Faculty of Computer Science

University of Sunderland

Module code: CET313 Artificial Intelligence

Module assessor: Dr Kate MacFarlane
Title of assessment: Intelligent Prototype Development
Moderated: October 2021

Please read all instructions and information carefully.

This assignment contributes 100% to your final module mark and will assess the following learning
outcomes:

Knowledge
 Knowledge of a wide range of AI techniques, which are being applied in industry or research,
allowing them to choose and apply the correct AI techniques for the problems which arise.
 Awareness of current and new/future developments in the field of AI and its applications.
Skills
 Assess real-world problems and determine which AI approaches are suitable for their
solutions
 Apply various AI models and techniques in the solutions of a range of problems, and
characterise the expected performance of a model, and compare with other techniques .

Important Information
You are required to submit your work within the bounds of the University Infringement of
Assessment Regulations (see your Programme Guide). Plagiarism, paraphrasing and downloading
large amounts of information from external sources, will not be tolerated and will be dealt with
severely. Although you should make full use of any source material, which would normally be an
occasional sentence and/or paragraph (referenced) followed by your own critical analysis/evaluation.
You will receive no marks for work that is not your own. Your work will be subject to checks for
originality which can include use of an electronic plagiarism detection service.

 Where you are asked to submit an individual piece of work, the work must be entirely your
own. The safety of your assessments is your responsibility. You must not permit another
student access to your work.
 Where referencing is required, unless otherwise stated, the Harvard referencing system
must be used.

Introduction
This assignment will involve the development of an ePortfolio of practical work, software planning
for an intelligent application prototype and the development of that prototype.

You have been issued with exercises associated with lab work throughout the module and these
should be uploaded to your e-Portfolio. Any work, research or planning that you carry out should
also be uploaded to your e-Portfolio.

1
Faculty of Computer Science
University of Sunderland

The planning and development of the intelligent application prototype will make use of the
knowledge and materials that you have been collecting and uploading to your ePortfolio throughout
the module.

Intelligent application prototype in the python programming language:

You may choose one of the following projects:

Project Prototype 1: Pathfinding with Planning and search

Project Prototype 2: Machine learning to solve real world problem.

You have spent class tutorials doing work which could contribute to each of these project areas. You
will now fully develop and submit one project prototype. You will be able to extend one of these (or
externally sourced) tutorials but this must contain a significant extension in functionality, and you
must clearly identify what is and what is not your work. You will only achieve marks for your own
work – if you do not identify any authors the code will be classed as your own and be subject to the
same plagiarism rules as any written work.

Note: In order to achieve high marks for this assessment you MUST clearly identify work that goes
beyond that covered in lectures.

Prototype Planning
Introduction (500 words)

The introduction should include a short mission statement for your proposed prototype and should
provide a short overview of the contents to-date of your e-Portfolio on Canvas.

Section 1: Prototype Identification and Planning (1,000 words)

Section 1.1 Literature Review on Prototype Identification (700 words)

This section should be a 700-word literature review of your solution identification and software
development planning. Suggested themes are – the background of AI, in particular the specialism
associated with your chosen prototype development, how similar solutions have been employed
and the success or otherwise of these examples.

Section 1.2 Reflection on the Prototype Identification (300 words)

This section should be a 300-word reflection on your experience of your activity at the end of the
prototype identification and planning, drawing both from what you learned from the research
activity as embodied in the literature review and from what you have learned from practical
activities that have been carried out during the module. This is about your experience of the
process during this early stage of identifying the scope of your application prototype.

2
Faculty of Computer Science
University of Sunderland

Prototype Development
Section 2: Development (1,000 words)

Section 2.1 Developed code and planning documents for prototype (1000-word equivalent)

Your code needs to be developed in the python programming language and submitted as a zip file.
You should include a comprehensive set of instructions for the successful execution on your code as
well as a short screencast/video of your code running (or a link to the screencast/video if it is too
large to include). Any planning diagrams, testing documentation, screenshots of code output should
be saved as a PDF and uploaded as part of the same zip file.

Section 3: Evaluation (1,000 words)

Section 3.1 Report on the Evaluation (1000 words)

This section should be a 1000-word report detailing how you evaluated your finished prototype (and
any other testing done incrementally). Suggested discussion points include: decision making
process, test plans, testing results, alterations suggested by test/evaluation results (both complete
and incomplete).

