Computing Project - SCC

Module Handbook
Computing (SCC)
Level 6

SCC Computing Project – July 2023

 Contents

Section A: Module Overview .................................................................................................................. 3

Section B: Project Selection & Supervision ............................................................................................. 5
Section C: Project Structure .................................................................................................................... 6
Section D: Submission ........................................................................................................................... 12
Section E: Recommended Reading & Resources .................................................................................. 14

2
Section A: Module Overview

Programme/Module Lead for Computing: Chris Maguire mailto:[email protected]

Level: 6

Credits: 40

Learning Hours: 400

Aims

Employers are looking for graduates who can demonstrate their skills through taking on
projects and who understand the workflows and methodologies employed by computing
professionals.

This module aims to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate to employers the
knowledge and skills you have developed whilst at university and your ability to undertake a
substantial piece of project work within the Computing field. Where appropriate, you may
choose to align your project within your current workplace context. Alternatively, you may
choose a project that aligns with your future study or career ambitions as a showcase of your
abilities.

The project will involve the design, implementation, development, and testing of a computing
artefact to the prototype stage as a minimum, to achieve clearly defined objectives. It will also
require you to undertake and demonstrate project planning, including creating a clear
rationale, performing risk analysis and appropriate project scoping.

Throughout the project, you will be required to demonstrate the ability to work independently,
demonstrating initiative and professionalism, following the necessary professional and ethical
standards.

You will be allocated to a supervisor in your chosen Computing field who will mentor and
advise you throughout the duration of your project.

To achieve the module learning outcomes, you are required to produce:

• A project proposal
(Marked as either a pass or fail)

• A project portfolio (consisting of a report and software artefact)

10,000 words - worth 100% of the final overall grade.

3
Module Learning Outcomes

On successful completion of this module, you will be able to:

1. Evaluate a Computing related problem and select an appropriate approach to resolve that
problem.

2. Demonstrate expertise in the Computing subject area that showcases your technical,
transferable and project management skills and the ability to undertake a Computing
related project from initial concept to design, implementation, and evaluation.

3. Demonstrate your ability to undertake advanced research in the Computing subject area.

4. Critically evaluate the work done and the methods employed.

Graduate attributes

5. Reflective Practitioner: Undertake critical analysis and reach reasoned and evidenced
decisions, contribute problem-solving skills to find and innovate in solutions.

Module Delivery

The module will be delivered via the Virtual Learning Environment, through workshops that
focus on concepts, theories, and processes plus individual support from your designated
supervisor, who will agree a schedule with you and agrees landmarks and objectives. This is
intended to motivate you and ensure that you can monitor your own progress. Within this
structure the emphasis will be on applying knowledge in practical tasks and ensuring that
you receive ongoing feedback. You will be expected to attend all scheduled workshops.

You will be undertaking a significant Computing related project (on a topic of your choice)
consisting of two main phases. As well as showcasing your technical skills, this also allows
you to demonstrate your ability to plan, implement and design a successful project.

Phase 1: Project Proposal

This is a gatekeeper document i.e. The proposal does not carry any weighting at this stage,
but your content will inform your main report. Your initial proposal must be approved by your
supervisor and module lead before you can proceed with your project.

As part of the proposal, you must consider the Arden ethical guidelines and apply for ethical
approval (this must be in place before any data collection begins). Once ethical permission
has been approved and signed off, you can proceed with Phase 2 of the project.
Note: you will not be able to submit your final project report to the portal without having
completed this phase. In the event of not gaining approval, you will be required to re-design
and resubmit your plan based on your supervisor’s recommendations.

Phase 2: The Project

The Project report with a final deliverable due at the end of the module. This accounts for
100% of the total mark.

4
Section B: Project Selection & Supervision
You will first need to identify and select a suitable project. The final project proposal must be
agreed by your supervisor, the module leader and REC (the Research Ethics Committee)
before you can begin. Your project idea must meet the following criteria:

• It can be completed within an appropriate time frame.

• Access to any specific hardware/software has been considered.

• It is sufficiently challenging (but not impossible to complete).

• It makes use of (and builds upon) the skills and knowledge gained through your
previous Computing modules.

• Is original in nature (e.g., not just re-using existing assessment submissions from
previous modules)

• It satisfies all the ethical requirements as set out by Arden University.

Project Supervision

Once you have registered and submitted an appropriate working title through the Arden
Ethics Portal (https://ethics.arden.ac.uk/ ) you will be allocated a project supervisor who will
provide you with support throughout the duration of your project. This will include:

• Monitoring and ensuring your progress towards your objectives

• Providing academic and technical guidance and answering general project queries

• Encouraging you to keep appropriate records of actions/progress, such as reference

sources, designs, and contact logs

• Providing guided feedback on your project elements (proposal and final draft)

A successful project requires significant thought and preparation. This is not a ‘taught’ module
where we are delivering and assessing a fixed body of knowledge. This is an activity that is
yours, and for you alone, to progress and be responsible for, with some advice from your
supervisor acting as a guide and facilitator.

Your supervisor will provide you with feedback as to the project’s viability and discuss with you
any amendments that need to be made before you can proceed. For this to happen you
should ensure that you have contacted your supervisor within the FIRST week of being
allocated (your Module Leader will email you to confirm your supervisor).

Your supervisor will discuss specific details of how the working relationship will be
implemented in practice. This is an ideal time to raise any concerns about the development
of your initial proposal and how the project will proceed.

5
Section C: Project Structure
Your project will consist of THREE parts: a project proposal, a project report, and your
software artefact.

Proposal (1500 words or equivalent)

The project proposal will need to address the following points before your project can be
approved:

• Overview/Rationale - an overview of your project and the reason for undertaking

this e.g., is it attempting to solve a problem? Is it aimed at a particular set of users?

• Aim - the aim is a statement of intent that should state what you plan to achieve with
the project overall (but not how you will do it)

• Project Objectives - the objectives define how you are going to achieve your aim.
Objectives should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Resourced and Time-limited
(SMART). Information on developing SMART objectives can be found on iLearn.

• Potential Solutions - provide an overview of your proposed solution(s) and artefact.

• Risk Assessment – you should provide a summary of:

o Potential issues that could arise with your project and possible impact.

o Appropriate measures that you can implement to mitigate any risks.

o Any ethical considerations

• Project Methodologies – Identify suitable development methodologies for your

project. Provide a clear rationale and justification for your choice of methodology.

• Project Plan –propose a draft plan of work for the project. All necessary project
tasks should be identified along with a realistic timescale. This should be presented
as a GANTT chart.

Main Project Report (10,000 Words or equivalent)

The project report should include the following sections:

• Introduction - covers the background to the project, details the chosen topic,
discusses rationale, relevance to the field of computing plus the aim and objectives.

• Requirements Gathering - This should analyse and document the functional, non-
functional and security requirements for your artefact. The requirements should be
fully and appropriately documented, actionable, measurable, and testable.

• Proposed Solution- a model for your solution. Designs should be annotated with
explanations where appropriate. The design should cover your artefact from all
perspectives including usability and accessibility.

6
 • Implementation - provide a detailed account of the implementation of the project
(including any coding where appropriate) and use of software tools to develop your
artefact. You should also discuss any problems you have had to overcome during
the implementation. A descriptive approach will not achieve any more than a pass -
instead, you should aim to critically reflect on how your chosen development
methodology has impacted on the artefact and how the design and development has
been influenced by supporting literature and subsequent testing where appropriate.

• Testing - provide a detailed and comprehensive test plan covering a full range of
appropriate tests for your artefact. This can include unit and functional testing (e.g.,
testing against your functional and non-functional requirements). Provide test data
and an analysis of the results. You should highlight how the testing process identifies
problems and the resolutions in place to overcome these. You can also make
suitable recommendations for improvements to the artefact based on test results.

• Ethics – discuss any ethical issues relating to your project that you have identified
and how they were addressed.

• Conclusion – a discussion of the outcomes of your project. This should highlight

where the project has met/failed in its objectives. You can also suggest
recommendations for further development and areas of possible investigation in
future.

• Reflection – this should be an account of what you have achieved during the project,
including lessons that were learned, any mistakes and anything you would do
differently in future projects.

• References & Appendices – Include references for all articles that you have used
during your project. The appendices section should be used for supporting material
unsuitable for the main body of the report (e.g., large datasets or sections of code).

Formative Feedback
To make sure you are on the right track throughout the writing and development process you
will share chapters with your supervisor allowing for formative feedback opportunities, which
will help the final submission to take shape (one review per chapter, plus one overall review
of the final draft).

You will also have opportunities to discuss your progress in developing your artefact. You
should ensure that you fully engage with the opportunities provided for feedback and
communicate regularly with your supervisor, providing chapters for review on a regular
basis.

7
 Marking Scheme
0 – 29% 30 – 39% 40 – 49% 50 – 59% 60 – 69% 70 – 79% 80%+

Element Weighting
 
Project 15% No aim and no Weak aim and Basic aim and A clear aim and Aim and rationale are Clear aim and rationale Exemplary aim and
rationale. rationale lacking rationale, but these rationale, but with clearly outlined, but with justification. Only rationale, clear and
Management
relevance. lack either clarity, scope for more minor improvements minor improvements relevant.
/Background Little or no evidence of relevance, or depth. development in possible in relevance or possible in one area.
planning or project Some evidence of relevance or depth. depth. Comprehensive
- Aim/rationale management. planning, but several Evidence of a basic Professional planning planning that has been
key areas are either level of planning, but Substantial planning, Detailed planning that that has been successfully executed.
Objectives have not missing or not fully details may be vague but some areas may addresses all key areas successfully executed -
- Project Plan been met. addressed. or there are flaws in still lack clarity. clearly. Improvements only minor Challenging objectives
the chosen approach. still possible in improvements which have all been
- Objectives Little or no evidence of Basic objectives have Suitable objectives approach. possible. met and exceeded in
project management been partially met. Suitable objectives, with the majority of some cases.
techniques being used although these may these being achieved. Suitable objectives Challenging objectives
- Gantt successfully. Few project not have all been which have all been that have all been met. Evidence of multiple
Chart/Work management achieved. Many suitable project achieved. professional level
Plan Gantt chart/work plan techniques used management A range of suitable project management
absent or unusable. successfully. Some suitable project techniques have been Multiple suitable project management techniques being used
management attempted. project management techniques successfully
- Project Logs No project logs. Gantt chart/work plan techniques evident. techniques used implemented and throughout.
(Arden Ethics) incomplete or Gantt chart/work plan successfully. clearly evidenced.
unsuitable. Gantt chart/work plan is adequate but lacks Gantt chart/work plan
is usable but lacks detail in a few areas. Gantt chart/work plan Gantt chart/work plan is of a professional
Very few logs. Details detail in many areas. is clear but lacks detail includes all details. standard including
are vague and do not Semi-regular logs that in one area. There may be some advanced features.
fully reflect the Some evidence of logs, document at least the attempt at advanced
supervisor meetings. but these are not key stages of the Regular logs that features. Useful, highly detailed,
regular and do not fully project. document most of the and complete project
reflect supervisor project. Useful, detailed, and logs accurately
meetings. regular project logs reflecting the
that reflect the project supervisor meetings.
process with scope for
only minor
improvements.

