Table of contents
How to use this handbook
This year we’ve made the decision to split the handbook in two. This page will contain the quick-start guide which gives a high-level overview of the individual project unit. We recommend that you read this in detail and refer back to this over the year.
The other half of the unit handbook can be found on the Q&A tab and contains detailed questions and answers regarding the unit listed alphabetically by topic. We do not suggest reading this in full, rather use the search function of the website to find out what you need.
Principles and Independent Learning Objectives (ILOs)
You should bear in mind the following three principles whilst completing your project:
- You will be performing self-directed, independent work. You are responsible for every part of the project from planning, execution and submission. It is your project.
- You will be working on an in-depth, challenging project. Your supervisor will ensure that the project is appropriate and relevant.
- You will need to demonstrate the ILOs which have been designed to match graduate Computer Science Jobs:
- Demonstrate understanding of research-level material
- Identify a well-motivated, scientifically interesting challenge.
- Engage in a suitable approach to solving said challenge.
- Critically evaluate your solution in a suitable manner.
- Present your results in written and verbal form.
- Manage your own time, and decide your own objectives.
Overall Timeline
The projects unit will run in three phases:
- TB1 You will find a supervisor and specify a project.
- TB2 You will execute your project and write up a dissertation.
- Summer Assessment Period We will assess your project by reading the dissertation and holding an oral exam (viva).
You can find a full up to date list of the schedule of the unit on the main hub
Teaching Block 1
During teaching block 1 we will hold online Q&As where you can ask questions regarding how to complete this unit. We will create and advertise padlets to ask questions.
Finding a Project
Supervisors will release a spreadsheet containing a list of projects that they are interested in supervising. This is a non-exhaustive list, but a starting point to generate ideas.
We will additionally hold a project matching session where you can talk and discuss potential projects with your supervisor.
You are free to try and find supervisors from the start of TB1, but most students wait until the spreadsheet of projects is released. It is a good idea beforehand to think about the type, area, and potential supervisors beforehand to guide your choices. Some prompts that might help you:
- What areas/units have you most enjoyed during your time in university?
- What units did you do well in?
- What lecturer(s) would you like to work with?
- Are there areas in Computer Science that you haven’t worked on but want to?
There may be some reasons why a project isn’t in your best interest to work on, which is worth discussing with your supervisor beforehand:
- The project requires pre-requisite units that you have not completed.
- The project is unusually difficult and your academic track record is not good enough to achieve the mark you desire.
- The project is unusually easy and your academic track record is good enough that a more challenging project would get you a higher mark.
- The project is not within the supervisor’s area of expertise so they won’t be able to provide the best support.
- The supervisor believes the project you want to work on is not feasible/has too much scope to fit within an individual project.
Types of Projects
We see a veriety of different proejct ideas, there is never a ‘normal’ project as these are unique and individualistic. However, we see that projects tend to fit into one or more of the following four areas:
- Enterprise: Aims to develop and/or evaluate a product or service for a specific end user category.
- Research: Aims to make a scientific contribution to the body of Computer Science knowledge.
- Theory: Aims to make a contribution to a theoretical (usually mathematical) area of Computer Science.
- Development: Aims to test the student’s ability as a software developer and the project could be added to their portfolio afterwards.
Note that Enterprise, Research, and Theory projects are considered equally challenging: they require aim to improve on something that is already ‘out there’. On the other hand, development projects are focused purely on ability to code up a solution. Because of this, development projects are more suited towards students on the BSc than those on the MEng and/or those not aiming for a first class mark on their project. This is not to say that a development project cannot achieve a first class mark, just that there will need to be significant technical challenges to overcome, excellent write-up, or other exemplary areas of the project.
When choosing a project, it is best to talk with your (potential) supervisor over the type(s) of project you are interested in and what you want to focus on.
Project Ethics
All projects will need an ethics statement at the beginning of the dissertation, and all projects will fall into one of three categories:
- Projects that do not require ethical approval because they do not collect or process any relevant data.
- Projects that can be reviewed by your supervisor under “Ethics Appliction 0026”, because they are judged to be low ethical risk.
- Projects that require full ethical review by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee (FREC).
We will provide ethical training with a mandatory test to ensure that you’ve understood what is permitted under each of the above categories. The test allows multiple attempts and will be released in TB1 alongside the training.
Confirming a Project
We will need you to confirm a project on week 8 of TB1. This will involve agreeing with a supervisor a project name and rough description of the project. You will also have to have passed the ethics quiz before you can confirm a project. The ethics quiz is on the front page of your Unit Blackboard.
