1. Assessed Posters as an Interim Project Deliverable Lynette Willoughby School of Computing Leeds Metropolitan University

2. 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.)

3. So weve tried - 1 st and 2 nd 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Examples

18. Initial reactions: WOW Then tempered by concerns

19. 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

20. 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 good Clearer, consistent guidance Changes to spec. esp. headings and weightings