Assessment FeedbackCover SheetFaculty of Computing, Engineeringand the Built Environment 1st Marker NameMariam Adedoyin-Olowe2nd MarkerNameHansi HettiarachchiDate23/4/21Feedback: General comments on the quality of the work, its successes and where it could be improvedProject Background and Rationale (Aims & Objectives)A range of concepts have been introduced in the introduction and background sections of the proposal.A suitable aim and objectives is defined. However, the last objective “Algorithm and PerformanceAnalysis” is not clearThe research question is an obvious one that does not require researching into. I strongly advise youremove this from your project or come up with a more technically sound research question.Ethical concern should be in later section and not in the introductory part of the proposal.The sentence “The dataset used in this research has been developed by Shu et al. (2017) to address thedisadvantages of existing social media datasets for fake news detection” is not clear why there aredisadvantages in the existing dataset used by Shu et al. (2017).Synthesis and Evaluation of LiteratureThe literature review section should convey previous techniques/approaches currently adopted in otherrelated works rather than presenting the results of conducting the literature review. This section of theproposal needed to introduce the theoretical foundation of the project, discuss the key concepts from theliterature; this has not been done. The quality of the work is reduced by the poor quality of literaturereview completed in this proposal. No evidence of any in-text referencing throughout. Sources used isnot demonstrated in any part of this section. There is little evidence that an academic literature reviewhas been conducted. More work is needed to clarify concepts, define the problem to be addressed in theproject and discuss current approaches in the academic literature to address the problem.Structure and Coherence of ProposalThere is serious shortcomings in the structure of the proposal and content presentation. There is lack ofevidence in citing references in the proposal. Evidence of superficial attempt made at literature analysis.No academic argument.No comparison of literature. Utilises existing theoretical models. No idea appraisal.The proposal includes some of the required sections but not in a coherence way. The understanding of theareas to be included in a project proposal is not clearly structured in your work. The limitation of the proposalalso includes some irrelevant concepts that does not point to what your project is all about. Each section of theproposal includes general information that does not relates to the project. This area includesThe methodology proposed seems unrelated to the project “This examination proposes learningcounterfeit news explicit spread examples by misusing mathematical profound learning, a novel class ofprofound learning strategies intended to chip away at diagram organized information. Mathematical Student NamePooja AnandStudent Number19135226Module Code/TitleCMP7200/Masters ProjectAssessment ItemAssessment 1 (Project Proposal) profound adapting normally manages heterogeneous information (like client segment and action,interpersonal organization structure, news proliferation and substance), in this manner conveying thecapability of being a binding together system for content, social setting, and spread basedmethodologies”.The timescale presented is too generic and needs more work to demonstrate the evidence of how long thedifferent milestones in the project will last for. Much more detail is needed to schedule the specific tasksrequired to complete all the research methods. No consideration has been given to milestones and deliverables.Harvard ReferencingYour proposal showed very limited in-text referencing. This has seriously affected the quality of yourwork.You are supposed to review related work in your project domain by critiquing, synthesising and analysingthe different approaches/methods applied to solve the problem(s) in the project. This can then be usedto justify your own approach.Feed Forward: How to apply the feedback to future submissionsPlease make changes to work based on feedback provided to you both verbally and in writing.Project Background and Rationale (Aims & Objectives)Conduct an academic literature review, searching the academic journals using the search process demonstrated toyou in CMP7158 and during the project supervision sessions. Use the search logs provided to you during JamesDean’s session