COMP4037 Research Methods Coursework 1
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit
COMP4037 Research Methods
Coursework 1: Reading Research Papers and Extracting the Essentials
Number of Credits: 25% of module
Recommended hours: 20-25 hours (for distinction level)
Re-Assessment Deadline: 21 August by 15:00
Late submissions will incur a penalty of 10% per day including weekends and bank holidays. Submit on Moodle-a link to a submission form will be provided a few days before the deadline. Note that the DOI of your paper is required in order to submit.
The aim of this coursework is to:
● Give you practice in reading and understanding research papers in computer science, and assess your ability to summarize complex research.
● Develop and assess your ability to present research in a given medium and aimed at a given audience.
● Grow your knowledge of research here in the School of Computer Science at Nottingham, which will help you in choosing your project.
This supports the following Learning Objective on the module:
● Develop a good understanding of the research process and the application of appropriate research approaches to given problems.
Task Description and Context
The ability to read a scientific research paper, identifying its essential content, and to present research to a wider audience, through a variety of media, is an important skill for researchers. To be successful in research, you may need to:
● Read and understand previous research
● Develop skills in managing the large volume of previously published research
● Extract the essential information from a given research paper
● Explain your research to others outside your field
● Present your research to a public audience, to generate wider interest in your work and to “pay back” the public who have funded research through taxes
● Explain your research to a collaborator, who might be in a different academic discipline or who might have a management role in a company or university
● Justify your research to a funder or publisher
● Inspire a new generation of researchers by explaining your research to school or university students
So, being able to appropriately summarize research in an appropriate language and using appropriate concepts is important. Furthermore, by doing this, you enhance your own understanding of research.
Problem Statement: Therefore, the task in this coursework is as follows. You produce a 2 minute video that extracts and explains the essentials of a research paper written by researchers here in the School of Computer Science at Nottingham. The target audience are 17-year old students who are about to start a computer science degree next year.
Identify a Research Paper: You will first need to identify an appropriate paper with an author, or co-author, from the School of Computer Science at the University of Nottingham. You can look at the pages for staff and research students in the School, most of whom have a “publications” tab that takes you to a list of their papers. Many of them will have personalized web pages with a list of their publications and accompanying PDF files. Alternatively, you can look in the University Research Repository, which allows you to search by keywords. Try to identify a paper on some topic that is of interest to you—perhaps something that you would want to develop for your summer project work.
Extract the Essential Information:
Template: The essential information contained in the video must include:
1. Paper Title and Authors:
2. Concept (or Paper Contribution):
3. Implementation (or Method):
4. Core Related Work:
5. Data Characteristics:
6. Type of Evaluation:
7. Representative Image(s):
8. Paper DOI: (in the description field of the video)
9. URL of PDF: (in the description field of the video)
Extra Help: See the lectures or the paper (Laramee 2011) on extracting the essential information from a research paper for more detail on this topic (Laramee 2023a-c). See Laramee (2011) in the References below for a detailed description of this process. See also Laramee (2016, 2018) for supplementary tutorials on this subject in the References section below.
Plan Video: Then, plan out your video. You should break down the time into a number of scenes, and think about what is going to happen visually in each scene, and what is going to be said. This summary is often called a storyboard, and we offer a tutorial video on this topic in the References below (Wave 2018). Think about the overall style of presentation—are you going to do a “piece to camera”, some visuals with a voiceover, are you going to talk to another person? There are lots of possible styles.
Record Video: We have a session where we extract the essentials of a research paper in small groups and provide constructive feedback on them. Recordings of those sessions are provided in the References section below. After extracting the essentials of a paper and planning your video, you are in a position to record your video, which is uploaded by the deadline below.
Edit Video: You are free to use any video recording and editing tools. Don’t worry about watermarks on trial versions of tools. If you need a decent video editing tool, we recommend CuteCut, IMovie, or Camtasia. See Laramee (2017) in the References below for a tutorial on using IMovie and YouTube. You may also use the recording feature in PowerPoint.
Upload Video: Please upload the video file to a video sharing site such as YouTube or Vimeo and upload the link. You can upload it as an “unlisted” video if you don’t want it to be seen publicly. Please do not make any modifications to the video after the submission date. See Laramee (2017) in the References below for a supplementary video tutorial on this topic.
Assessment Criteria
Marks will be given for your ability to identify and extract the essential components, the quality of your explanations, the appropriateness of the video for the target audience, the structure of your video, and the use of interesting and appropriate visual material.
See the Assessment Rubric below (after the References) for more details on how the video is scored.
Academic Integrity
This is an individual assessment that should consist of your own unaided work. You are permitted to use any material (e.g. diagrams and quotations) from the research paper that your video is based on, but you must make it clear when you are quoting from the paper. The University has detailed advice about academic integrity and submissions that demonstrate a lack of that integrity will be treated under appropriate disciplinary procedures.
