Assignment Specification

School of Computer and Engineering Sciences

Module Code

CO7047

Module Title

Research Project

Assessment No

2 of 2

Weighting

85%

Title

Dissertation Report

In-Year Reassessment Offered

No

Generative AI

See Below

Summary

The dissertation is a report on a complete piece of academic research, typically involving production of an artefact, carried out independently by the student. This task is designed to help students apply knowledge to a new and unexplored area or extend understanding by investigating a topic in significant depth. It develops critical thinking, and the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the student’s chosen field.

The report reflects work done on real-world research and development projects, where independent problem-solving and innovation are essential.

Submission Date

07/05/2026 at 13:00

(May 2025 cohort)

08/10/2026 at 13:00

(October 2025 cohort)

7-day Submission Window Allowed

Feedback Due

05/06/2026

(May 2025 cohort)

05/11/2026

(October 2025 cohort)

Title Page

Use the standard title page document for this year, which is available later in this

document.

Abstract

The abstract is normally included with, but not numbered with, the preliminaries and no page numbers are displayed. The Abstract is a statement of the aims, methods, and results of your research. In other words, it is a short summary of the research project, designed to help the reader know whether the rest of the document is likely

to be useful to them.

Disclaimer

The following statement must be included on the page after your abstract:

“This work is original and has not been previously submitted in support of any other course or qualification”.

This must be signed and dated.

Dedication

An optional element. When present the dedication should be no more than a few

lines and should be placed upon its own page.

Acknowledgments

This is an opportunity to thank the people who have made your research project

possible. Acknowledgments should be placed upon their own page and may take up several paragraphs but should not be too effusive.

Table of Contents

This should illustrate the document structure as well as providing pointers into the document. After the abstract, the Table of Contents is one of the first things your reader will look at. It should help them to understand what information your

dissertation report contains, and how it is structured.

Introduction

An introduction to the research project. It should include brief descriptions of the following:

• Why was the work undertaken?
• What scope was given?
• What were the limits imposed?
• What work has already been done in the field (without duplicating your literature review, which comes later)?
• An outline the problem being investigated, leading up to a statement of your hypothesis.
• A summary of the remaining chapters of your dissertation, with a brief description of the contents of each.

Literature Review

Must be clearly relevant to the research project topic, its hypotheses, and cover your research methodology as well as the technical background to your project. Link your research area to the relevant external structures that govern its practice and impact: you may need to include literature from other fields, covering social, legal, ethical, business, or psychological aspects, for example. You should critically engage with the literature, evaluating it, questioning its assumptions, identifying gaps and limitations, and differing perspectives and theories. Ultimately, this demonstrates how your own research builds upon, challenges, or extends current knowledge on your topic.

Methodology

Explains what methods you will use to prove or disprove your hypotheses. You need to provide evidence that the methodology you have chosen is appropriate for your type of project and will be effective in allowing you to test your hypotheses. This chapter is a blueprint of the data collection and analysis procedures, ensuring the study is replicable and scientifically sound. You should indicate why you have selected your chosen method(s) and the alternatives that were considered but dismissed.

Implementation

This chapter describes the artefact (the thing) you have created may be split into several chapters, if necessary. This could involve programming, scripting, databases, web technology, or a more analytical/human-centred approach such as systems analysis or user-centred design. It should contain a clear description of what you have built / created and how, along with references back to the information in your literature review. You must make it clear how your artefact is relevant to your hypotheses. It is also important to demonstrate how you have used the course-specific you have learned during your MSc.

This chapter requires technical justification for all major design choices, such as selected algorithms, programming languages, and frameworks, explaining why they were appropriate for your stated objectives. Include evidence of the problems that were solved, and difficulties encountered and explain how these were overcome. This ensures a transparent account of the work.

Do not rely only on a literature review or survey without first consulting your supervisor, as these approaches are not allowed for BCS accredited courses and are extremely difficult to carry out to level 7 standard.

Testing and Results

You can only prove or disprove your hypotheses if you have carried out testing and/or theoretical analysis of some sort. This will allow you together data which can be used as evidence for your overall outcomes and conclusions. It is common to use structured forms to present the data and results. These typically involve the use of graphs, figures, tables, and so forth. Your testing methodology, test plan, results, and analysis of those results, are very important.