Teaching Block 2
During Teaching block 2 you will spend the majority of your time completing your project. There will be an additional Q&A session at the beginning of the second teaching block, but otherwise contact time will mostly be between you and your supervisor.
Other activities during this term will include:
- Writing Workshops
- Library Workshops
- Poster Workshops
As always, see the schedule for up-to-date information.
Completing your Project
Your supervisor is expected to meet you for at least 1 hour every 2 weeks (or 0.5 hour every week) during teaching block 2. This is a chance to ask questions and get guidance throughout the project, they will not solve your project for you, and there won’t be time for them to do this. Do not expect more than a “let’s discuss at the next meeting” as a response from your supervisor outside of your normal meeting time.
Time Management
You should plan for 12 weeks with 40-hour work weeks for all your work in the Teaching Block - your project, your other unit(s) and the innovation case if in Year 4 - though with everything at University you can choose to break this up however you wish. You should not plan to work every day in TB2, doing so will likely leave you falling behind.
Importantly, you should plan for disruptions which could be illnesses, job interviews, computer issues, etc.
Minimum Viable Product
When planning your project you should define a minimum viable product(MVP). This should be enough to pass the unit that you will be able to complete on time after around half of your alotted time and should be discussed with your supervisor when confirming your project.
If your project is harder than expected, then you have the MVP to fall back on, otherwise you can add extra features to the MVP to increase the challenge of your project.
You should be constantly reviewing your progress during TB2, for yourself and for your supervisor. If you think you cannot finish the MVP you should let your supervisor know immediately.
Mental Health
Your mental health is important, and the university will support you with it wherever it can.
Your main contacts for mental health support are:
- The Wellbeing Service, which you can contact at wellbeing-access@bristol.ac.uk
- Your GP, for example at the student health service.
- Other university services and resources, that you can find for example at http://www.bristol.ac.uk/students/support/wellbeing.
Your project supervisor and personal tutor can help you on the academic side, but they are not trained health professionals.
It is important not to overwork yourself, you will not do better work just by working longer hours, think of the project as a marathon - not a sprint.
If you notice your health (mental or physical) getting worse, or you are falling behind schedule, or you are worried that your thesis will not be complete on time, then you must speak to your project supervisor or Senior Tutor as soon as possible. If something has affected you before the Easter break, then we need to know before Easter; if something has been affecting you in previous years then you should mention it before you start your project.
Project Poster Day
Every year in week 22 we hold the Project Poster day. This is a chance for you to present your work to the student body at the University. This will also be an opportunity to discuss your project with your second marker and get some feedback whilst you are currently writing up.
Whilst the poster day is optional, we highly recommend you attend, this is a chance to integrate outside feedback into your project and a chance to show off the incredible work that you have been doing.
Writing your Dissertation
At the end of the project you will hand in your dissertation, which is a write-up of your project including how it fits into the literature, project execution, and results. Only the dissertation and viva are marked, so you may have completed an amazing project, but with a poor dissertation you can still fail the project.
We provide templates in LaTeX and Word for the dissertation for you to use, and strongly recommend the LaTeX template due to issues with Word and large files. If you want to use a different template (not recommended), get in contact with us as soon as possible as there are some formatting requirements - failure to follow these could result in failing the project unit.
Assessment
Normally, you would submit your project in week 24. Submission consists of your dissertation (compulsory) and any auxiliary material (e.g. code), note that the submission is digital only.
Your project will be marked by your supervisor (known as the first marker) and a second marker who isn’t involved with the project. The second supervisor will be the one you meet at the Project Poster Day and will hold the viva with you.
Marking Process
Both your markers will come up with mark suggestions independently. They will do so from reading the thesis and watching/conducting your viva.
Once both mark suggestions have been submitted, these will be shared and then both markers will agree on a final mark for the project.
At this stage, feedback for the project will be collated from both markers.
In the (very) rare case that both markers cannot agree on a final mark, a third backup marker will be brought in to contribute to the discussion.
Viva (Oral Exam)
The second supervisor will hold your viva which for all purposes is an oral exam. This means that attendance is mandatory and you will fail the unit if you are not present.
The viva has several purposes:
- To showcase parts of the project which cannot (easily) be incoporated into the dissertation.
- To get assurance that you have done the work yourself.
- To discuss any mistakes or omissions within the dissertation.
- To correct any misunderstandings the second marker may have had about the work.
- To explore your understanding of the project area.