References and Extra Help
(Laramee 2011) Robert S. Laramee, How to Read a Visualization Research Paper: Extracting the Essentials, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (IEEE CG&A), Vol. 31, No. 3, May/June 2011, pages 78-82 ( PDF file, web page, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2011.44 )
(Laramee 2016) Robert S Laramee, How To Read a Scientific Research Paper, There are four examples with two minute research paper summaries in this lecture.
How To Read a Scientific Research Paper: Extracting the Essentials
(Laramee 2017) Robert S Larameee, Using Video Media to Promote Science: Quicktime + IMovie + YouTube,
Using Video Media to Promote Science: Quicktime + IMovie + YouTube
(Laramee 2018) Robert S Laramee, How to Deal with Hundreds or Thousands of Research Papers, There are four examples with two minute research paper summaries in this lecture.
How to Deal with Hundreds or Thousands of Research Papers
(Larmee 2023a) Robert S Laramee, Research Methods: Extracting the Essentials of a Computer Science Research Paper
(Laramee 2023b) Robert S Laramee, Research Methods Workshop on Reading Research Papers
(Laramee 2023c) Robert S Laramee, Research Methods: Workshop Feedback Session on Reading Research Papers
(Wave 2018) Wave Video, How to Make a Storyboard for a Video in 6 Steps, 2018
How to make a storyboard for a video in 6 steps | Video Marketing How To
Assessment Rubric
Surname: First Name: Student ID:
|
Description |
0% |
10-40% |
50-59% |
60-69% |
70-79% |
80-100%
|
Points |
Total Possible Points |
|
1. Paper Title and Authors |
None provided |
|
Paper title only provided |
Paper title and authors provided. No School of Computer Science author indicated. |
|
Correct paper title and authors provided. The author from the School of Computer Science is clearly indicated. |
|
10 |
|
2. Concept |
Not provided |
Entirely incorrect concept |
Partially correct concept but with some errors |
Correctly identified concepts and written clearly |
Correctly identified concept and very well written. |
Accurately identified and publishable quality |
|
10 |
|
3. Implementation |
Not provided |
Entirely incorrect implementation |
Partially correct implementation details but with some errors |
Correct description of implementation and clearly written |
Correct description and very well written |
Description written at a publishable level |
|
10 |
|
4. Related Work |
None provided |
Related work incorrectly identified |
Partially correct related work described but with some errors |
Correctly identified related work identified and clearly written |
Correct related work identified and very well written |
Description and identification of related work at a publishable level. |
|
10 |
|
5. Data Description |
Not provided |
Data characteristics incorrectly described |
Data characteristics partially correct but with some errors |
Data characteristics described correctly and clear writing |
Data characteristics described correctly and very well written. |
Description and presentation of data characteristics at a publishable level. |
|
10 |
|
6. Type of Evaluation |
Not provided |
Evaluation is described incorrectly |
Type of evaluation is describe partially correct |
A good description of the type of evaluation is provided |
The type of evaluation is correct and very well described. |
The type of evaluation is correct and described at a publishable level. |
|
10 |
|
7. Quality of Video |
No video provided |
The video quality is low (blurry, poor timing, etc) |
The video is decent quality, fairly clear, good timing etc. |
The video quality is good, clear, and good timing. |
The quality of the video is high, very clear, and very good timing. |
The video is professional quality and could be published. |
|
10 |
|
8. Quality of Images |
No images |
Some low quality images are provided, aliased, blurry etc. |
Some reasonable and sensible images are provided. |
A good and relevant set of images are provided. |
The images are very relevant and very good quality, clear, etc. |
The images provided are relevant and of publishable quality. |
|
10 |
|
9. Use of Sound |
None |
The quality of sound is poor, hard to hear, with extra static etc. |
The sound is reasonable quality, no problems hearing anything. |
The sound is good quality with no noise and everything is easy to hear. |
A very high quality sound is provided with a very good voiceover. |
The sound and accompanying voiceover are publishable quality. |
|
10 |
|
10. DOI + URL provided in description |
None provided |
An incorrect DOI or URL are provided. |
URL of PDF only provided |
|
Working DOI and URL of PDF provided |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Points |
|
/100 |
Grade 80-100. An exceptional summary of the research paper is provided, similar to that of a good PhD student. The quality of the video is at a publishable level. Every aspect of the paper summary template is covered and completed at a publishable level.
● The concept and implementation are provided at a publishable level.
● The closely related work is correctly identified and described at a publishable level.
● The data description is correctly described and at a publishable level.
● The type of evaluation is correctly identified and described at a publishable level.
● The quality of the video: images, sound, text content, and timing are all at a publishable level
● The DOI, URL, and Nottingham author or co-author are all provided without errors.
Grade 70-79. A very clear summary of the research paper is provided, similar to that of a beginning PhD student. The quality of the video is at a very good level. Every aspect of the paper summary template is covered and completed at a very good level.
● The concept and implementation are provided at a very good standard.
● The closely related work is correctly identified and described to a very good level.
● The data description is correctly described and to a high standard.
● The type of evaluation is correctly identified and described very well.
● The quality of the video: images, sound, text content, and timing are all very good.
● The DOI, URL, and Nottingham author or co-author are all provided without errors.
Grade 60-69. A good summary of the research paper is provided, and most aspects of the video are clear. The quality of the video is good. Every aspect of the paper summary template is covered and completed though perhaps falling short of a thorough and professional level with perhaps some incomplete or mixed up aspects of the template.
● The concept and implementation are provided at a good standard but some aspects could be clearer.
● The closely related work is correctly identified and described but perhaps could be improved.
● The data description is correctly described but not necessarily to a high standard.
● The type of evaluation is correctly identified and described but could be improved.
● The quality of the video: images, sound, text content, and timing could be improved.
● The DOI, URL, and Nottingham author or co-author are all provided without errors.
Grade 50-59. A summary of the research paper is provided, and most aspects of the video are understandable. The quality of the video is ok. Most aspects of the paper summary template are covered and completed though perhaps falling short of a good level with perhaps some incomplete, mixed up, or erroneous aspects of the template.
● The concept and implementation are provided at an ok standard but some aspects could be improved.
● The closely related work is identified and described ok but could be improved.
● The data description is described ok but some aspects are incomplete or unclear.
● The type of evaluation is identified and described but could be improved, is unclear, or incomplete.
● The quality of the video: images, sound, text content, and timing could be improved.
● The DOI, URL, and Nottingham author or co-author are all provided.
Grade 40-49. A summary of the research paper is provided, and most aspects of the video reflect some understanding but the descriptions are vague, lack detail, lack clarity, or have errors. The quality of the video is very basic. The visual design is very basic. Most aspects of the paper summary template are covered but some are incomplete, mixed up, unclear, or erroneous.
● The concept and implementation are provided but are vague, lack clarity, or are erroneous.
● The closely related work is identified and described but is vague, lacks clarity, or contains errors.
● The data description is described ok but some aspects are incomplete, vague, unclear, or erroneous.
● The type of evaluation is identified and described but is incomplete, vague, unclear, or erroneous.
● The quality of the video: images, sound, text content, or timing is poor.
● The DOI, URL, and Nottingham author or co-author are provided.
Grade 30-39. A summary of the research paper is provided, and the video reflects little understanding and the descriptions are vague, lack detail, lack clarity, or have errors. The quality of the video is very low. Some aspects of the paper summary template are covered but some are incomplete, mixed up, unclear, or erroneous.
● The concept and implementation are not clearly explained and contain significant errors.
● The closely related work is identified and described but is not clearly explained or contains significant errors..
● The data description is incomplete, vague, unclear, or erroneous.
● The type of evaluation is incomplete, vague, unclear, or erroneous.
● The quality of the video: images, sound, text content, and timing is poor.
● The DOI, URL, and Nottingham author or co-author are provided but may be incomplete or erroneous.
Grade 20-29. A summary of the research paper is attempted, but the video reflects little understanding and the descriptions are either missing, vague, lack detail, lack clarity, or have errors. The quality of the video is very low. Some aspects of the paper summary template are covered but some are incomplete, mixed up, unclear, or erroneous.
● The concept and implementation are either missing, not clearly explained, or contain significant errors.
● The closely related work is either missing, not clearly explained or contains significant errors..
● The data description is incomplete, vague, unclear, or erroneous.
● The type of evaluation is incomplete, vague, unclear, or erroneous.
● The quality of the video: images, sound, text content, and timing is poor.
● The DOI, URL, and Nottingham author or co-author are provided but may be incomplete or erroneous.
Grade 10-19. A summary of the research paper is provided, but the video reflects little-to-no understanding and the descriptions are either missing, vague, lack detail, lack clarity, or have errors. The quality of the video is very low. Little-to-no effort was put into the submission. The video has no meaningful structure and no significant attempt at providing a research paper summary.
● The concept and implementation are missing or contain significant errors.
● The closely related work is missing or contains significant errors..
● The data description is missing, incomplete, vague, unclear, or erroneous.
● The type of evaluation is absent, incomplete, vague, unclear, or erroneous.
● The quality of the video: images, sound, text content, and timing is very poor.
● The DOI, URL, and Nottingham author or co-author are not provided, incomplete, or erroneous.
Grade 0-10. No or minimal attempt. Most parts are missing.
2023-08-31
Reading Research Papers and Extracting the Essentials