan your report from the day you begin your mini-project or a project. The report is one of the products of your work, in the same way as a computer program is a product. You should discuss with your supervisor the way in which your work will be reported. You can produce an outline plan of your report after your first meeting with your supervisor. This plan will not be detailed, but you can gradually increase the amount of detail in the plan until it is a complete basis for writing the report. The process of planning can help you sort out your ideas, to make woolly ideas firmer and to get things in a good sequence. One common mistake students make is to believe that a plan cannot be changed or that it is a sign of weakness to change a plan. A plan is another tool to be used to get work completed to a satisfactory standard. It needs to be treated with no more respect than any other tool. At first, the plan for a mini-project report might be a list of chapter headings. Next, one or more of these can be broken down into sections, then the sections into subsections, and so on until a whole chapter is ready to be written. You may decide to split a chapter into two or more chapters or to merge two or more chapters into one. Even more importantly, your plan can help you see where the strengths and weaknesses of your work lie. This means that you can use your plan to decide when to strengthen your report by some extra work, or when to pass on to new work. In a similar way you can develop the main sections, subsections etc. for the main project report. A less common mistake that students make is to think that their report has to be written in order from the first page to the last. It is wise not to start to write until you have some level of plan for the whole report, but you can write parts as you go along. For instance, when you have the material for your review of previous work, you can write that chapter. It is quite usual to write the inner chapters before the last chapter and then to write the introductory chapter as the last part you complete.

Audience
You should consider for whom you are writing the report. Obviously, you are writing for the two people who will assess your work as part of your course. Your supervisor should be knowledgeable in the topic and may even know as much about your topic as you do. The second reader (Moderator) will know less than you, but will be experienced in reading and writing technical papers. Probably the best audience to whom you should address your report is personified by the second reader: an intelligent and knowledgeable person, but not necessarily knowledgeable in your precise area. You should be able to make your work comprehensible to just such a person and, if possible, your fellow students.

Structuring your report

We know that a report must have a beginning, a middle and an end. The first reaction of most students is to label the beginning Introduction and the end Conclusions. The middle may consist of Method and Results. In a way, this division is true of many technical reports in computing, but you need to develop a more sophisticated way of thinking about structure. Structure is the most important issue in writing your report. A good structure is one that allows you to fit the important points into your report in a good sequence and to leave out the unimportant points. You should consider the following: Introductory material Introduce your aim or aims (e.g., as given on your mini-project or project declaration) and your objectives. This gives your motivation for the work you are writing-up. Include your review of previous work - previous literature and previous software. This review should not be a list of previous papers with some text written around it, but an account of previous work written from the viewpoint of your aims and objectives. So, if your work is about planning in robotics and you have read some relevant papers about planning freight movement, it would not usually be sensible to spend too much time discussing the detail of moving freight. Make your review suit your work. An essential component of a review is a critical analysis of research relevant to your work. Critical does not mean negative or disparaging (e.g. about work of the others). It means unbiased and insightful review of relevant literature to1: 1. Determine the research and methods previously conducted in the field. 2. Discover what remains to be learned in the field. 3. Highlight mistakes, difficulties, or ethical issues encountered by others [...]. 4. Clearly define parameters for your own scientific study. Any comments that you make positive or negative should be justified. Similarly, if you identify any gaps or open issues, you must comment on their significance to the field. The middle This analysis of previous work should allow you to justify your aims and objectives in a broader context of the field of research, to state precisely what work you planned to do and to explain why it was worth doing. You should then say what you did and present the results. When describing experimental studies you must provide sufficient detail to enable a reader to reproduce your experiments and your results. Ending material The results you have produced may be interesting but even more interesting is your interpretation of those results. You have to tell your reader what you think is the interpretation (or meaning) of your results.

http://www.csd509j.net/CVHS/science/scientific%20literature%20review.doc

You should then evaluate your results to show their significance. The significance of your work can be judged by looking at how your work adds to the previous work on the topic. So, you should build on your review and analysis of previous work. Your review should have identified areas where the previous work had gaps: you should explain to your reader how your work has filled some of those gaps. There are two common errors made at this point. First, students assume that their work must be represented as a complete success. This is not true. It is far more important to evaluate your work with the same rigour as other peoples work. The second error is to be unduly negative about your own work. Your work must be evaluated with no more harshness than other peoples work. It is usual to have a chapter or section called Conclusion. This should bring together the strands of your work, commenting on what has been discovered and what future work has been identified, including possible ways of overcoming limitations you have identified. It is difficult to set a good level of detail for both the introduction and the conclusion. Some people feel that it should only be necessary to read the introduction and conclusion of a technical report to get an understanding of the work. Then it is only necessary to read the middle chapters should you need to know a lot of detail about the work.

Producing the report

Reports must be in a word processed or printed form. There is no requirement to use a particular word processing or document preparation system. In choosing a system, you should discuss with your supervisor the suitability of the system you propose to use and the need to develop skills in using unfamiliar document preparation software. Hand-written reports are unacceptable.

Style
There are a number of recognised manuals of style that guide the author in consistent ways of writing. Two widely used manuals for writing are: The Chicago manual of style (15th ed) (University of Chicago Press, 2003); The Oxford dictionary for writers and editors (2nd rev ed) (Oxford English Dictionary Department, 2000). There are a number of citation style manuals, for instance Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed) (American Psychological Association, 2001); MLA handbook for writers of research papers (6th ed) (Gibaldi, 2003). Style manuals are useful in that they allow you to draw on the experience and expertise of the publishing industry. Citation manuals in particular ensure that you present sufficient information in a consistent format.