SCC Computing Project – July 2023

Design 20% Methodologies absent Little evidence or Some consideration of Appropriate Well planned and Entirely appropriate Comprehensive use of
or severely lacking in consideration of methodologies, but methodologies selected selection of appropriate
detail. suitable lacking depth and with considered and methodologies, only methodologies. professional
- Methodologies methodologies. multiple flaws. discussed, but there minor improvements methodologies.
No identification or may be flaws in the possible. Coverage of all
- User discussion of potential Little identification or Some identification chosen approach. potential limitations, Major limitations have
limitations or discussion of potential and discussion of Discussion of potential alternative solutions been fully identified
Requirements
alternative approaches. limitations or potential limitations or Discussion of potential limitations or are discussed. with appropriate ways
alternative approaches. alternative approaches limitations or alternative approaches of overcoming them
No evidence of but this is limited. alternative approaches covers almost all Multiple alternative identified.
appropriate design Little evidence of in key areas, but there requirements, with solutions discussed.
techniques/tools. appropriate design Some evidence of may be some gaps. only minor flaws. Multiple, viable
techniques/tools. appropriate design Clear evidence of alternative solutions
No user requirements techniques/tools, but Evidence of Clear evidence of appropriate design discussed.
identified. Minimal attempt to not at the depth appropriate design appropriate design techniques/tools,
identify user required for a project. techniques/tools, but techniques/tools, but applied to good effect. Sophisticated and
requirements. detail lacking in some the application of appropriate design
A basic attempt to areas. these could still be All necessary user techniques/tools
identify user improved. requirements implemented to a
requirements, but not User requirements identified. professional standard.
at the level of detail for identified, but some of A wide range of user
an effective design. these may be requirements All user requirements
superficial. identified effectively, identified which cater
with minor for a range of diverse
improvements users.
possible.
Implementation 30% Basic artefact that is Simple artefact An artefact has been A competent artefact An artefact has been A suitable artefact has An exceptional and
non-functional or produced but has produced but this has has been produced but produced that is been produced that is sophisticated artefact
- Quality of
extremely limited – not major flaws and very functionality issues and there may be technical almost fully functional, fully functional and produced to a
Artefact even at a prototype limited functionality. lacks technical issues preventing full with only minor issues. demonstrates high commercial standard.
stage. complexity or has functionality and some technical competence.
- Evidence of Very limited critical serious flaws. flaws in execution. Comprehensive critical Meets all functional,
No critical reflection on reflection of design reflection of design Deep critical reflection non-functional and
Implementation
use of design methodologies. Some critical reflection Clear critical reflection methodologies, with of design security requirements.
methodologies to of design of design only minor methodologies, with
- Critical inform development. methodologies, but methodologies, with improvements only minor Deep reflection on how
Reflection mostly superficial. only some areas possible. improvements the artefact has been
lacking depth. possible. informed by
appropriate supporting
data.

9
Evaluation 25% Test plan is absent or Basic test plan Test plan presented A clear test plan A well-documented A test plan that covers Provides a
lacking the detail to be presented, but highly but missing at least half covering most areas, test plan that covers all the requirements comprehensive,
- Test Plan
usable. flawed and lacking in the necessary details but some tests may be almost all areas. Minor and is appropriate for professional test plan
most areas. for effective testing. missing or lacking errors or omissions or testing the project that contains a full
- Conclusion Little or no evidence of clarity. limited in scope. artefact. range of appropriate
suitable test method(s) Few suitable test Basic test methods tests for the artefact.
being implemented. methods, with very implemented with Test methods have Multiple, suitable test Multiple, suitable test
- Reflection
limited evidence of some evidence of this been used well, but methods used. There methods used with Includes multiple test
Little or no evaluation their use. presented. there may be several may be some errors in clear evidence. Only methods with suitable
of the project. errors in the the application of minor enhancements test data and a
Only a superficial A partial project application or these. possible. thorough evaluation of
No recommendations evaluation of the evaluation is documentation of the project.
for improvements. project is presented. presented, but with these. A clear project A clear, well-structured
much room for evaluation is evaluation covering all Highlights all problems
A few improvement. A project evaluation is presented, covering the areas. revealed by testing,
recommendations but presented, covering almost all project and how these were
these are not based on Some suitable most project areas but areas. overcome with fully
evidence. recommendations, but may be lacking depth A range of clear, well appropriate
these not fully in parts. Multiple, considered considered professional
supported by any recommendations that recommendations that recommendations for
evidence. Many suitable are justified and are fully justified and improvement.
recommendations, supported by clear supported with clear
justified and supported evidence. evidence.
by evidence.
Report 10% Contains errors Some structure is A basic structure is A workable structure A suitable structure A near professional A professional standard
throughout, making evident, but contains evident, but contains that meets the basic that communicates standard of of communication is
Structure/
most of the work errors throughout, errors in some parts, requirements of a most of the project communication is evident throughout the
Professionalism difficult to follow. making at least half of making many sections project report but has work. Issues in evident, with only work.
the report difficult to of the report difficult areas for improvement grammar/presentation minor areas of
- Structure References are absent, follow. to follow. in several areas. may be present in improvement possible. Fully referenced in
unsuitable, or some areas. accordance with AU
incomplete, with no Most references are Many references are Most references are Fully referenced in Harvard standards with
- Referencing adherence to AU absent or incomplete, absent or incomplete, correctly cited, but not Almost fully referenced accordance with AU an outstanding
Harvard standards. with little adherence to but some adherence to fully in compliance in accordance with AU Harvard standards. selection of relevant
AU Harvard standards. AU Harvard standards with AU Harvard Harvard standards. Minor improvements reference sources.
Majority of sources has been shown. Many standards. Not all Minor improvements possible in selection of
dated or irrelevant. sources dated or sources are high possible in citations reference sources. Worthy of publication.
irrelevant. quality or relevant. and selection of
reference sources.

