ECM3401 – Individual Literature Review and Project

Assessment Specification
2023-24

Introduction
This document contains all of the information about assessment for ECM3401. The module comprises
two assessments, which are described herein.

Important Dates
You must submit your work to ELE2 by 12pm on the dates shown below:

Literature review & project specification 22nd November 2023

Final project & code 1st May 2024
Video uploaded to OneDrive 1st May 2024

Table 1: Submission deadlines.

Please ensure that you read and understand this entire document – if you have questions, please
ask your project supervisor in the first instance, or email the module leader (Dr David Walker,
D.J.Walker2@exeter.ac.uk).
Part 2: Final project & code
The lecture slides about final report preparation and also the submission guidance are
available in the ‘Lectures’ tile.

A 20-page document describing the design, implementation, testing and evaluation of your project, to-
gether with suggestions for further possible improvements and a final critical assessment against your
original goals. Additional reference material, if needed, may be included in an appendix (additional
to the 20 page allowance), on the understanding that this material is not assessed.

The final report should comprise (please check the provided template tile on ELE page):

• The title page, as described above for the literature review, except that the abstract may be
up to 250 words in length.

• A table of contents, immediately following the title page.

• The body of the report, which must not exceed 20 sides of A4 in font size 11 point and with
margins of 2cm. Please use single column, single line spacing. Tables and figures could have
smaller font - 9 point.

• The bibliography, as described above for the literature review.

• Appendices (optional). These may be used to present, for example, experimental data,
UML diagrams, data-flow diagrams, user manuals, or screenshots, which you wish to include
for the sake of completeness. Note, however, that the report itself must be self-contained; the
appendices do not contribute to the assessment. Your main results and the evidence for them
must be included in the body of the report.

You must submit your work to ELE2 by the submission time stated on the first page of this document.

Please see overleaf for marking criteria.

 0-24 25-39 40-59 60-69 70-79 80-100
Project The report has Lacks structure and Contains motivation and aims Several weaknesses but, Only minor weaknesses. For example, The project is motivated such that the
specification, severe weaknesses clarity, compared to a that have weaknesses but are, overall, still conveys a clear the motivation might be weak, or the reader understands its importance and the
motivation and in motivation work in the previous in general, still motivation and aims for the aims might be vaguely defined. Overall, approach that will be taken. The aims,
aims (10%) and/or aims category. Still, there understandable. The purpose project. the content of these sections of the objectives and scope of the project should
(e.g., it fails to is some motivation of the project and a some aims report should be of a quality that they be clear, as well as how success should be
motivate and and some aims are are reasonably clear. could be published at a good workshop. judged. Overall, the motivation, context
explain the work identified. and aims should be written at a level of
at all, or does not quality such that they could be published in
articulate any a good conference or journal.
aims/objectives).
Design, The report The report contains The report describes with The report provides a The report provides a good level of The report describes in a lot of detail all
methods and presents neither very few details in some level of details the most reasonable amount of detail to details to all important aspects of the the important aspects of the project such as
implementation the project multiple elements important aspects of the all the important aspects of project such as experimental design, experimental design, methods and
(25%) design choices - (e.g., key project project design, methods and the project such as methods and implementation. All implementation. Details around the design,
including its design choices, its implementation with relevant experimental design, methods design choices are properly justified methods and implementation should be
methods or methods/ justification for the choices. and implementation details and backed up by supporting evidences. enough for a scientist in the area to
implementations implementations, the The resources are reasonably with relevant justification for All the success criteria are described accurately reproduce the presented the
- nor the success resources utilised in described. Some aspects of the the choices, including the and justified. The resources utilised in work. All design choices are properly
criteria. the project (data, success criteria were presented. success criteria. The resources the project are also very well described. justified and backed up by supporting
models, frameworks, utilised in the project are evidences. All the success criteria are
tools), justification properly described. described and justified. The resources
for the design/ utilised in the project are also very well
development choices described.
and success
measures).
Project results, No Some experimental Results/outputs are presented A report in this range presents Complete results with appropriate and Comprehensive results/outcomes with full
evaluation and results/outputs, results are included with some basic analysis. an adequate amount of results sufficient analysis. Results are and appropriate analysis and supporting
testing (25%) or very in the report and There are few contextual/ with appropriate analysis, but presented with some context for their evidence/evaluation/ testing. Results are
rudimentary very simple analysis comparative metrics, e.g. only is not comprehensive and its interpretation, which can justify the presented with appropriate context (e.g.
results/outputs, is presented, but simple baseline methods, or a quality does not reach the projects conclusions. Outcomes are comparison experiments, baselines, error
with major there are multiple lack of appropriate statistics. highest standards. It should reasonably convincing and may show bounds, user studies), which clearly and
weaknesses and weaknesses or missing Outputs are mediocre and do contain appropriate figures originality. fully justify the technical advantages of the
omissions. No elements. not fully address the aims and and tables, with suitable selected solutions. Outcomes are convincing
analysis or very objectives. Experimental context (e.g. error bars). and comprehensive representing an excellent
limited analysis. results are shown by using a Outputs are of good quality, piece of work that shows an identifiable
few tables, figures and charts, but do not show any novel problem solving strategy and originality.
but are poorly constructed. results or originality.
Project The reports lacks The report might There discussion is mostly A good project report will A very good project report report will An outstanding report will have a coherent
discussion and any discussions contain a brief coherent with critical have a compelling discussion have a mostly coherent discussion of discussion of the results including a critical
conclusion nor reflections or discussion but it reflection. The discussion of the results including the results including a critical reflection and potential future directions.
(15%) they are contains significant misses aspects of the work but convincing critical reflection reflection on the work. It only contains This report does not contain any flaws and
incoherent and flaws. the overall message is present on the work. The reflection minor flaws or missing pieces that do is as strong as one would expect from a
contain major without major will include all major aspects not cast any doubts on the quality of publication in a good conference or journal.
flaws. flaws/inconsistencies. of the project. the presented results.
Style and A project report A project report in Mostly follows the layout and Well written and presented, A very good report with only minor Layout and editorial guidelines are strictly
Presentation in this marking this range will violate style guides but might have but has some weaknesses that weaknesses compared to the definition followed, including a complete and accurate
(10%) range makes the given style guides medium or severe issues in prevent it meeting the quality for the previous range. Some minor bibliography. The structure of the report
little attempt to severely in at lest one several aspects (e.g., an required for a very good errors in following the layout and follows a clear narrative flow and contains
follow the basic aspect (e.g., using the incomplete bibliography, poor project report in one or two editorial guidelines, or in the all appropriate sections with no unnecessary
layout or style layout guidelines, writing, bad structure, areas. These might include bibliography. Writing style is mostly content. All figures, tables and other items
guidelines, omits missing out an inaccurate figures/tables). incomplete bibliographic concise and clear but there may be are very well presented. The writing style is
several sections important section, references, inconsistent occasional mistakes in the use of the concise and clear and there are no (or very
or has no having a major spelling/grammar, or some English language and grammar that do minor) spelling and grammar mistakes.
recognisable structural issue). poorly presented not a↵ect the meaning. There may be Overall, the style and presentation should
structure, or has figures/tables. The structure occasional weaknesses in minor aspects be of such a quality that it could be
multiple other is clear and appropriate. of figures and tables. The structure is published in a good conference of journal.
major Project reports that exceed clear and appropriate. Style and
weaknesses. the page range can not achieve presentation are of a quality that it
a mark beyond this range. could be published in a good workshop.

Table 3: Final project & code – marking criteria

The report will lose 5 for each page by which the length of the document (excluding title page and references) exceeds 20 pages.
Please see overleaf for detail about the demonstration and code.
Demonstration and code
Purpose: The purpose of this demo is to test the ability of the student to communicate their work
in an alternative format and to demonstrate the work they have produced.

Format:

• All presentations should be made as a pre-recorded video.

• The video should be stored on the University One Drive.

• Each presentation should last no more than 20 minutes.

• Each presentation should contain a Demo section of the code.

• The slides should be converted in PDF format.

• The last page of the slides should contain the link to the presentation video on One Drive (Please
check that the link works).

• The last page of the slides should also contain the link to your code on One Drive (Please check
that the link works).

Submission:

• Slides (with links to available to both video file and your code on OneDrive) must be submitted
to ELE2 by the date shown on the first page of this document.

• Video file and code must be uploaded on OneDrive by the date shown on the first page of this
document.

Presentation content: The presentation should clearly explain the main aims, methods and out-
comes of your project. Within this general guidance, you have freedom to choose the material you
include.

Suggested aspects that you might cover include:

• Background & content

• Aims & objectives

• Dataset, software platforms, or other significant technical background

• Experiment design, software development approach, algorithms, or other technical methods

• Results

• Discussion, future directions and conclusions

• Demo of your code

The demonstration should communicate the main findings or features of the project and show the
outputs. Content may vary depending on the nature of the project. For software projects, it may
show the software in operation and aspects of the code. For research projects, it may focus more
on the scientific findings and show aspects of the analysis process. You can use any video recording
software but you may find ‘Record Your Screen In Powerpoint’ useful.

Please see overleaf for information on how the Demonstration and Code component is assessed.
The Demonstration and Code component comprises 15% of the final report mark. The assessment
will consider the following aspects:

• Background & aims: To what extent were the project background, context, aims and objec-
tives clearly explained and coherent.

• Technical aspects: To what extent were the technical aspects of the project (e.g., data, meth-
ods, software specifications, experiments and testing) explained clearly, concisely, and correctly,
with an appropriate level of detail for the audience.

• Results & interpretation: To what extent were results communicated e↵ectively, with ap-
propriate graphs, tables or other visualisations? Were results interpreted correctly and linked
back to the wider context of the project aims?

• Presentation style & structure: To what extent was the presentation engaging and easy to
understand? Were the visual aids (e.g. slides) attractive and informative, with a suitable level
of detail? Did the presentation follow a clear structure that was appropriate to the content?
Did the speaker keep to time, without speaking too fast or too slow?

• Code demo: Does the demo provide a good overview of the main features and outcomes of the
code/project?