LO1 Investigate and specify a substantial problem in the domain of study, place it in the context of related work and produce a plan to address this problem.

Assignment Specification

School of Computer and Engineering Sciences

Module Code SE7200

Module Title

Research Dissertation

Assessment No

1 of 3

Weighting

20%

Title

Project Proposal

In-Year Reassessment Offered

No

Generative AI

Not Allowed

Summary

This brief contains the instructions, guidelines, and tasks for the Project Proposal of the Research Dissertation (SE7200) module.

Submission Date

20 October 2025 at 13:00 

7-day Submission Window Allowed

Feedback Due

20 November

2025

Learning Outcomes Assessed

COMP-1 Investigate and specify a substantial problem in the domain of study, place it in the context of related work and produce a plan to address this problem.

Assessment Support

Students can get support on this module by speaking to the assigned Dissertation Supervisor, or to the module tutor (Mohammad Samar Ansari) preferably in classroom sessions, or by emailing (m.ansari@chester.ac.uk), or by booking a 1-2-1 meeting online.

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: 27 October 2025

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. You may not use AI tools for this assessment.

AI tools include, but are not limited to, ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Grok, DeepSeek, Midjourney, and other similar Generative AI tools and chatbots.

Submission Information

• Word count: Your word count should not exceed 1500 words.
• File needs to be saved as: [SE7200_Project_Proposal_JNumber]. For example, SE7220_Project_Proposal_J12345678
• File format needed for submission: .pdf / .docx
• 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%)

Background C Rationale

Topic vague or irrelevant; weak or missing rationale; no clear link to research need.

Relevant topic identified; some rationale given but limited depth; partial link to

research need.

Clear, well-structured topic choice; strong justification; persuasive explanation of

research need.

Sophisticated, original rationale; excellent contextualization; convincing case for significance of topic.

Preliminary Literature Review

Minimal or no engagement with literature; descriptive with no critical insight; poor or absent

referencing.

Some relevant literature included; limited criticality; referencing mostly accurate.

Good selection of sources; clear thematic organization; critical discussion emerging; referencing

consistent.

Comprehensive and current sources; highly critical synthesis; excellent use of scholarly evidence; precise referencing.

Methodology Plan

Methodology vague, incoherent, or unsuitable; missing details of research design.

Some methodology described; partially suitable; limited clarity on design and process.

Clear and coherent methodology; appropriate research design; methods justified with some

detail.

Rigorous, innovative methodology; excellent justification; demonstrates critical awareness of limitations and

alternatives.

Project Plan / Schedule

No plan provided or very unclear; no timescales or milestones; lacks feasibility.

Basic plan outlined; limited detail or structure; partial feasibility.

Logical and well- structured project plan; realistic timescales; clear milestones.

Detailed, professional project schedule (e.g., Gantt chart); highly feasible and insightful planning; strong link to

methodology.

Presentation C Communication

Poorly written; major grammar and structure issues; referencing absent

or inaccurate.

Adequately written; some clarity but limited academic style; referencing

attempted.

Well-written and clearly structured; good academic style; referencing accurate.

Excellent clarity, flow, and academic voice; highly professional presentation; impeccable referencing

throughout.