Discussion and Conclusion

This chapter ties together your whole research project and its report. You should remind the reader of the reasons why you undertook the project, your hypotheses, as well as key points from your literature review and methodology chapters. You should summarise the work described in your implementation chapter and refer to the findings described in your testing and results chapter. You can then discuss whether you have completely proved your hypotheses, partly proved them (or proved part of them), or completely disproved them. You should explain how your findings compare to what you discovered in the literature and identify where you have, or with future work could, provide new insights or information to the field of study. The chapter should be completed with a reflection on the importance of your results, what you have learned, and recommendations about what next steps should be taken by other researchers building on your work, often referred to as ‘future work’.

References

A list of all the references used in your dissertation report, formatted, and presented according to the APA referencing guidelines, otherwise you risk losing marks. Do not include references which have not been cited in your text.

Source

Performance after 200ms

Young (2020)

100.00

This Approach

100.00

Johnson (2021)

98.61

Williams (2017)

88.95

Rudd (2008)

76.08

Competencies Assessed

1. Critically evaluate research and advanced scholarship, relevant to the chosen field of study, alongside evaluation of own work.
2. Contextualise the chosen field of study with respect to relevant professional, legal, social and ethical frameworks.
3. Select appropriate research methods, tools, and techniques to address a defined question or hypothesis in a meaningful way.
4. Construct a substantial body of knowledge using research and subject-specific skills to a professional standard.
5. Synthesize outcomes that are at the edges of contemporary knowledge in the chosen field of study.

Assessment Support

The module leader is Dr Stuart Cunningham (s.cunningham@chester.ac.uk). General support about the dissertation report and poster processes are available from the module leader, during the taught research project sessions and via their Office Hours.

However, in most cases, the allocated supervisor should be the first point of contact. The assessment components, and underpinning work, can be discussed with the student’s supervisor during a scheduled meeting or via the supervisor’s Office Hours.

An extensive range of support materials, videos, and interactive materials are provided via the module Moodle site.

Submission Window, Exceptional Circumstances, and Assessment Regulations

You are expected to submit work by the submission date specified at the start of the assignment specification. Some assignments may support a 7-day window in which students can submit work late without penalty and this will be specified below the submission date at the start of this brief. Any work submitted outside of the submission date (or submission window where allowed) will be given a mark of zero.

You can find details about what you need to do if you are unable to submit the assessment on time on the Registry Services Exceptional Circumstances Portal page. Any deferral request must be submitted online within 7-days of the final submission date (or submission window where allowed). In all cases, evidence will be required to support the deferral.

Deadline for applying for a deferral to the next assessment point1: 21/05/2026 (May 2025 cohort)

22/10/2026 (October 2025 cohort)

You can find out more about University regulations related to assessment on the Registry Services Assessment Regulations page.

Academic Conduct

The University Academic Conduct Policy explains how students are expected to take responsibility for the fair presentation of the contents of any work they present for assessment. This includes acknowledging the use of Artificial Intelligence tools. Breaching the academic conduct policy can have serious penalties.

The material you submit must be your own work. You must not collude with your peers on your work unless the brief explicitly allows this (such as in the case of group work). Further information is available below

All sources used must be cited and referenced using the APA format. Guidance on how to cite and reference sources can be found in the Cite Them Right Online guidance (sign in with your University network account)

Generative AI

The use of generative AI tools where not permitted will be treated as a breach of the academic conduct policy.

This assignment only allows the use of generative AI tools where the academic supervisor has provided prior written agreement. Such agreement will be for limited, specific purposes. This written approval must be included as an appendix to your report. Use of generative AI tools without, or outside the constraints of, prior written approval will be treated as a breach of the academic conduct policy.

When using generative AI tools, you must include an entry in your reference list and an in-text/code citation. You must also include the prompt (if it is short) as part of the in-text/code citation. For longer prompts/conversations, please include these in a clearly signposted appendix. For further instructions on the use of generative AI tools, please refer to the assignment instructions. Below is an example reference entry:

OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat.

Referencing code

Code adapted from third parties must be clearly referenced using comments to denote the start and end of the adapted code. You must also include an APA format reference in the PDF file.

Example of referenced code

//code adapted from Thomson, 2012

if (someCharacter == `z` || someCharacter == `Z`) { someCharacter -= 25;

}

//end of adapted code

Example of reference entry in PDF file

Thomson, C. (2012). Rot-13 function in Java?. Stackoverflow. Retrieved October 25, 2021, from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8981296/rot-13-function-in-java

Submission Information

The dissertation report should be approximately 10,000 words (± 2000 words) in length, excluding all appendices, illustrations, and software.