Feedback and comments

You should always run a spelling checker over your written work and read through it, checking for typographical errors. It is more difficult for you to see where you may have expressed an idea poorly: you understand what you mean to say, but your reader is not as familiar as you with your topic. So, it is a good idea to get someone else to read through your report. Your supervisor may be willing to read through some of your report. You should discuss this issue with your supervisor in advance. You should establish how much he or she will read and what kinds of comments they are prepared to offer (content; style; typographical errors). Most supervisors will read some of your report because it is a way in which they can help to train you in technical writing. It is usually a bad idea for a supervisor to read an entire report before submission. The reason is obvious. An aim of the course is to make you more independent and confident in your research work. While studying on the programme, you should become progressively more confident about producing your own work without the need for it to be checked by a figure of authority. Hopefully, by the end of the programme you will be looking to raise general issues of presentation with your supervisor, content in the feeling that you know how to present and take responsibility for your own work. You may be able to get a colleague from the programme to read your report in return for you reading theirs. This has two positive aspects. First, you get your report read by a person who is likely to be about as knowledgeable as your second reader. They should be able to easily see where your presentation is obscure. Second, you get the opportunity to see how another person puts a report together and should be able to learn from the close observation of another person going through the same process. You should also learn something about ways of making comments that are simultaneously sympathetic and effective.

Avoiding plagiarism
Guidance notes to be found on the following web pages: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/students/plagiarism.htm http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/courses/projects/2012/guidance.html#SECTION00090

Plagiarism is the use of other people's work so that is appears to be your own. 'Other people' include other students as well as authors of books, papers, documents or programs on the internet, etc. Deliberate plagiarism is a very serious offence that is treated in the same way as cheating in an examination; this could result in expulsion from the University, and as a minimum it results in disqualification from the project module. The University and the School are very strict about plagiarism, and you have signed a contract with the University on that topic. Be careful to ensure that plagiarism does not occur accidentally. You can quote other people's work, but you must clearly indicate that this is what you are doing, and include the source. Direct quotation of narrative material should always be enclosed in quotation marks and the source of the material referenced either immediately before or immediately after the quotation. The full description of the source can be given in the References at the end of the dissertation. (A guide to one style of referencing will be found at http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~pxc/refs/.) If the material is paraphrased, it should not be enclosed in quotation marks, but the source should still be stated clearly. Tables, diagrams, etc. copied from elsewhere must also be
6

clearly labelled as such, with reference to the source. You may have used other people's programs or source code in producing your software. This is perfectly acceptable provided you make it clear, by acknowledging the source. If you do not, it will be considered plagiarism. For more detailed information on plagiarism please see: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/students/plagiarism.htm. A copy of this document is enclosed as Appendix III in this guidebook.

Appendix I

The form of the mini-project reports

The form of the mini-project reports

The report will comprise: Title page This should state the following information Type of project (e.g. Second semester mini-project) Project title Author Supervisor Affiliation (School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham) Date Abstract and keywords An informative abstract of no more than 250 words. This should state the aim or aims of the project. Being an informative abstract, it should contain sufficient information about the outcome and conclusions of the work as to allow the knowledgeable reader to judge the significance of the work. There should be up to 10 keywords or key phrases suitable as indexing points in an information retrieval system. Contents The contents page(s) will list the contents of the report, including: Abstract Contents Figures Tables Chapters (including sections, subsection, etc, where appropriate) List of references or bibliography Appendices Figures A list of figures included in the report (if any). Each figure should be numbered and have a brief caption. Tables A list of tables included in the report (if any). Each table should be numbered and have a brief caption. Chapters Each chapter, section and subsection is to have a number and title. Each chapter starts on a new page.

Appendix I

List of References or Bibliography There will be either a list of references or a bibliography. The ordering of entries and the form of entries must follow some authority. Students may choose to follow well-known citation standards (e.g. APA manual), the form prescribed by a journal or publishing house, or some other format. At the end of the List of References or Bibliography, there must be a statement of the form of the citation used. Required appendices There are some appendices which are required for each mini-project and project. A Mini-project declaration A copy of the agreed mini-project declaration form. (This form can be scanned in using the School Library scanner.) B Statement of information search strategy This is a statement of your method of identifying significant literature and related work (in paper and/or electronic form). This should include, amongst other things: forms of literature to be retrieved - significant parameters for the search, e.g.: - cut-off date - need for current/recent information - restrictions as to language search tools to be used to retrieve information search statement used in retrieval

There should be a brief evaluation of the search. Optional appendices Material that supports the report should be placed here. Supervisors have differing opinions about the inclusion of program code in reports. A minority wish to have all programs included in printed form. More commonly any significant code should be included on a CD attached to the report. If a significant amount of your work has taken the form of a program, you should additionally provide instructions on how to run it. You should then include brief details of what you have made available and where it is located in an appendix.

Appendix I

The University of Birmingham School of Computer Science MSc in Advanced Computer Science / MSc in Human-Computer Interaction / MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation / MRes in Natural Computation / MSc in Robotics

First semester mini-project

Intelligent optimisation of meta-interpreted parsers A. Student Supervisor: P J Hancox

January 2010

Appendix I

Abstract
Unification grammars describe the syntactic structure primarily by their use of feature structures which allows the linguist to encode many syntactic features in addition to the syntactic class. Complex labels mean that matching needs to be more than direct equality, usually unification. Linguists are able to express several finer distinctions for a word with one syntactic category by using feature structures. This means that grammars and, in particular, lexicons, are very much larger and there is much more ambiguity during parsing. Research has focused on ways of encoding unification grammars so that they more readily lend themselves to practical implementation in Prolog. This work focused on two techniques to optimise grammars in a top-down parser. Analysis of the search tree of the grammar: paths through the search tree were merged or pruned where determinism could be introduced and cycles in the grammar removed. Classification of features by the role played in determining the choice of syntactic category: the presence or absence of some features determines the choice of syntactic category, whereas other features merely sub-divided a syntactic category. The former class of features was computed during parsing, while the latter was computed after parsing. These techniques were compiled into a recursive transition network and tested individually and in combination against recognised test samples. Results suggest that analysis of the phrase structure improves speed significantly for all sentences, whereas classification of features does not add significant improvement, either when used alone or with the analysis of phrase structure.

Keywords
Natural language processing; unification grammar; Lexical Functional Grammar; parsing, parsers; recursive transition network; feature structures; syntactic features; constraints; Prolog.

Appendix I

Contents

Abstract and keywords................................................................................................. ii Figures.......................................................................................................................... iv Tables........................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Page numbering.............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Sections, subsections, subsubsections and so on............................................ 1 1.3 Etc. ...................................................................................................................1 2 Previous work............................................................................................................ 7 5 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 36 References .................................................................................................................. 42 Appendices A Mini-project declaration B Statement of information search strategy

Appendix I

Figures

2.1 Re-entrant features in a feature structure ........................................................................ 10 2.2 Equivalent phrase structure tree and dependency tree .................................................... 12 4.1 Instantiation of features by constraint satisfaction .......................................................... 33

Appendix I

Tables
2.1 Interpreters and compiled parsers for unification grammars............................................ 8 4.1 Parsing performance by time and memory usage for test sample 1............................... 34 4.2 Parsing performance by time and memory usage for test sample 2............................... 34

Appendix I

Chapter 1 Introduction

There are many ways of laying out a chapter. The key points are that each chapter should start on a new page and should have a number and a title. 1.1 Page numbering Purists like the page number of the first page of a chapter to be at the bottom of the page, in the centre. On the second and following pages of the chapter, the page number is placed at the top of the page. On even numbered pages it is on the left-hand side of the page; on odd numbered pages, it is on the right-hand side of the page. 1.2 Sections, subsections, subsubsections and so on It is usual to split chapters into sections, subsections, etc, and to number the sections, etc. Some word processors and document preparation tools do this automatically for you. They should also automatically create your contents, figures and tables pages. This is a good feature, because it allows you to change your document without having to manually change your contents, figures and tables pages. 1.3 Etc.

Appendix I

References

American Psychological Association (2001) Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gibaldi, J. (2003) MLA handbook for writers of research papers (6th ed). Modern Language Association of America. Hirsch, H (2003) Essential Communication Strategies: For Scientists, Engineers and Technology Professionals. Wiley. Lamport, L (1994). LaTeX: A Document Preparation System. Addison-Wesley. Ritter, R (2000) The Oxford dictionary for writers and editors (2nd rev ed). Oxford University Press. University of Chicago Press. (1993) The Chicago manual of style (14th ed). Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.

The references have been prepared using: American Psychological Association (1994) Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Appendix I

Appendix I

Appendix A Mini-project declaration

MSc. in Advanced Computer Science MSc. in Human Computer Interaction MSc. in Multidisciplinary Optimisation MRes in Natural Computation MSc. in Robotics First semester mini-project
This form is to be used to declare your choice of mini-project in the first semester of the degree programme. Please complete this form, obtain the signature of your supervisor and post it in the appropriate assessed work pigeon hole. Deadline: 16.00 hrs, 20th October 2010 Name: A. Student Student number: 01214141234 Mini-project title: Intelligent optimisation of meta-interpreted parsers Mini-project supervisor: P J Hancox

The following questions should be answered in conjunction with a reading of the handbook. Aim of miniproject

To investigate ways of compiling unification grammars so that they can be parsed more quickly and using less memory.

Objectives to be achieved

To investigate methods of merging search trees to reduce non-deterministic choice; To investigate methods of pruning search trees by removing deterministic sequences; To investigate methods of partitioning features into those that influence the choice of syntactic label (eg NP, noun) and those that subdivide a syntactic label (eg noun singular; noun plural). To implement the above in a parser for Lexical Functional Grammar based on recursive transition networks. To test the effect of the methods described above on parse time and memory usage for test sentences.

Appendix I

Project management skills Briefly explain how you will devise a management plan to allow your supervisor to evaluate your progress

There is an agreed plan showing the milestones to be reached during the course of the mini-project. Progress will be reviewed in the regular meetings between supervisor and student.

Systematic literature skills Briefly explain how you will find previous relevant work

The important categories are (in order): conference papers; technical reports; journal articles and theses. Conference papers, journal articles and some theses will be identified using Engineering Index, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Reports will be retrieved using WWW report repositories. Dissertations Abstracts International and Index to Theses will be used in more theses need to be found. The search will look for items dating from 1993 to the present.

Communication skills What communication skills will you practise during this mini-project?

Written skills will be practised in the writing of the report. Oral skills will be presented in verbal reports to the supervisor; 20 minute presentation in SEM580; presentation to the AI seminar group.

Signed (student) Date: Signed (supervisor): Date:

A Student 9th October 2010 Peter Hancox 10th October 2010

Appendix I

Appendix B Statement of information search strategy

Parameters of your literature search Forms of literature The important categories are (in order): conference papers; technical reports; journal articles; theses. Books are not likely to be significant, except for basic programming techniques. Geographical/language coverage Important work is likely to be from the North America and Western Europe. Preferred language is English. Papers in French and German could be read. For papers in other languages, it would be necessary to reply on abstracts in English. Retrospective coverage and currency It is probably sufficient to search retrospectively for five years. This is a current research topic, so it is necessary to use indexing and abstracting services that are very up-to-date: ie machine-based services, rather than paper indexes.

Appropriate search tools Engineering Index To be used to retrieve conference papers, journal articles and some theses. This is strong on North American and UK publications (ie English), but less strong on Western European. It has the retrospective coverage and currency required. Abstracts are available for many publications. It has the retrospective coverage and currency required. Abstracts are available for publications in the source journals. Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Primarily for journal articles. These will be used as ordinary keyword-based indexes (as for Engineering Index) and/or for citation searching, perhaps using an early paper or papers retrieved from Engineering Index. Dissertations Abstracts International and Index to Theses DAI will be used if the retrieval of North American theses from Engineering Index seems poor. Index to Theses will be used if the retrieval of UK theses from Engineering Index seems poor.

Appendix I

Search statements The search statements used will be based on: pars* AND unification AND grammar* This may need to be refined in the number of recalled items is too large. Keywords from items that have been found will be reviewed in order to refine the set of keywords used. Brief evaluation of the search. [The following is a fictional evaluation.] The search in Engineering Index retrieved 12 items judged to be relevant of which: 7 conference items 4 journal articles 1 thesis (North American) The search in Science and Social Science Citation Indexes retrieved 7 journal articles judged to be relevant of which: 5 were retrieved from Engineering Index 2 were not retrieved from Engineering Index 2 older and most relevant conference papers retrieved from Engineering Index were used as the basis of a citation search in Science and Social Science Citation Indexes. This retrieved a further 11 journal papers which were judged relevant in whole or in part. Reports were retrieved using the University of Waikato report repository and index, and by a search using Google Scholar. 2 reports were retrieved that were not the basis of other forms of publication. A search in Index to Theses confirmed that there were no relevant UK theses. It was concluded that there was no need to search Dissertations Abstracts International for North American theses.

