Assessed Posters as an Interim Project Deliverable

Lynette Willoughby

School of Computing

Leeds Metropolitan University

History and Context• Leeds Metropolitan University, School of

Computing• BSc Computing (MM, SE, DB, AI etc

routes) + BSc Business Computing• All do final year project, ¼ of final year

• Problem of :– Getting them started (Sept./Oct.)– Keeping them going (Dec./Jan.)

So we’ve tried -

• 1st and 2nd ‘formal meetings’ – wks 7 and 14• Problem Statement

– To mark or not to mark?– 10%

• Project Proposal (as in Christian Dawson The Essence of Computing Projects pp 34-35)

– More emphasis on evaluation– 10%

• (Importance of ‘product’ – ongoing ‘debate’)

Variations on a theme:

– Problem definition and context– Evidence of need for a solution – Methodology– Description of the product – Project plan – Evaluation– Management– Presentation and communication

Using Posters in Assessment

• Used in final year elective (Cyberspace and Society) for many years - 50% of assessment

• LTSN Workshop, May 2003 @ Leeds Met– Examples and experiences from :

• Ulster, Leeds Met, Durham, Warwick, Sheffield, Keele, Edge Hill, Newcastle

Posters as Interim Project Deliverable

• (Initial Project Proposal, week 7, unmarked)

• 20% of final project marks

• Hand-in in week 11

• A2 (approx.); physical poster handed in rolled or folded

Guidance given (part of 1 lecture):

• Summarises project; extended project proposal with reporting of research progress and more critical analysis

• Title and Aims• Introduction to subject area (initial research,

Harvard referencing)• Identify the gap/justification for project• Objectives• Evaluation• Should not spend a lot of time producing poster

Marking:

• Introduction/initial research - 20%• Justification – 20%• Objectives – 20%• Evaluation – 20%• Communication – 20%

• 4 staff marking (170 posters); double marking; pinned-up & laid out in one room

Examples

Initial reactions:

WOW

Then tempered by concerns

Issues• 20% of final project marks

– Too much ‘just for a poster’?; Too little for all the work expected?

– External examiner moderately supportive

• Confusion/uncertainty – staff and students• Consistency of guidance• No previous examples• Time spent - design rather than research/content• Cost/printing pressures• Marking – time, consistency

Future:

• Initial reaction very positive, including from initially sceptical staff - likely to continue, but marking not yet finished and staff not yet seen all results

• Quality very goodClearer, consistent guidanceChanges to spec. esp. headings and

weightings