The viva is not a separate marked component, rather it will factor into your final mark, though you can treat it as worth 5-10% of your overall mark. You should prepare for the viva, but there is no need to lose nights sleeping over it. In most cases, the viva clarifies and reinforces the second marker’s initial impressions of the project rather than changing it completely.
Mark Scheme
How your project is assessed will depend on many specific factors, including the type of degree it is for (BSc, MEng), the type of project (enterprise, research, theory, development etc.), and what achievements you claim in your thesis. For example if you tell us in your thesis that the usability of the software you developed is your most important achievement, your markers will most likely weight usability higher than other criteria.
However, your project will generally be marked along four pillars:
- Challenge and Achievement
- Technical Approach
- Critical Interpretation
- Report Presentation
These pillars don’t represent individual marks that get aggregated, but are guidelines to showcase where a project may lie.
| Challenge and Achievement | Technical Approach | Critical Interpretation | Report Presentation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80-100 | * Ambitious, challenging project that achieves all of its aims * Could form basis for an academic paper or commercial product * Quality consistent with early career PhD student/high ranking employee * Substantial volume of self directed work * Goes significantly beyond the scope of the degree program * Could be used as a clear example of a model project | * Your project’s findings represent or advance state-of-the-art * Methodology, tools, and techniques are well motivated and employed correctly throughout * Approaches are well motivated and alternatives considered when appropriate * Very strong command of the relevant tools and techniques with clear evidence * Technical material is handled in a clear and convincing fashion throughout | * Extremely well-designed and well-executed comprehensive evaluation * Metrics and techniques are appropriate and generate interesting conclusions * Strong reasoning behind conclusions, supported by effective analysis * Sophisticated and deep critical appraisal that aligns with aims and literature * An appreciation of the relevance of the results for future work | * The dissertation is clear, accurate and engaging * Quality of the presentation is extremely high * Very few, if any, problems with spelling/grammar * Visualisations are creative, effective, and developed by the student * High visual consistency of all visualisations throughout * Literature review is strong, relevant, and extensive * Appropriate prior work is properly cited * Chosen prior work shows strong understanding of the wider context * The student can answer questions on their topic without significant prompts |
| 70-79 | * Ambitious, challenging project that achieves all of its aims * Could be further developed into an academic paper or commercial product * Large volume of self-directed work with limited guidance from supervisor * Goes beyond the scope of the degree program * Could be used as a clear example of a very successful project | * The project’s findings are useful * Methodology, tools and techniques are appropriate with some motivation * Some motivation and consideration of alternative approaches * Solid command of relevant tools and techniques, with evidence * Technical material is handled in a clear and convincing fashion * Fixing any technical problems would require minor effort | * A suitably well designed and executed evaluation * Metrics and techniques are appropriate and generate sensible conclusions * Conclusions are supported by argument and evidence * Sophisticated critical appraisal that aligns well with the project aims * Identifies relevant future work and open problems | * The dissertation is mostly clear, accurate, and engaging * Quality of presentation is high * Few spelling/grammar mistakes * Visualisation and illustration is effective throughout the dissertation * Appropriate prior work is properly cited * Chosen prior work shows good understanding of the wider context * The student can answer questions on their topic without significant prompts |
| 60-69 | * A reasonably challenging project that achieves almost all of its aims * Some self directed work with significant supervisor input * Remains mostly within the scope of the degree program * Could be used as an example of a good project | * The project’s findings are somewhat useful * Methodology, tools and techniques are employed appropriately for the most part * Some motivation and consideration of alternative approaches * There is some evidence of appropriate use of tools and techniques * Technical material is mostly handled in a clear and convincing fashion * Fixing any technical problems wouldn’t require a re-design | * Some evaluation, that is mostly or wholly suitably designed and executed * Metrics and techniques are appropriate and conclusions generated are consistent * The evaluation presents a critical appraisal and somewhat aligned with project aims * The evaluation contains some consideration of future work or relevant open problems | * The dissertation is easy to understand * The presentation quality is good * Few spelling/grammar mistakes * Visualisation and illustration of reasonable quality * Prior work is properly cited * Chosen prior work shows some understanding of the wider context * The student can answer basic questions without significant prompts |
| 50-59 | * A somewhat challenging project that failed to achieve some of its aims * An adequate volume of work but mostly supervisor directed * The scope remains mostly or wholly within the degree program | * The project findings have some value, even if they mainly replicate existing work * Tools and techniques are reasonable but could have been used more effectively in places * Little consideration for motivating the choice of tools or alternative approaches * Methodology is somewhat ad-hoc or unsystematic in places * Some lack of command of the tools and techniques employed in places * Technical material is sometimes handled in an incorrect or unconvincing fashion * Fixing technical problems would require a small re-design | * Some evaluation, but it may be poorly designed or executed * Metrics and techniques may not be appropriate or generate only limited conclusions * The critical appraisal may be shallow or not well aligned with the project aims * Little or no useful consideration of future work or relevant open problems | * The dissertation is understandable but may be unclear in places * The presentation quality is satisfactory but may have some big issues * Visualisation and illustration may not be used effectively * Prior work is sometimes incorrectly cited * Chosen prior work misses some key works * The student cannot answer basic questions without significant prompts |
| 40-49 | * Little challenge, some progress made but failed to achieve main aims * An inadequate volume of work, mostly/wholly supervisor directed * Scope entirely within scope of degree or aligns poorly with Comp. Sci. | * The project findings are of little value, for example they fail to replicate existing work * Tools and techniques are mis-applied or not always appropriate * Little consideration if any of the choice of tools or alternatives * Methodology is ad-hoc or unsystematic in places * Some lack of the command of tools and techniques employed * Technical material is handled unconvincingly or incorrectly * Fixing technical problems would require a substantial effort/re-design | * Very little evaluation - poorly designed or executed * Metrics and techniques may not be appropriate, with no or very limited useful conclusions * The appraisal may be shallow or only partially applicable to the project aims * Little or no useful consideration of future work or relevant open problems | * The dissertation is hard to read in certain areas * Presentation is weak, key concepts cannot be understood * Visualisation is absent, ineffective, or visually inconsistent * Very little prior work cited, sometimes incorrectly * Chosen prior work misses key works * The student cannot answer basic questions without prompts or at all |
| 0-39 | * Trivial challenge with very little progress towards aims * Inadequate volume of work with little self direction * Scope entirely within scope of degree or aligns poorly with Comp. Sci. | * The project findings have no value, or almost no value * Tools and techniques are mis-applied, or not appropriate * Little or no consideration of the choice of tools, or of alternatives * Methodology is unsystematic or absent throughout * Evidence of a profound lack of command of the tools and techniques employed * Technical material is handled incorrectly or unconvincingly throughout * Fixing technical problems would require restarting the project | * Evaluation is superficial, incoherent or completely absent * Little or no useful conclusions are reached * Very little to no critical appraisal | * The dissertation is frequently very difficult to understand * Presentation is poor, the reader cannot understand discussion points * Visualisation is either absent or confusing offering no help * Very little prior work cited and/or frequently cited incorrectly * Chosen prior work shows misunderstanding of wider context * The student cannot answer basic questions at all * Unclear if the student has done any work on the topic at all |
Academic Integrity and Plagiarism
We expect all final year students to be familiar with and correctly follow the university’s rules on academic integrity and plagiarism. Please read the University pages on Academic Integrity, including the 3 linked pages on plagiarism, collusion and contract cheating, including ‘AI’ tools.
You are expected to complete online academic integrity training - find this on the Academic Integrity: School of Computer Science 2023 site on Blackboard.
Plagiarism is an offence and can lead to a punishment even if you were unfamiliar with the rules or made an honest mistake.
We will check for academic integrity and plagiarism in three ways:
- We run all dissertations through TurnItIn to check that work submitted is your own or correctly referenced.
- Your supervisor (who is your first marker) is the subject expert and will know text that is not correctly referenced.
- . If you cannot explain basic parts of your dissertation within the viva then you are likely to be investigated further.
A note on AI within Submissions
The Faculty position is that if you use ‘AI’ tools (such as ChatGPT, CoPilot, DeepL translation tools etc, you should cite all uses in your report. The full information is in the single page Faculty guidance, which you should read (you must be signed into Blackboard to access it, and can also access it if you scroll down to Academic Integrity in the Blackboard CS student handbook.
If you’re interested in the University policies on ‘AI’ tools and the reasoning behind them, including some of the risks, read the new Study Skills Resource.
The Innovation Case
This section only concerns students on the 4 year degree programmes (COMSM0052 and COMSM0142), all other students can stop reading now!
If you are on the MEng degree, you will submit an innovation case (worth 5 CP) if you are on COMSM0052 or perform an oral presentation (worth 4CP of the unit).
Regardless of the format, these supplemental assessments are designed to understand and express how your skills and knowledge can make a positive and valuable difference in the world. You will develop an argument for the relevance and significance of Computer Science work in your research project area for an external audience. You will have separate sessions within your timetable which will guide you through the process and how to present your work in such a style.