Appendix I

Appendix II

The form of the MSc in Advanced Computer Science, MSc in Human-Computer Interaction and MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation main (Summer) project reports

Appendix II

Appendix II

Guidelines for Authors (project students)

This document provides guidance to the author of the paper to be submitted as a part of the assessed Summer Project work for the MSc in Advanced Computer Science and the MSc in Natural Computation programmes. The guidance is primarily on the format of the paper. It is modelled on the Guidelines for Authors documents typically provided by scientific journals and conference organisers. It draws on material from the publisher Elsevier and from the IEEE. Guidance on the scientific contents of your paper can be obtained from the associated document Guidelines for Reviewers (see Writing mini-project and project reports, Appendix V). These arrangements have been made to mimic closely the real-life situation, where the authors submitting papers to a journal or a conference have only these two sets of guidelines supplied. The feedback from the reviewers (aka markers) will be provided in the form of reviewer comments, such as would typically be obtained from reviewers of journal and conference papers. In the real situation the reviews go to a journal editor or a conference Programme Committee who then make a decision whether to accept or reject the paper. Instead, you will get a mark agreed by two markers. 1. Intended readership Since your paper is likely to be read by members of staff and students whose expertise may be different to your own, it must be accessible to the non-specialist reader as well as the expert. In particular it should always contain adequate background and tutorial information. 2. Format
2.1 Length

The length of the main body of your paper, excluding title, author information, keywords, word count, acknowledgements, references, table and figure captions and appendices, should not exceed 6000 words.
2.2 Fonts and style

Main body: either single or double column, minimum font size 10pt, recommended line spacing: 1.5; headings: Distinctive headings should be used for each level of the text (i.e. sections, sub-sections, sub-sub sections); the recommended maximum level is 4 (i.e. sub-subsub sections).
2.3 Page numbering

Consecutively number all the pages with the exception of the title page. 3. Composition The composition of the paper should be as follows: title page, abstract, keywords, main body of paper, appendices (if any), acknowledgements (if any), references.
3.1 Title page 3.1.1 Paper title

Concise and informative. Titles are often used in information-retrieval systems. Avoid abbreviations and formulae where possible.
Appendix II

3.1.2 Author name and affiliation

Where the family name may be ambiguous (e.g., a double name), please indicate this clearly. Present the authors affiliation addresses below the names. Indicate the affiliation with a lower-case superscript letter immediately after the author's name and in front of the appropriate address. Provide the full postal address of each affiliation, including the country name, and the e-mail address of the author.
3.1 3 Word count

Include the word count for the main body of the paper, including any appendices.
3.2 Abstract

A concise and factual abstract is required (maximum length 250 words). The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the methods used, the principal results and major conclusions. In general, an abstract is often presented separate from the paper, so it must be able to stand alone. References should therefore be avoided, but if essential, they must be cited in full, without reference to the reference list. Non-standard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself.
3.3 Keywords

Immediately after the abstract, provide a maximum of up to five keywords, avoiding general and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for example, 'and', 'of'). Be sparing with abbreviations: only abbreviations firmly established in the field may be eligible. The Keywords are used for indexing purposes.
3.4 Main body of paper 3.4.1 Subdivision of the paper

Divide your paper into clearly defined and numbered sections. Subsections should be numbered 1.1 (then 1.1.1, 1.1.2,...), 1.2, etc. (the abstract, the acknowledgements and the references are not included in section numbering). Use this numbering also for internal cross-referencing: do not just refer to 'the text.' Any subsection may be given a brief heading. Each heading should appear on its own separate line.
3.4.2 Abbreviations

Define abbreviations and symbols that are not standard in this field at their first occurrence in the paper: in the abstract but also in the main text after it. Ensure consistency of abbreviations throughout the paper.
3.4.3 Nomenclature and units

Follow internationally accepted rules and conventions: use the international system of units (SI). If other quantities are mentioned, give their equivalent in SI.
3.4.4 Mathematical formulae

Present simple formulae in the line of normal text where possible. In principle, variables are to be presented in italics. Number consecutively any equations that have to be displayed separate from the text (if referred to explicitly in the text).
3.4.5 Figures and figure captions

These should be inserted in the paper itself, at the appropriate locations.

3.4.6 Tables and table captions

Number tables consecutively in accordance with their appearance in the text. Place captions to tables below the table body. Avoid vertical rules. Be sparing in the use of tables and ensure that the data presented in tables do not duplicate results described elsewhere in the paper.
Appendix II

3.4.7 Footnotes

Footnotes should be used sparingly. Number them consecutively throughout the paper, using superscript Arabic numbers.
3.5 Appendices

Appendices typically contain material which is not essential for the understanding of the research, but which could be useful if the reader were to reproduce the described research. Examples include mathematical proofs, complex derivations of equations, pseudo-code for complex algorithms, etc. If there is more than one appendix, they should be identified as A, B, etc. Formulae and equations in appendices should be given separate numbering: (Eq. A.1), (Eq. A.2), etc.; in a subsequent appendix, (Eq. B.1) and so forth.
3.6 Acknowledgements

Place acknowledgements in a separate (not numbered) section, and not as a footnote on the title page.
3.7 References

Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and vice versa). Any references cited in the abstract must be given in full. Unpublished results and personal communications should not be in the reference list, but may be mentioned in the text. Citation of a reference as 'in press' implies that the item has been accepted for publication.
3.7.1 Citations in the text

Citations may be made directly (or parenthetically). Groups of references should be listed first alphabetically, then chronologically, for example: as demonstrated (Allan, 1996a, 1996b, 1999; Allan and Jones, 1995). Kramer et al. (2000) have recently shown... The following conventions should be respected when referring to different types of authorships: (1) Single author: the author's name (without initials, unless there is ambiguity) and the year of publication; (2) Two authors: both authors' names and the year of publication; (3) Three or more authors: first authors' name followed by et al. and the year of publication.
3.7 2 Reference list

The list of references should be placed in a separate (not-numbered) section. References should be arranged first alphabetically and the further sorted chronologically if necessary. More than one reference from the same author(s) in the same year must be identified by the letters "a", "b", "c", etc., placed after the year of publication. Examples are shown below Reference to a journal publication: van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J.A.J., Lupton, R.A., 2000, The art of writing a scientific paper, Journal of Science Communication 163(1), 51-59. Reference to a book: Strunk Jr., W., White, E.B., 1979. The Elements of Style, third ed., Macmillan, New York.

Appendix II

Reference to a chapter in an edited book: Mettam, G.R., Adams, L.B., 1999. How to prepare an electronic version of your paper, in: B.S. Jones, R.Z. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to the Electronic Age, EPublishing Inc., New York, pp. 281-304. Web reference: As a minimum, the full URL should be given. Any further information, if known (author names, dates, reference to a source publication, etc.), should also be given. 4. Supplementary data You may (but do not have to) include supplementary material in electronic format to support and enhance your research paper. Examples of supplementary materials include source code, executable applications, movies, animation sequences, high-resolution images, background datasets, sound clips, etc. Any supplementary material should be submitted on a clearly labelled CD. Supply a concise and descriptive caption for each file. In order to ensure that the material is directly usable, adhere to commonly used data file formats. For any executable files please provide clear user instructions. The reviewers may (but DO NOT HAVE TO) inspect the supplementary data, therefore you have to ensure that the paper contains all the essential information needed to judge your project work.

Appendix II

Appendix III

Guidance Notes on Plagiarism

source: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/studentinfo/plagiarism.htm

1. What is Plagiarism?
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines plagiarise as: "take and use another persons (thoughts, writings, inventions) as ones own." A crucial phrase in this definition is "as ones own." In all learning at University it is completely acceptable to use another persons thoughts, writings or inventions to aid our own learning and understanding. Indeed, this is a primary method of learning. We all read textbooks, research papers, manuals and many other documents, and make use of the material contained in them. This is perfectly normal and acceptable. The use of another persons work does not constitute plagiarism unless we present that work as our own. When writing essays, project reports, computer programs, or when giving any form of presentation, it is important that whenever we include the work of others, it is clearly acknowledged as such.

2. What is Wrong with Plagiarism?

Plagiarism is a form of cheating. Copying the ideas or writings of others and presenting them as our own ideas and writings amounts to stealing some of the credit for another persons work and dishonestly obtaining credit for ourselves. Any form of cheating is to be condemned, and plagiarism is no exception. Theft of intellectual work by copying that work is still theft, and should be treated as such. In a commercial or business context, the laws of copyright and patent are designed to help protect companies or individuals from the plagiarism of their work by others for commercial gain. In an academic context, there are no formal laws beyond those of copyright and patent, but the academic community works within very strong conventions that regard all forms of plagiarism as totally unacceptable and strongly to be condemned. Academics who are found guilty of plagiarism have their reputations and careers damaged or destroyed. In a University undergraduate context, plagiarism is most serious when it occurs in work done for assessment. In assessing essays, project reports, computer programs, and all the other forms in which work can be presented, it is normally assumed that the work is entirely the students own (except where the student has clearly stated otherwise), and the work is marked accordingly. If the submitted work is not entirely the students own, then the credit obtained for it is not fully deserved. Students are always expected to clearly acknowledge any use of other peoples work in anything submitted for assessment. Unacknowledged use of the work of others is plagiarism. It is treated by the University as a very serious disciplinary offence, as for any other form of cheating. Likewise students must declare their own work if they submitted it previously at this or another education institution.

3. Avoiding Plagiarism
Although you should take great care to avoid any possibility of being accused of plagiarism, this does not mean that you need to lock yourself away and avoid contact with all sources of ideas, etc. while you are doing a piece of assessed work. Quite the contrary! The properly acknowledged use of the work of others is a vital component of nearly all scientific writing and is in no way discouraged. It is normal practice when writing essays, technical reports, etc., to borrow ideas and even the words of others. The important point, however, is that this must always be clearly and

unambiguously acknowledged. If you incorporate into your work someone elses ideas or words so that they appear to be your own, it is plagiarism. There are a variety of acceptable ways of acknowledging the work of others. Examples of some of the most common ways are given below. Using References Most often, it is the ideas rather than the exact words of another author that are copied. In such cases, a reference to the source of the ideas is appropriate. For example: A good method for sorting the names into alphabetical order is the quicksort algorithm (Hoare, 1962). The algorithm works basically as follows. We firstly guess at a median value for the data to be sorted. Then we partition the data into two parts ..... The full reference should be given at the end of the essay or report, in a separate section headed "References." For example: Hoare, C.A.R. (1962), "Quicksort", Computer Journal, Vol. 5, pp.10-15. This refers to a research paper by C.A.R. Hoare, entitled "Quicksort" and published in the periodical Computer Journal. It is conventional in such references to give all the information included in this example: the authors name, the date of publication, the title of the paper (in quotation marks), the title of the journal (in italics), the volume number (in bold type) and the page numbers. In references to books, the important information to include is: the authors name, the date of publication, the title of the book (in italics), and the publishers name. If the information is taken from just a small part of the book, it may be appropriate to include page numbers as well. For example: Knuth, D. (1968), The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 2, Sorting and Searching, pp.211-217, Addison-Wesley. Making Your Own Contribution Clear It is important to make clear to the reader exactly what ideas are borrowed from elsewhere and what are your own. The example given above may continue: Hoares quicksort algorithm can be improved for the present problem by modifying the way in which the estimate of the median is computed ..... Our Java class SortedData uses this modified quicksort algorithm ..... This makes it clear to the reader that the student has contributed his or her own ideas: (i) by modifying the algorithm in the manner described, and (ii) by implementing the algorithm in the program for the class SortedData. Only the idea of the basic quicksort algorithm has been borrowed from elsewhere. In general, if you make heavy use of material from textbooks and elsewhere when preparing work for assessment, how can you be sure that your own personal contribution is sufficient for you to be awarded a good mark? This question often worries students. The answer is very dependent upon the subject matter and other circumstances, so that it is not possible to give a short and simple answer here. Discuss it with your academic advisor or the course lecturers.

