You must submit a final report worth 95% of the total project mark, which should cover the background and context of the problem, clearly specify the problem you solved, the methodology and approach of your solution and an evaluation. You also have to submit a complete set of the deliverables developed for the project, including any source code, data and results relevant to your work. This involves the development of some tangible piece of software, hardware, system design or theoretical result. It need not necessarily be a usable finished product. Instead, it could be, for example, an extension of an existing system or a prototype built as part of a feasibility study. Deliverables do not necessarily have to be programs but could be in non-executable form, for example, a theoretical result. This must be submitted at the end of spring week 12 (see the exact deadline for the final report listed in PATS).
Please see your initial plan, in which you should have clearly outlined the aims and objectives and, with that, the deliverables for the final report. Your supervisor and/or moderator may have left additional comments on your plan on PATS to tell you whether these deliverables are suitable and what they expect for the final report. Your deliverables may be adjusted based on your findings since the initial plan and in discussions with your supervisor. Note that you must agree with the supervisor on any significant changes to the original plan/proposal. Generally, discuss carefully with your supervisor what you should include in the final report.
Word limit: The final report has a maximum length of 12,000 words for the main body of the report. The word count includes only the main body chapters/sections. It excludes the title page, abstract, acknowledgements, table of contents, references, figures, tables, appendices, and any separately submitted supplementary/support material. This limit is a maximum, not a target.
If AI or other tools played a material role in the project, describe and justify this use in the report where appropriate (normally as part of the methodology and/or implementation), and acknowledge/reference the tools as appropriate.
Enough information such that a competent computer scientist can understand and reproduce the work should be given in the report, and any appendices or supplementary material.
A possible structure for your final report is as follows:
| Title Page | Support | |
| Abstract | ||
| Acknowledgements | ||
| Table of Contents | ||
| 1. | Introduction | Main body |
| 2. | Background | |
| 3. | Methodology / Approach / Specification, Design and Implementation | |
| 4. | Results and Evaluation | |
| 5. | Conclusions and Future Work | |
| 6. | Reflection on Learning | |
| Appendices | Support | |
| References |
Note that this is only a suggestion, and you can adjust the chapter headings and structure to suit your project. Especially you may want to consider adapting Chapter 3 to something that more specifically reflects the specification and solution of your problem and potentially even split it into multiple chapters. Please discuss the structure and contents of your report with your supervisor.
Further supplementary material may be submitted separately, not part of the report, on PATS as support files to support the material in the report. This is to provide further details and also act as evidence of the work done. This includes the source code of your work, if applicable, which must be submitted. It could also provide detailed results data, etc. Large datasets may not have to be submitted (discuss with supervisor). Also see the Submission Guide.
We have a LaTeX template for the dissertation and initial plan at https://qyber.black/tools/tex-qdissertation, mirrored at https://github.com/qyber-black/tex-qdissertation (e.g. fork and use with https://overleaf.com/ via https://github.com). This template includes a dissertation/report template (``main.tex``) and a separate initial plan template (``plan.tex``). It is provided as a convenience only: you must adapt it to the current CM3203 structure, word limits, and submission requirements. Where there is any difference, the CM3203 guide takes precedence.
Here we give you some brief guides and further reading material to help you produce a good project report. A good report presents your project work concisely and effectively. It should contain various materials relevant to your work in respect of your project; it should be organised into a logical framework; it should be supported by written material that follows well-established academic conventions in a consistent fashion.
An important point to remember is that the report should describe your work. Large chunks of bookwork describing standard material are unnecessary. You should refer to such material, assuming that your reader is a competent computer scientist, and a lot of it can be summarised with further details in suitable references. The guidelines here are arranged roughly in the order you need.
Your project supervisor will guide you on what it is reasonable to expect a project in your chosen topic to deliver. However, all projects must justify all decisions made at every research stage and develop appropriate deliverables, including the choice of approach.
You must submit your report and all required supporting material by the deadline shown on PATS in the final report tab for your project.
The submission should normally include
Large raw datasets, videos, generated binaries, or other bulky files do not necessarily need to be uploaded if they are not needed for assessment; discuss such cases with your supervisor.
Also ensure that the project title and project description on PATS match the title and work described in the report (you can use the abstract from the report for the project description). Please see the Submission Guide for further details of how to submit via PATS. Also consider Project Publication details about how to publish (or not publish) your project in the PATS archive.
Before you submit the final version, you should discuss the report with your supervisor, who can give you general guidance on the structure and what to write as feed-forward towards the final report assessment. Make sure you arrange this well in advance of the submission deadline so that you can agree upon a timeline for this, and there is enough time for your supervisor to look at a draft. You may, for example, discuss an outline of the report with chapter and section headings with your supervisor and later on discuss specific questions you are having on the content.
What supervisors can reasonably provide in writing (and how often to ask) is summarised on the CM3203 main page under Project Execution.
The final report is worth 95% of the module's total mark. After the submission deadline, your supervisor and moderator assess the final report independently, giving an individual mark out of 95. A combined mark will be agreed upon based on the individual marks between your supervisor and moderator in a separate discussion after the individual marks have been given. A total mark for each assessor will be computed as the sum of their initial plan (out of 5) and final report mark (out of 95). If these two marks differ by more than 10, a third marker will be appointed to decide upon a final mark based on the individual and combined report marks. If the two marks differ by 10 or less, the sum of the mark agreed upon by the supervisor and moderator (out of 95) and the average initial plan mark (out of 5) will be the total mark for the module. After this process, an external examiner will check the report marks, and the exam board will confirm the marks. You will then receive your official mark for the module via SIMS. Once you have received your mark via SIMS, you can ask your supervisor for informal feedback on your work (e.g. contact them by e-mail). Before then, your supervisor or anyone else cannot confirm your mark.
Note that the difference to decide third marking is computed based on the total of the individual initial and final plan marks, but the total mark of the module is determined by the weighted sum of the total (averaged, rounded) initial plan mark and the agreed final report mark unless this is overwritten by a third marker. University mark calculation in SIMS does not allow us to do this differently.
| Stage | What happens |
|---|---|
| 1 | The supervisor and moderator each mark the final report independently, giving a mark out of 95. |
| 2 | If the two total marks differ by 10 or less, the final module mark is the agreed final-report mark (out of 95) plus the averaged, rounded initial-plan mark (out of 5). |
| 3 | If the two total marks differ by more than 10, a third marker is appointed to decide the final mark. |
| 4 | The mark is then subject to the normal external examiner and exam board process. |
Example:
The criteria for assessing the final report are listed below. Please read these carefully, as it will help you see what your assessors will look for in your report. Also, take into account what you promised to produce for the final report in your initial plan, your supervisor's and moderator's comments on this on PATS, and any further discussions with your supervisor (as you may have changed the deliverables from the initial plan in discussion with your supervisors, etc).
Your supervisor and moderator will assess your final report according to the following criteria/skills:
The scale for this assessment is: