An Issue with the Assignment Brief

Cross-Cutting Reflection  ·  MSc Computer Science (Conversion)  ·  Author: Orville Fernandes

Background

COM7119 AI, Biometrics and Smart Systems was the fourth module I studied in term two of the MSc. The assignment brief set a scenario in which students were required to design an AI-Assistive system and present a report on the design.

During term one, COM7010 Introduction to Computer Science had set coursework with a similar scenario structure. As I read through the COM7119 brief, the structure felt familiar in a way that went beyond coincidence. The format was identical. The scenario sections followed the same order. Even the phrasing in places was recognisable. I decided to compare them properly.

What the Comparison Showed

Using a PDF comparison tool, I placed the two briefs side by side and went through them systematically. What I found was not a loose resemblance. The COM7119 brief appeared to have been constructed by taking the COM7010 brief and substituting module-specific terminology: "software engineering" became "biometrics," "CS principles" became "AI concepts," and so on. The structural template, section headings, and in several places the actual sentence construction remained unchanged.

The most specific concern was in the marking criteria. The marking criteria descriptors in the COM7119 brief still referenced software engineering techniques and Computer Science principles, which was language that was carried over from COM7010 and not updated to reflect the AI and biometrics content of COM7119. This raised a genuine question: on what basis would our work be assessed? If the marking criteria described COM7010 content, could we be confident it would be applied fairly to COM7119 work? And on a deeper level, it called into question the level of attention and detail that was put into creating this coursework.

The brief also was not clear about the system we were meant to design. We were told in class that it was to be an AI-assistive system and in parts the brief mentioned this. In other parts, it mentioned we had to design a life-critical system, which was actually the theme of the COM7010 module, so I suspected that these references were just not taken out. Additionally, in the marking criteria, there was also reference to designing of a security system, which was not mentioned at any other point. Overall, the coursework asked us to design a system, including requirements, architecture and justification, which at its core, is a software engineering task. The AI and biometrics content felt incidental, a skin over a brief that had not been meaningfully rethought for the module it was supposed to be assessing.

I want to be precise about what I am claiming. I am not suggesting anyone acted in bad faith. Briefs get reused and adapted; that is normal academic practice. The issue was the degree of overlap, the unamended marking criteria, and critically, the seeming lack of forethought that went into designing this coursework. That is not a subjective complaint about the difficulty or design of the module, it is a specific, documented observation about the assessment instrument.

The Complaint

I sat on the evidence for a day before doing anything with it. I wanted to be sure I was reading it correctly and that my concern was substantive rather than frustration looking for a target. I also knew I was not alone as several classmates had similar concerns about the module.

I drafted a letter addressed to the relevant academic staff. The letter set out the comparison findings clearly, referenced the specific marking criteria, and asked three things: an explanation of how the assessment criteria would be applied to our work, confirmation that the brief had been reviewed before submission, and a response to the overlap itself. The tone was deliberate. This was a formal communication, not a rant, and I treated it as one.

The Meeting

A meeting was arranged following the complaint. I prepared meeting notes in advance, setting out the key points I wanted to cover and the outcomes I was looking for. I also prepared a set of proposed alternatives, suggestions for future cohorts as at this point as I was aware it would be too late to make any substantiative changes to the coursework.

The meeting felt less like a genuine conversation and more like due diligence, something that needed to happen because a formal complaint had been raised. At times I was treated more like I had simply not understood the assignment brief, rather than me pointing out issues with it. The specific concerns in the letter, including the marking criteria issue, were dismissed as paperwork errors rather than acknowledged as substantive. There was no real openness to the feedback, and the suggestions for alternatives for the coursework structure I had prepared never came up. It was discussed that a short video explaining the coursework and clarifying expectations would be uploaded to the module page, which was done. The errors I had pointed out were amended and an updated assignment brief was posted (I later noted another error in the new brief that I had not pointed out, suggesting that even after scrutiny, the brief was not reviewed thoroughly and only the issues I pointed out were addressed). Additionally, a one-week deadline extension was provided because this process had apparently highlighted that the original deadline fell during a holiday period. That was, at least, something concrete.

What I Take From It

I have reflected on this experience quite a bit since. The easiest version of the story is "student complains about assignment brief and gets a meeting." The more useful version is about what it takes to raise something like this well. Evidence matters. Tone matters. Knowing what outcome you are actually asking for matters. A complaint without a specific ask is just a grievance. I tried to make mine something more than that.

What I take from it is more complicated than I expected. I still think raising the complaint was the right thing to do, and I would do it again. But I would go in with different expectations. I was left with the feeling that the complaint was heard in the narrowest possible sense. Whether any of it prompts a rethink of how module briefs are prepared and reviewed, I genuinely do not know. I hope it does. But I am not holding my breath.