Direct Quotation Direct quotation is not particularly common in scientific writing, as it is generally not the words that matter, but the meaning. Normally it is preferable to rewrite someone elses ideas in your own words, often changing the terminology and other superficial details to suit the new context. However, in circumstances where it is appropriate to make direct use of the words of another person, those words should normally be included within quotation marks and a reference to the source of the words given in the usual way. For example: A common theoretical approach to deadlock is that adopted by Magee and Kramer (1999), who define it as follows: "Deadlock occurs in a system when all its constituent processes are blocked." Although this definition is convenient for theoretical analysis of programs, from a practical point of view a much wider definition is more useful. So, instead, we adopt a definition in which deadlock is said to occur even if only a subset of all the processes are blocked, while the rest continue to run as usual. This situation is much more common in practice ..... References Magee, J. and Kramer, J. (1999), Concurrency: State Models and Java Programs, Wiley, p.107.

4. Avoiding Plagiarism in Computer Programs

Almost all computer programs contain many ideas borrowed from elsewhere. Many also contain short sections of actual code copied from elsewhere. For example, writing a section of program to create a new window on screen with a menu at the top of the window is often done by simply copying a few of lines of code from an example in a programming manual or textbook, either with or without a few minor changes. This is normally regarded as fair use and typically requires no acknowledgement. Any more significant copying of code from elsewhere should be acknowledged, however. The acknowledgement can be put in comments within the program itself. Reference to the source of the original material should be made in the same way as in essays or other documents (except that it may not be possible to use italics or other font variations). Obviously, it is not possible to put sections of code in quotation marks to indicate that they have been taken directly from elsewhere. Instead, the comments should make it clear which sections of code have been copied from elsewhere. Equally, the comments should make it clear when the basic method has been copied from elsewhere, but changes made to the details.

5. Disciplinary Action
If plagiarism is found in work submitted for assessment, the action taken will depend upon the seriousness of the plagiarism. For further information see our policy at http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/studentinfo/plagpolicy.html.

6. Conclusion
In student work as in all other academic work it is important to carefully avoid plagiarism or anything that could be construed as plagiarism. The author of any piece of work is always assumed to be solely and totally responsible for that work unless it is clearly stated otherwise. Any and all use of the work of people other than the named author should be very clearly and fully acknowledged. It is much better to play safe and have too many and too detailed acknowledgements than to omit them and risk being accused of plagiarism, which could result in a severe marks penalty and/or other disciplinary action.

Appendix IV

Mini-project marking guidelines

MSc in Advanced Computer Science MSc in Natural Computation Mini-project marking

Project work in Masters programmes is an important way in which students are trained in research skills and can develop and practise their skills, including those taught in the research skills module. The marking form is intended to help assessors by identifying issues of research skills that should form part of the mini-project. There is also a concern that assessments should, as far as possible, be consistent given that each student is working on an individual piece of work and in a unique supervisory arrangement. The marking form has a number of sections concerned, respectively, with the intellectual content of the work, the process by which the work was carried through and the presentation of the mini-project. It should be recognised that projects vary widely and so it seems unreasonable that there should be firm guidelines on the distribution of marks between sections. The supervisors recommendations should be discussed with the Moderator (who will see a larger selection of mini-projects) and an appropriate grade negotiated. The student will receive a copy of this form as part of the feedback on their mini-project. It is appropriate, therefore, for supervisors to use this form to record information that will guide students in other project work and, in particular, allow them to make an informed choice about which of their mini-projects should be the basis of their summer project.

To: From: Cc: Date: Subject:

SupFirst SupSurname Bob Hendley Bob Hendley 26th April 2012 First/Second Semester Mini-Project Title

Please find enclosed Firstname Surname First Semester Mini-Project and a marking form. The marking form has two parts: The first part consists of topics on which you are invited to comment. This part will be returned to the student. The second part is a record of the mark awarded and is not returned to the student.

I would ask both parties to read the report and come to their conclusions independently. Then the supervisor should contact the moderator to come to an agreed mark. If a discrepancy between the supervisors and the moderators mark is greater than 10 the reasons for arriving at the agreed mark should be explained. We need this process to be completed by Thursday 3rd May 2012 (earlier would of course be appreciated). Completed forms and both copies of the project report should be returned to Julie Heathcote in the School Office. Routine enquiries about the administration of the project can be addressed to Bob Hendley or, in his absence, to Alan Sexton.

School of Computer Science The University of Birmingham MSc in Advanced Computer Science First/Second Semester Mini-Project marking form Student: Firstname Surname Project title: Title Supervisor: SupFirst SupSurname Moderator: Bob Hendley Please return this form to Julie Heathcote by<DATE> . A copy of the completed form will be made available to the student. The rankings indicated via the tick-boxes are intended to provide a feedback to the student. They are not used to mechanically compute the project mark. The items marked with an asterisk(*) are to be completed by the supervisor only. Comments should be framed in a way that will enable the student to improve on any weaknesses in subsequent projects.

PROJECT
TOPIC, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES (see Appendix A) Topic developed entirely by the student* Realistic aims and objectives INFORMATION SEARCHING (see Appendix B) Suitable information searching strategy Excellent search results

Topic developed entirely by the supervisor Over-ambitious or too simplistic

No information strategy presented No evidence of information searching

WORK
Objectives substantially achieved Student worked independently * MANAGEMENT Project work well planned and carried out * Regular progress reports * Comments on PROJECT Very little achieved Student required excessive guidance

No plan, erratic progress No contact with supervisor

REPORT

CONTENT
Topic covered in depth Understanding beyond taught material Factually correct Comments Superficial treatment of topic Cursory coverage of basic information Inaccurate facts and statements

ARGUMENT
Appropriately developed aims and objectives Original and creative thought Critical analysis, ability to evaluate evidence Logically developed argument Comments Unrealistic or do not address the topic at all No evidence of originality Little evidence to support assertions Report rambles and lacks continuity