10
 Register on Arden Ethics Portal (https://ethics.arden.ac.uk/)

All students must register to start the project process (timescale: as soon as module is released)

Submit Overview and Working Title

A brief summary of your intended project (timescale: once you have registered on Arden Ethics and have your initial project idea)

Supervisor Allocated (once Working Title is approved)

Student works with supervisor over the duration of the project (timescale: make contact as soon supervisor is appointed)

Proposal submitted

Not assessed, but acts as a 'gatekeeper' document (timescale: once supervisor has seen a draft and you have acted upon their feedback)

Project commences

Must be approved by supervisor, module lead and REC via the Ethics system before any data collection can begin (timescale: as soon as proposal approved)

Distance Learners ONLY: Intent to Submit made (timescale: 6 weeks before your planned submission date)

Project Submitted (timescale: check your submission window - you cannot submit without ethical approval)

Figure 1 - Computing Project Process

11
Section D: Submission
It is very important that your supervisor is allowed sufficient time for the reading of drafts, as they also supervise other students and may well teach
on several modules. You MUST NOT EXPECT your supervisor to read work instantly when a deadline is approaching. Ideally, a full draft should be
sent a month before the relevant deadline to allow time for changes and amendments - subject of course, to the supervisor’s schedule.

Submission Arrangements:

When you are ready to submit your project work for marking, you will be required to upload an electronic copy of your project report to the portal on
iLearn. There is no requirement to submit a hard copy of your work.

Your Artefact must also be uploaded to the School of Computing Web Server at the end of your project.

Submission Format

Your project should be presented professionally, in the following format, following the suggested structure outlined in section C:

• A4 layout using double line spacing. The recommended font is Arial, size 12 for the main content and depreciating font sizes for sub-
headers and headers etc.

• All text should be justified, so that it is straight edged (like a book).

• Any pages preceding those of the main text should be numbered at the centre of the foot of each page.

• Make sure that your project report reads well. Keep paragraphs short and use appropriate headings. Pay particular attention to grammar
and sentence construction. Keep content clear, to the point and jargon free.

• Figures and Tables should be clearly labelled, referenced sequentially as they appear in the text and produced via software packages.
These should either be placed on a separate page or within the text (but as close to the text at which it is referred to). Where appropriate,
acknowledgement of the source should be presented on the page beneath the Figure/Table.

• Make sure that you include an automated Contents Page using appropriate and correct numbering.

12
Re-submissions

• The project may only be resubmitted once the grade has been confirmed by the External Examiner.

• Project resubmissions must be received no more than twelve months after the date of communication of the original result.

13
Section E: Recommended Reading & Resources

Key Text
Dawson, C.W. (2015) Projects in computing and information systems: a student’s guide. Third edition. Pearson. Available at:
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat08629a&AN=alc.EDZ0002398620&site=eds-live (Accessed: 4 October 2022) .

Other:
Greetham, B. (2019) How to Write Your Undergraduate Dissertation. Red Globe Press.
Wysocki, R. (2019) Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme, Hybrid. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley. Available at:
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=nlebk&AN=2099564&site=eds-live (Accessed: 4 October 2022).

Academic journals:
The British Computer Society, http://www1.bcs.org.uk/
The Institution of Electrical Engineers (IEE), http://www.iee.org.uk
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Computer Society, http://www.computer.org
The Association of Computing Machinery (ACM), http://www.acm.org

Arden Library Resources

Home page | Arden Library

Arden Library (subject guides)
A-Z list of databases | Arden Library
Arden University — BrowZine (academic journals)

Arden Library (academic skills support)

14