Conclusion (500 words)

This section should be a reflection on the initiation, progress and evolution of your application
prototype. You should reflect upon the following, and any other issues that have framed your
experience of the development activity:

How has academic theory or practical advice from the sources you have used informed and
improved your prototype?

Were there any aspects of developing your prototype that involved you working in new ways or
ways that you had not anticipated?

An honest appraisal of your performance and the produced prototype.

Important Note: Application development can be an exciting and dynamic experience, but it is also
risky, and the knowledge and skills of successful software developers has often been sharpened by
early failure! Every year thousands of project ideas get off the ground, but a significant number
flounder because development is complex and challenging.

Your reflection should therefore be as balanced as possible, identifying things that went well, but
also identifying where things happened that were unexpected, or where problems arose. If you can
demonstrate how you learned from mistakes, and went on to do things differently, this kind of

3
Faculty of Computer Science
University of Sunderland

reflection is particularly valuable. So, do not be afraid to reflect on things that did not work out as
planned.

4
Faculty of Computer Science
University of Sunderland

Marking Scheme
Introduction 8 marks
Literature Review on Prototype Identification 14 marks
Reflection on the Prototype Identification 8 marks
Prototype Development 30 marks
Evaluation report 20 marks
Conclusion & References 10 marks
ePortfolio Submission PDF 10 marks
Total 100 marks

Submission Instructions
Your document submission should be provided as a single document in either Word or PDF and
uploaded to Canvas by the specified hand-in date, using the assignment submit link provided in the
assessment area. Your code should be uploaded in a single zip file. Your portfolio submission PDF should
be the form of a single document summarising the contents of your ePortfolio in Canvas and a working
link to its contents.

Your report should be accompanied by a reference list using the Harvard style of referencing and should
use a good range of sources. To achieve a high mark, you will be expected to cite as least 6 academic
references from conference proceedings or journals in your work. This will demonstrate that you have
researched your chosen solution in depth.

Submission Date: TBC

5
Faculty of Computer Science
University of Sunderland

Marking Criteria
Introduction You outline your You discuss your chosen You justify your choice of
choice of prototype prototype and link it well to your prototype using your e-
and a basic overview e-Portfolio work. Portfolio work as an
of your e-Portfolio evaluative argument for
work. your choice
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Literature Basic description of Some discussion of project Good discussion and Excellent argument, which
Review on your project choice, choice and some links to justification of project justifies project choice with
Prototype but lacking depth of research in the area. choice with clear links to clear links to the latest
Identification research in the area. relevant research in the relevant research in the
area. area.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Reflection on Basic reflection on Good reflection on your Strong reflection on both
the Prototype your experience of experience, which links your your assignment and
Identification the work undertaken. assignment and practical tutorial practical work and how
work well. one has informed the
other.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prototype You have developed You have developed your code to You have developed your You have developed your
Development your code to a basic a good standard, but a small part code to a high standard, code to an excellent
standard, but some may not be function as expected. and it functions as standard evidenced
parts may not be fully You have tried to implement expected. It goes beyond complex work that goes
functional. Your code something beyond what was the work covered in beyond that covered in
is not commented. delivered in tutorials. You have tutorials. You have tried tutorials and your code is
tried to explain what your code to explain what your code commented to a
does using comments. does using comments. professional standard.
0 1-12 12-19 20-24 25-30
Evaluation Basic evaluation of Some evaluation of project and Good discussion and Excellent report, which fully
and testing your project, but some links to research in the evaluation of project with evaluates your work with a
report lacking depth of area. clear links to relevant range of links to relevant
research in the area. research in the area. research in the area.
0 1-5 6-11 12-16 17-20
Conclusion & You have produced a You have produced a good You have produced an
References very basic conclusion conclusion and some relevant excellent conclusion and
and some references. references. a range of relevant
references.
0 1-3 4-7 8-10
ePortfolio Your submission Your submission includes Your submission includes
Submission includes evidence of evidence of all tutorial tasks, but evidence of all tutorial
PDF some of the tutorial some may not be fully tasks, and they are all
tasks, but some may operational. fully operational.
not be fully
operational.
0 1-3 4-7 8-10