SOURCES
Excellent range of source material Adequate acknowledgement of sources Correct citation of references Comments No use of sources outside the taught material Inadequate acknowledgement of sources Incorrect referencing / plagiarism

STYLE
Fluent writing Overall organisation excellent Informative and accurate abstract and keywords Comments Clumsily written Completely disjointed No abstract and/or keywords

PRESENTATION
Legible and visually attractive Appropriate length Grammar and punctuation correct Correct spelling throughout Effective use of figures and tables Comments Untidy and close to unreadable Much too long or too short Many grammatical errors Much incorrect spelling Figures/Tables missing or add little

THE REPORT INCLUDES

Title page Abstract Keywords Contents page List of figures and tables (where appropriate) List of references or bibliography Appendix A mini-project declaration Appendix B statement of search strategy

ANY OTHER COMMENTS

(to be seen by the student)

In particular comments on the following aspects would be helpful: Are there obvious strengths or weaknesses in the organisation of the material, presentation of results and interpretations/conclusions? How much scope for this work to be taken further in the summer project?

School of Computer Science The University of Birmingham MSc in Advanced Computer Science First/Second Semester Mini-Project marking form

Student: Firstname Surname Project title: Title Supervisor: SupFirst SupSurname Moderator: Bob Hendley

This form will NOT be made available to the student. Please return to Julie Heathcote by <DATE>

ANY OTHER COMMENTS

PROJECT MARK:

Signed:

Date:

AGREED PROJECT MARK: If the discrepancy between the Supervisors and the Moderators mark is greater than 10 please briefly comment on the reasons for arriving at the agreed project mark.

Signed (Supervisor): Signed (Moderator):

Date:

Marking guidelines for mini-projects: MSc in Advanced Computer Science and MSc in Natural Computation Coverage (range and understanding of sources; synthesis and focusing of ideas on the topic) Analysis and where relevant reflection in practice (organisation / coherence of argument; support through example / detail / quotations / references / experience; critical approach) Shows originality through critical questioning of received ideas; and suggestion of alternative perspectives; meticulous, well-supported analysis; insightful evaluation / conclusion / implications. Critical review and synthesis of ideas; coherent, realistic and well-supported argument; insightful use of own ideas and experience; perceptive appraisal of implications. Ideas organised and grouped to present a coherent argument; use of examples / detail / quotations / references / experience to support argument; some critical analysis of ideas / evidence.

Presentation (length; use of academic conventions; spelling, grammar, paragraphing, etc; layout; proofreading) Is concise within the requirements of the task; skilled use of academic conventions; skilful layout etc; accurate proof-reading.

Where Appropriate: Investigation / Research (questions; rationale; theoretical background; data collection methods, critical analysis; implications) Where appropriate: Originality in identification of questions; excellent theoretical background showing critical appreciation of underlying ideas; skilled research design, carefully and critically applied; insightful analysis with critical / innovative interpretation of implications. Where appropriate: Perceptive presentation of questions; cogent, theoretically-based rationale; good research design with critical analysis of data; careful appraisal of implications. Where appropriate; Clear statement of research questions; rationale provided for research approach taken and some relation to underlying theories made; some critical analysis discussion and presentation of results; appropriate implications drawn from the study. Where appropriate: Research questions given though may not be fully contextualised; limited rationale; some theoretical background attempted; data collection methods relevant; analysis attempted but may lack depth; some implications examined. Where appropriate: Research questions unclear; rationale weak; theoretical background very limited; methods not well chosen or misapplied; analysis sketchy or unjustified by data; implications asserted or untenable.

70% - 100%

Comprehensive coverage of sources; evidence of scholarship in understanding of ideas; originality in synthesis of ideas and focus on the topic.

60% - 69%

50% - 59%

Competent coverage of major sources; shows depth of understanding of the topic; relationships between ideas cogently made. Shows acquaintance with and understanding of key concepts and issues from a range of sources; ideas synthesised and related to the topic.

Competent control of length; skilled use of academic conventions; clear layout etc; almost all errors eliminated in proof-reading. Length requirements observed; appropriate use of academic conventions; effective uses of spelling etc; careful proof-reading.

30% - 49%

Evidence of reading in the field; identification of some pertinent issues; superficiality in treatment of the topic.

Appropriate organisation; some evidence of understanding of ideas and ability to relate ideas and experience; mainly descriptive with limited attempt at critical judgement; occasional inconsistencies.

Length requirements observed; basic command of academic conventions; some errors in proof-reading but largely accurate spelling, etc.

0% - 29%

Limited range of ideas; shows weak acquaintance with sources; ideas unfocused.

Disjointed organisation; unsupported arguments; little use of relevant experience; descriptive without critical analysis.

Length requirements not observed; use of unattributed material; incomplete referencing; presentation marred by language errors affecting comprehensibility; inadequate proofreading.

The guidelines are based on the Marking Grid developed by the LIGTH unit at University of Leeds; adapted with permission.

Appendix V

Summer project marking guidelines

Appendix V

Guidelines for Reviewers (project markers)

This document provides guidance to the markers of papers submitted as a part of the assessed Summer Project work for the MSc in Advanced Computer Science, MSc in Human- Computer Interaction and MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation programmes. It is modelled on the Guidelines for Reviewers documents typically provided by scientific journals and conference organisers. (The source used here is http://www.elsevier.com/framework_reviewers/PDFs/PeerReviewGuide1.pdf.) Guidance regarding the paper format can be obtained from the associated document Guidelines for Authors (see Writing mini-project and project reports, Appendix II). These arrangements have been made to mimic a real-life situation, where the authors submitting papers to a journal or a conference have only these two sets of guidelines supplied. The feedback from the reviewers (aka markers) is to be provided in the form of reviewer comments, such as you would typically be requested to provide for a journal or a conference paper. In the real situation the reviews go to a journal editor or a conference Programme Committee who then make a decision whether to accept or reject the paper. Instead, the reviewers (aka markers) will need to supply an agreed mark (see the Individual Reviewer Comments in Writing mini-project and project reports, Appendix V). 1. Purpose and rationale The students are required to prepare the Summer Project report in the form of a journal paper (this is different to the mini-project reports, see Writing mini-project and project reports, Appendix I). This approach is intended to develop an additional set of skills in the students who are enrolled on the research-oriented MSc degrees (MSc ACS and MSc NC). The assessment of the students work is modelled on review process used for scientific papers. The students are provided with Guidelines for Authors together with this Guide to Reviewing, the only two documents that a research paper author will have access to in real life. The markers are asked to provide a review such as they would have provided for a journal paper, given the guidance included in the notes below. The reviews (narrative parts) should be reasonably substantial. In addition the markers will be asked to summarise their assessment by tick-box ratings in a number of categories. Each reviewer will then assign independently an individual numerical mark which reflects the narrative comments and the tick-box ratings. Finally, a mark agreed by the two reviewers will be returned to the office. The assessment form is in Writing mini-project and project reports, Appendix V. 2. The review A reviewer will be expected to evaluate the paper according to the following criteria.
2.1 Originality

