Marking Overview

The project module is assessed by three pieces of work. Remember that the project is largely an independent, self-directed activity. You're expected to manage your own time to meet the deadlines. Further guidance for each assessment is linked below and in the navigation menu.

Due dates for all assessed work are shown on the Deadline Calendar. You should ensure you have regular meetings with your supervisor so they are fully aware of your progress. Their role is to help you meet the project deadlines and guide you through problems as they occur. Your supervisor will have more knowledge about your software implementation (or research artifact) if you meet with them often and discuss what you're doing. This can be helpful during discussions with the second marker. If you don't meet regularly, your supervisor will be less able to defend or support what you accomplished.

Marking Process

Your work will be independently marked by your supervisor and the second marker. Your supervisor will know your work and progress better than the second marker, so it's not unusual for the marks and feedback to differ slightly. Usually the two marks are close to each other and the average is taken. If the marks are further apart, the markers will discuss your work and reach an agreement. Very rarely, a third marker can be called upon to give their opinion.

The marking scheme for each assessment shows the criteria on which you will be judged. These are shown in the table above. You will also receive some written feedback and suggestions for improvement. Make sure you meet your supervisor to discuss feedback on the detailed proposal, so you can incorporate any suggestions into the implementation. Feedback on the video (and during the discussion) will help you to shape your dissertation.

Marks and feedback are released in batches, due to the number of students and staff involved in the process. This depends on both your markers having completed the work, so you might not get feedback at the same time as your friends. Please do not email the project coordinator to ask when your mark will be available, because they will already be chasing markers behind the scenes. Our back-end system shows exactly which markers are late and which marks are missing, so don't be concerned and please be patient.

Viewing Feedback

Find your feedback by logging into the e-Project System and viewing your project page. You will see the agreed mark for the work, plus links to download a PDF of feedback from each marker. Written feedback is provided to help you improve the project for later assessments.

Try not to be offended or upset if the comments are negative or critical. We want you to achieve your best on the project, so we will highlight things that can be improved, or things that you might have overlooked. Remember that each marker gives their feedback independently. The two feedback sheets might show different opinions because they are filled in before the markers meet to discuss an agreed mark.

Mark Descriptors

Each assessment has two or three high-level criteria that contribute different weights. Each marker will enter an actual mark for each criterion, but this will be shown on the feedback sheet as a letter grade that corresponds to the mark descriptors shown below. You will also see the agreed numeric mark for the assessment, which is reached after discussing any differences between markers. It's the agreed mark that matters for the overall module mark calculation, which is why we show the original marks as letter grades.

If a mark is awarded in the green (80 to 100) range, the feedback should clearly justify how the work is of an exceptional or outstanding quality. A mark in the orange (0 to 39) range should include feedback to explain the reasons for failure and suggestions for improvement.

The project module must be passed without compensation and therefore an overall module mark below 40 will be treated as a failure. This is a requirement of our course accreditation. You will have a good chance of passing the project if you engage from the start, meet with your supervisor, take advice on board, and submit all the assessments. If you fail the project module and a reassessment is offered, you will need to repeat the module in the following year and choose a new project topic.

Using Generative AI

Whilst it's not misconduct if you acknowledge the use of generative AI, your mark could be impacted if a large portion of your work is generated for you. It will depend on how you explain its use and how you incorporate it into your own work. Excessive use of generative AI reduces your ability to demonstrate competence in coding or writing. The markers will use their academic judgement to determine how much you have met the learning outcomes of the module, taking any use of generative AI into account.

Academic Misconduct

Your work should be written and presented by you, in your own words. This includes source code for software development projects. You can of course make use of code libraries, plugins, APIs and other software services, provided you correctly acknowledge and reference them. The penalties for academic misconduct are severe (see Appendix L in the Code of Practice on Assessment).

The best way to demonstrate that your work is genuinely your own is to meet with your supervisor regularly and show your progress. This way, they can see the development of your original ideas, be aware of the problems you encountered, and understand how your code is put together. It's a good idea to turn up to supervision meetings with your laptop (or screen share online) so you can show what you've been working on. When writing the dissertation, acknowledge any code libraries that were not developed by you, and understand how to properly cite and reference text that was written by somebody else.