The TurnItIn submission box will have multiple parts:

• A tab ‘Dissertation Report’ where all students must upload an electronic version of their dissertation report

document, including references and appendices (if present).

• A tab ‘Code PDF’, where students may optionally upload code listings for any software that has been developed during the research project work. This must be a PDF file with all programming code from your project (in a monospace font), followed by a reference list in APA format (if required).

Both files must be named with your assessment (J number), e.g. J123456-report.pdf and J123456-code.pdf. The name for each entry on TurnItIn must also be your assessment number.

Your report text must include the signed Disclaimer page (see report template on Moodle)

Reports must be submitted in documents format (MS Word or PDF). Compressed files (Zip, RAR, 7z, etc.) are not permitted. Files submitted in an incorrect format will usually be marked as zero.

Assignment Task

(LOs Covered)

Fail

(<50%)

Pass

(50-59%)

Merit

(60-69%)

Distinction

(>=70%)

Report Presentation and Academic Writing

(Competency 4)

[10%]

Severe deficiencies or recurring errors in spelling, grammar and expression undermine meaning. Ideas communicated with limited clarity. Structure is incoherent and/or weakly presented.

Predominantly accurate in spelling and grammar. Ideas communicated appropriately and satisfactorily.

Observes appropriate academic form and is near professional in quality. Fluent & persuasive.

A high degree of skill. The academic form shows exceptional standards of presentation or delivery.

Engagement with the Literature, Context and Referencing

(Competencies 1, 2, 4)

[20%]

Unsatisfactory or insufficient engagement with relevant knowledge pertaining to discipline and key issues.

Insufficient range of source reading from core and basic texts. Sources not acknowledged in line with academic conventions of referencing.

Engagement with relevant knowledge pertaining to discipline and key issues. A satisfactory range of core and basic texts, referencing current research in the discipline.

Consistent involvement in relevant research/practice. Strong, diverse reading with sustained reference to key texts. Very good referencing demonstrates high intellectual rigour.

A high degree of engagement with research and/or practice pertaining to field(s) and disciplines of study. Substantial range and sophisticated use of sources.

Intellectual performance, originality, and independence

(Competencies 1, 2, 5)

[25%]

Inability to deal with complex issues. Judgements not substantiated. Weak interpretation of research, showing lack of understanding and/or supporting evidence.

Able to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively. Able to devise a coherent critical/ analytical argument which is supported with evidence.

A developed conceptual understanding that enables the student to find new meanings in established hypotheses. A developed and sustained argument with the possibility for new insights.

A high degree of analysis and evaluation. A sustained argument with strong potential for new insights.

Engineering, Professionalism, and Methodology

(Competencies 2, 3, 4)

Weak understanding of established methodologies and those applied.

Undertaken research is substandard, leading to underdeveloped and poorly

Consistent use of research techniques for knowledge creation and interpretation. Systematically planned research with adequate scale and scope, ensuring

Demonstrates comprehensive grasp and continual application of established methodologies. Well-planned research with scale and scope, ensuring

Outstanding interpretation, application, and evaluation of methodologies used by the student and key scholars/practitioners in the field. Methods may

[25%]

executed work. Exhibits unsatisfactory professional/personal standards consistently.

the gathering of appropriate evidence. Ample professional/personal standards consistently.

robust evidence. Good professional and personal standards consistently.

contribute new insights. Demonstrates very high professional/personal standards consistently.

Quality of Results and Findings

(Competencies 1, 4, 5)

[15%]

Minimal effort to replicate or extend published work or apply theory to a real problem. Falls short of expectations. The solution lacks readiness, with standards misapplied.

Insufficient data or analysis compromises valid outcomes.

The report showcases skill in replicating and extending published work or applying theory to real problems.

Some elements of the solution are near readiness for real-world application, considering all relevant standards, with findings supported by suitable testing and analysis.

The report is near academic publication standards, displaying commendable content, originality, and presentation. The solution is close to ready for real-world application, meeting relevant standards with effective analysis and defined outcomes.

The report not only meets academic publication standards with original and well-presented content but also produces a solution ready for real-world application, demonstrating compliance with standards and contextualisation against relevant literature.

Supervisor Assessment of Student

(Competencies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

[5%]

Little to no contact or meaningful engagement over the research project duration. Weak time management.

Consistent engagement, providing satisfactory development. Acceptable progress made under guidance. Satisfactory time management.

Sustained and meaningful engagement, with good preparation. Able to make independent progress for much of the work. Good time management.

Strong and proactive engagement throughout the research project period demonstrating consistent independence. Excellent time