Is the paper sufficiently novel / interesting? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the paper adhere to the MSc standards and guidelines (Writing mini-project and project reports, Appendix V)? Is the research question an important one?
2.2 Structure and contents

Is the paper clearly laid out? Are all the key elements present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions?

Appendix V

Consider each element in turn: Title, does it clearly describe the paper Abstract, does it reflect the content of the paper. Introduction, does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction is one to two paragraphs long. It should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what findings of others, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, hypothesis(es); general experimental design or method. Is the methodology appropriate? Does the paper accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the paper identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the paper make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements? Results. This is where the author should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. Are the results clearly laid out and in a logical sequence? Has the appropriate analysis been conducted? Are the statistics correct? Any interpretation should not be included in this section. Conclusion/Discussion. Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Has the author indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the paper support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
2.3 Previous Research

If the paper builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?
2.4 Presentation

On balance, when considering the whole paper, do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical?
2.5 Language

Is an paper written in correct English? Is spelling correct throughout? If it is poorly written due to grammatical errors, does this make it more difficult to understand the science?
2.6 Ethical Issues

Plagiarism, if you suspect that an paper is a substantial copy of a work/s you are familiar with let the Project Coordinator know, please cite the previous work/s. Are there any ethical concerns? Has confidentiality been maintained? If there has been violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects these should also be identified.

Appendix V

2.7 Supplementary data

The authors may (but do not have to) include supplementary material in electronic format to support and enhance their research paper. Examples of supplementary materials include source code, executable applications, movies, animation sequences, high-resolution images, background datasets, sound clips, etc. The reviewers may (but DO NOT HAVE TO) inspect the supplementary data; the paper must contain all the essential information needed to judge the project work. 3. The reviewers report Provide a quick summary of the paper at the top of your report. It serves to reassure the author that you understood the paper. The main (narrative) part of the report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that the author is better able to understand the basis of the comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or reflected by data. The degree of compliance with the key criteria will be indicated via a set of tick-boxes. You will also be asked to provide an individual mark. Finally, the two reviewers will have to come to the agreed mark (to be entered on the supervisors form).

Appendix V

To: From: Cc: Date: Subject:

(Supervisor) Bob Hendley (Second marker) 21st September 2010 Summer Project: (Student name) (Project title)

Please find enclosed (Students) Summer project and a marking form. The marking form has two parts: The first part consists of topics on which you are invited to comment. This part will be returned to the student. The second part is a record of the mark awarded and is not returned to the student.

I would ask both parties to read the report and come to their conclusions independently. Then the supervisor should contact the second marker to come to an agreed mark. We need this process to be completed by 29th September 2010 (earlier would of course be appreciated). Completed forms and both copies of the project report should be returned to Caroline Wilson in the School Office.

Routine enquiries about the administration of the project can be addressed to Bob Hendley or, in his absence, to Alan Sexton.

School of Computer Science The University of Birmingham Advanced Computer Science Summer project marking form Student: (Student) Project title: (Project Title) Supervisor: (Supervisor) Second marker: (Second marker) This form will be made available to the student. Please return to Caroline Wilson by 29th September 2010.. The numerical marks are intended to provide a feedback to the student. They are not used to mechanically compute the project mark. The items marked with an asterisk(*) are to be completed by the supervisor only.

PROJECT

WORK
Objectives substantially achieved Student worked independently * MANAGEMENT Project work well planned and carried out * Regular progress reports * Comments on PROJECT Very little achieved Student required excessive guidance

No plan, erratic progress No contact with supervisor

REPORT

CONTENT
Topic covered in depth Understanding beyond taught material Factually correct Comments Superficial treatment of topic Cursory coverage of basic information Inaccurate facts and statements

ARGUMENT
Appropriately developed aims and objectives Original and creative thought Critical analysis, ability to evaluate evidence Logically developed argument Comments Unrealistic or do not address the topic at all No evidence of originality Little evidence to support assertions Report rambles and lacks continuity

SOURCES
Excellent range of source material Adequate acknowledgement of sources Correct citation of references Comments No of sources outside the taught material Inadequate acknowledgement of sources Incorrect referencing / plagiarism

STYLE
Fluent writing Overall organisation excellent Accurate abstract and keywords Comments Clumsily written Completely disjointed No abstract and/or keywords

PRESENTATION /
Legible and visually attractive Appropriate length Grammar and punctuation correct Correct spelling throughout Effective use of figures and tables Comments Untidy and close to illegible Much too long or too short Many grammatical errors Much incorrect spelling Figures/Tables missing or add little

ORAL/POSTER PRESENTATION
Topic introduced clearly and at the right level Key points covered clearly and logically Effective use of appropriate visual materials Questions handled well Comments No introduction at all Muddled and/or incomprehensible Little or no use of appropriate visual materials Unable to answer questions convincingly

ANY OTHER COMMENTS

(to be seen by the student)

School of Computer Science The University of Birmingham Advanced Computer Science Summer project marking form

Student: (Student) Project title: (Project Title) Supervisor: (Supervisor) Second marker: (Second marker)

This form will NOT be made available to the student. Please return to Caroline Wilson by 29th September 2010.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS

Independent Project mark:

Signed: Date:

Final Agreed mark:

Signed (Supervisor & Second Marker) Date