Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

MSIN0019/Software Engineering

2023/24

Section A: Core information

Submission date

08/03/2024

Submission time

10:00 am

Assessment is marked out of:

100

% weighting of this assessment within total module mark

40%

Maximum word count/page length/duration

2000 words

Footnotes, appendices, tables, figures, diagrams, charts included in/excluded from word count/page length?

Excluded from word count

Bibliographies, reference lists included in/excluded from word count/page length?

Excluded from word count

Penalty for exceeding word count/page length

Penalty for exceeding word count will be a deduction of 10 percentage points, capped at 40% for Levels 4,5, 6, and 50% for Level 7) Refer to Academic Manual Section 3: Module Assessment - 3.13 Word Counts.

Penalty for late submission

Standard UCL penalties apply. Students should refer to https://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/chapters/chapter-4-assessment-framework-taught-programmes/section-3-module-assessment#3.12

Artificial Intelligence (AI) category

Assistive

Submitting your assessment

The assignment MUST be submitted to the module submission link located within this module’s Moodle ‘Submissions’ tab by the specified deadline.

Anonymity of identity. Normally, all submissions are anonymous unless the nature of the submission is such that anonymity is not appropriate, illustratively as in presentations or where minutes of group meetings are required as part of a group work submission

The nature of this assessment is such that anonymity is required.

Section B: Assessment Brief and Requirements

The release of ChatGPT by OpenAI in November 2022 stirred immense interest around the world with 1 million users signing up in the first 5 days.

ChatGPT was the first in a line of “large language models” (LLMs) that will have a major impact on business and in particular software engineering.

Please write an article on the “The impact of LLMs on software engineering”. Be sure to: -

1. Explain the key features of LLMs.

2. Discuss the potential opportunities for LLMs to enhance software engineering.

3. Discuss the impact of using LLMs on the roles within software engineering.

4. Discuss the challenges and/or risks of integrating LLMs into a software product.

5. Discuss whether LLMs have longevity.

The article must end with a conclusion and contain no more than 2000 words. The target audience for the article is anyone currently involved in software engineering. References to supporting research should be added to a separate appendix which is not included in the 2000 word-limit.

The following points should be considered when writing the article: -

1. The article should look and feel like an article i.e. be informative, engaging and not too technical/academic

2. It should discuss LLMs in the context of Software Engineering and not their wider usage

3. When looking at the challenges, it should focus on the integration into software products

4. Demonstrating some hands-on experience of LLM functionality would be beneficial

5. When looking at the longevity of LLMs consider in the context of Generative AI

6. The article should avoid statements that have no supporting evidence or justification

NOTE: If a LLM is used to generate any content for the article, then this content MUST appear in quotes, with a suitable supporting reference in the appendix.

Section C: Module Learning Outcomes covered in this Assessment

This assessment contributes towards the achievement of the following stated module Learning Outcomes as highlighted below:

▪ Understand the Agile software engineering approach

▪ Explore potential software architectures

Section D: Groupwork Instructions (where relevant/appropriate)

Specific requirements for groupwork are available here. If this section is blank, no specific requirements for groupwork are applicable to this assessment.

Section E: How your work is assessed

Within each section of this assessment you may be assessed on the following aspects, as applicable and appropriate to this assessment, and should thus consider these aspects when fulfilling the requirements of each section:

 The accuracy of any calculations required.

 The strengths and quality of your overall analysis and evaluation;

 Appropriate use of relevant theoretical models, concepts and frameworks;

 The rationale and evidence that you provide in support of your arguments;

 The credibility and viability of the evidenced conclusions/recommendations/plans of action you put forward;

 Structure and coherence of your considerations and reports;

 Appropriate and relevant use of, as and where relevant and appropriate, real world examples, academic materials and referenced sources. Any references should use either the Harvard OR Vancouver referencing system (see References, Citations and Avoiding Plagiarism)

 Academic judgement regarding the blend of scope, thrust and communication of ideas, contentions, evidence, knowledge, arguments, conclusions.

 Each assessment requirement(s) has allocated marks/weightings.

Student submissions are reviewed/scrutinised by an internal assessor and are available to an External Examiner for further review/scrutiny before consideration by the relevant Examination Board.

It is not uncommon for some students to feel that their submissions deserve higher marks (irrespective of whether they actually deserve higher marks). To help you assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of your submission please refer to SOM Assessment Criteria Guidelines, located on the Assessment tab of the SOM Student Information Centre Moodle site.

The above is an important link as it specifies the criteria for attaining the pass/fail bandings shown below: At UG Levels 4, 5 and 6:

80% to 100%: Outstanding Pass - 1st; 70% to 79%: Excellent Pass - 1st; 60%-69%: Very Good Pass - 2.1; 50% to 59%: Good Pass - 2.2; 40% to 49%: Satisfactory Pass - 3rd; 20% to 39%: Insufficient to Pass - Fail; 0% to 19%: Poor and Insufficient to Pass - Fail.

At PG Level 7:

86% to 100%: Outstanding Pass - Distinction; 70% to 85%: Excellent Pass - Distinction; 60%-69%: Good Pass - Merit; 50% to 59%: Satisfactory - Pass; 40% to 49%: Insufficient to Pass - Fail; 0% to 39%: Poor and Insufficient to Pass - Fail.

You are strongly advised to review these criteria before you start your work and during your work, and before you submit.

You are strongly advised to not compare your mark with marks of other submissions from your student colleagues. Each submission has its own range of characteristics which differ from others in terms of breadth, scope, depth, insights, and subtleties and nuances. On the surface one submission may appear to be similar to another but invariably, digging beneath the surface reveals a range of differing characteristics.

Students who wish to request a review of a decision made by the Board of Examiners should refer to the UCL Academic Appeals Procedure, taking note of the acceptable grounds for such appeals.

Note that the purpose of this procedure is not to dispute academic judgement – it is to ensure correct application of UCL’s regulations and procedures. The appeals process is evidence-based and circumstances must be supported by independent evidence.