in CMP7158 in order to help you construct a literature review that: Clearly defines the key concepts of the project and the relationship between them. The problem with alignment defined in the literature. Constructive attempt to align your work with the reviewed literature.Synthesis and Evaluation of LiteratureUse academic databases as your main source of literature review and describe your data in a more unambiguousmanner. Use the papers found to define key concepts and discuss the problem domain.Structure and Coherence of ProposalA project requires you take action, do activities rather than write about. Follow the advice given to you, share draftwork and act on feedback given to you and use academic journals.Review the academic literature on different research on “Identification and extraction of fake news from twitter”,specifically the types of data collected from these papers as well as the advantages of their methods and thelimitations.Set out the tasks required to complete your research. Prepare a detailed Gantt chart to show which of these taskscan be conducted in parallel, with the start and end dates.Harvard ReferencingUse both in-text and end-of-text referencing in your report. Stick to academic journals/conference papers and bookswhere possible.Provisional uncapped mark: 40%Marker to indicate Yes where applicable;OutcomeWork submitted late between 1 and 24 hours after deadlineMark reduced by5% of the awardedmark1 1 Any reduction in the original mark will not be applied if: The mark is below the pass mark for the assessment (40% for undergraduate or 50% for postgraduate) The reduction (either 5% or 10%) will reduce the mark to below the pass mark. In this case the assessment will becapped off at the pass mark if already passed. Work submitted late between 24 hours and 1 week(5 working days) after deadlineMark reduced by10% of the awardedmark1Work submitted more than 5 working days after deadlineWork will not bemarked –assessment failedSupport Summary extension applied2Proposed mark for submission to exam board3: 40%Quality and use of standard English & academic conventionsNotesSpelling & GrammarGoodAcceptablePoorAcademic StyleGoodAcceptablePoorStructureGoodAcceptablePoorReferencingGoodAcceptablePoorSources usedGoodAcceptablePoorIf any of the above are highlighted as Poor you should arrange a consultation with a member of staff from the Centre forAcademic Success via [email protected] or, for sources used, with the CEBE Librarian viahttps://www.bcu.ac.uk/library/services-and-support/book-a-tutorial. Marks awarded for criteria Table of Assessment Criteria and Associated GradingAssessmentCriteriaLO1Plan a research orindustry informedproject usingappropriateliterature and / orprofessionaloutputs1.1Project Backgroundand Rationale (Aims& Objectives)1.2Synthesis andEvaluation of Literature1.3Structure andCoherence ofProposal1.4Harvard ReferencingWeighting: 20% 40% 15% 25%0 – 29% No suitableBackground/rationaleand little indication ofbeing aware ofproject background.Aim & Objectives arenot suitable. Noattempt to discusswith supervisor orProject Module Coordinator.Few items of literature.Poor quality. Nonacademic sources.Very descriptiveaccount. No synthesisof ideas. No academicappraisalProposal requiresmajor drafting/redrafting in most or allsectionsNo attempt made toreference sources.No in-text’ and ‘endof-essay’ referencelist. 2 If you have a Disability Support Summary recommending additional time to complete coursework, the penalties will only applyfrom the alternative deadline given.3 Marks are provisional until confirmed by an examination board and may be altered up or down. Successful claims forextenuating circumstances will result in the marks submitted to the exam board being uncapped. Marks shown in Moodle arealways the uncapped mark. 30 – 39% Very limited suitableBackground/rationaleand little indication ofbeing aware ofproject background.Aim & Objectives arenot suitable. Noattempt to discusswith supervisor orProject Module Coordinator.Few academic sources.No attempt made atLiterature analysis. Noacademic argument.Mix of descriptive /appraisal of literature.No synthesis of ideas.No academic appraisal.Serious shortcomingsin structure and/orcontent presentation.There may be someerror or lack ofevidence in citingreferences in theproposal.Limited attempt toreference usingsome other (nonBCU) referencingstyle (e.g. APA,Vancouver).40 – 49% Limited projectbackground/rationalediscussed. An aimhas been proposedand basic objectiveshave been identified,but the set ofobjectives areincomplete to achievethe stated projectaim.Mix of academic andnon-academic source.Superficial attemptmade at Literatureanalysis. No academicargument.Compares Literature.Utilises existingtheoretical models. Noidea appraisal.Proposal includessome elements butthere may beomissions orshortcomings inlogical order, such asinappropriate use ofsections, tables andfigures. The text mayhave significantshortcomings in style,language and/or lackof conciseness. Itmay not bestraightforward tofollows but enoughindication of ability tosuggest someadditional workshould lead to a passstandard.Either ‘in-text’ or‘end -of-essay’reference listpresent – but somesources incomplete.50 – 59% Evidence of gooddiscussion of projectbackground/rationaleObjectives required toachieve the aim havebeen adequatelyidentified.Further refinement ofthe aim andobjectives may beneeded to improveconsistency andcoherenceMostly academicsources. Genuineattempt made atLiterature analysis.Some academicargument.Compares diversesources. Adaptsexisting theoreticalmodels. Some ideaappraisal.ComparesProposal generallyfollows guidelinesincluding all mainelements. There maybe someshortcomings inclarity of both text andvisual presentationand some minoromissions of content.Most of the sourcesused are fullyreferenced. Both ‘intext’ and ‘end-ofessay’ reference listpresent.60 – 69% Evidence of gooddiscussion of projectbackground/rationale.Complete and logicalset of objectives toachieve the statedaim.The scope of theproject is limited withundemandingobjectives.Use of relevantresearch papers. Goodanalyses of literatureCompares differentsources critically.Constructs conceptualmodel derived fromsources.No significantshortcoming in theproposal structurewith all the mainelements includedand appropriatelyreferenced.Although there maybe some minordeficiencies.All sources fullyreferencedalphabetically. Both‘in-text’ and ‘end-ofessay’ reference listpresent.70 – 79% Evidence of verygood discussion ofprojectbackground/rationale.Complete and logicalset of objectives toachieve the statedaim.The scope of theproject is good withsome demandingobjectives.Good focus on up-todate research papers.Detailed analyses ofliterature.Demonstration ofstrengths/weakness ofliterature usingacademic argument.Critical comparison ofquality researchpapers. Constructsconceptual modelderived from thesesources.Proposal includes allnecessary elementsand appropriatelyreferenced usingHarvard referencingstyle throughout.There are appropriatesupportingappendices.All sources fullyreferencedalphabetically. Both‘in-text’ and ‘end-ofessay’ reference listpresent tocompletion. 80 – 89% Evidence of verygood discussion ofprojectbackground/rationale.A complete,consistent andcomprehensive set ofdemanding objectivesto achieve the statedaim.Very good focus on upto-date, highly ratedresearch papers.Detailed analyses ofliterature.Demonstration ofstrengths/weakness ofliterature usingacademic argument.Compares differenthigh quality researchpapers critically.Constructs conceptualmodel derived fromthese sources.Proposal includes allnecessary elementsin a well-presentedmanner andappropriatelyreferenced usingHarvard referencingstyle throughout.There are appropriateand relevantsupportingappendices.All sources fullyreferencedalphabetically. Both‘in-text’ and ‘end-ofessay’ reference listpresent tocompletion.No error isedvidence90 – 100% Evidence of excellent,clear and wellinformed discussionof projectbackground/rationaleto a high standard.A complete,consistent, logical,comprehensive andapplicable set ofdemanding objectivesto achieve achallenging aim.Exclusive focus on highimpact researchpapers. In-depthanalyses worthy ofpublication.Demonstration ofstrengths/weakness ofacademic argument.Compares differenthigh impact paperscritically. Constructsconceptual modelderived from thesesources. Appraisesderived modelmethodically to a veryhigh standard.Proposal exclusivelyfollows guidelinesincluding all mainelementsProposal includes allnecessary elementswritten in aprofessional standardand appropriatelyreferencedthroughout usingHarvard referencingstyle. There areappropriatesupportingappendices.All sources fullyreferencedalphabetically. Both‘in-text’ and ‘end-ofessay’ reference listpresent tocompletion.References aredevoid of any error.Mark Additional feedbackWe encourage additional forms of feedback to be provided e.g. through Moodle, annotated PDFfiles, video, audio etc. If used, these methods of feedback should be described here.
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS