This document outlines relevant guidelines of the Senior Thesis ("Comp") Proposal, describing topic selection, departmental deadlines, and best practices pertaining to work conducted during the semester students take CMPSC 600 and CMPSC 610. Additionally, this document outlines those factors of the Comp proposal and development process which are not directly governed by the CMPSC 600 and CMPSC 610 syllabi, but are inherent in the process of what the Department of Computer Science implies when referencing "research" and/or "inquiry."
For most students, the partial draft Proposal completed at the end of CMPSC 580 (Junior Seminar) will dictate your topic selection for completing work in CMPSC 600. In most cases, students will develop the work completed during a previous semester into a Comp Proposal. Here development can also include modifications to originally-proposed topics, provided appropriate conversations with assigned First Readers.
Students may elect to pursue research in an area different than that proposed at the conclusion of the Junior Seminar. Should a student elect this path, the faculty expect that a students will make an appointment to discuss new topics and research viability with their assigned First Reader.
Conversations indicating an entirely new line of research should take place within the opening two (2) weeks of the semester. Failure to act with appropriate urgency may result in students having to pursue either their originally-proposed topic.
In the past, students have successfully chosen to complete Comp projects dramatically different than those proposed during Junior Seminar. However, in these cases, students doing so have chosen topics with which they were still very familiar and recognized that this choice may imply additional work required to keep apace with their peers.
All due dates are provided in the course schedule. For convienience, major due dates (including the Proposal, defenses, and draft chapter due dates) are reproduced here:
| Deliverable | Due date(s) |
|---|---|
| Proposal document | 18 October |
| Proposal defenses | 25 October - 15 November |
| Draft chapters | 13 December |
| Deliverable | Due date(s) |
|---|---|
| Ethics interview | 10 May |
| Thesis defenses | 12 April - 3 May |
| Final thesis document | 17 May |
The course syllabus, assignment sheets, and schedule take precedence in defining formats and, in some cases, due date changes. While this document provides the dates, these reflect general planning for the semester. In the event of due date changes, they may be the last source updated. Refer to specific guidance from course documents and faculty in the event of changes discussed.
Throughout the Comp Proposal process, it is incumbent upon students to schedule meetings with First Readers or to seek out advice and mentorship from additional faculty or advisors. Occasionally, readers may schedule regular, standing meetings with students to discuss work. Students are expected to invest time, energy, and effort in good faith.
The highly independent and autonomous nature of work associated with the Comp Proposal process assumes a signficant amount of discretionary labor on students' behalf.
For students working under the auspices of a double major, the major indicated first on documentation is that which governs the Comp process -- including the Proposal. While you may work closely with faculty in the Department of Computer Science, be aware that individual disciplines (if listed before computer science) will take precedence in terms of high-level concerns (such as defenses or burdens of proof/evidence) and lower-level concerns such as citation format.
If completing a Comp Proposal which involves two (2) discplines, it is up to students to submit documentation to all appropriate readers.
Interdisciplinary projects should, at a minimum, make clear how disciplines outside of computer science exert influence on the product created in addition to demonstrating how computer science also affects conclusions and outcomes reached by other subjects. To determine this, readers and other faculty will be in conversation with other departments to assess all major products and deliverables, namely the Comp Proposal and draft chapters.
Faculty of the Department of Computer Science also expect that students engaging in interdisciplinary work will coordinate with all readers to attend defenses and provide feedback on written product. Failure to do so may, in some cases, affect the faculty's ability to appropriate evaluate work.
The faculty of the Department of Computer Science will make an honest, good faith effort to advise students on projects. However, we highlight two peculiar characteristics of feedback given during the Comp process:
-
Feedback, while coming from a place of disciplinary knowledge does not necessarily take into account the breadth and depth students have acquired during their indepdendent research. The faculty expect that students will assume the right to persist in asserting well-informed, even if contrary, opinions -- provided that they are grounded in evidence.
-
Feedback given by faculty often presages deep experience which goes beyond surface-level insights or "cosmetic" changes. Failure to address reader feedback constitutes a serious issue in the research process. This does not mean that students should simply acquiesce to faculty opinion. Rather, students should take up the ability to inquire, challenge, and assess the validity of faculty commentary.
All parties involved in the Comp process acknowledge the relationship between faculty and students involved to be one of peer research. Both parties should assume this to be true in all exchanges and in evaluation of critical feedback.
The following should be taken as a list of strong general recommendations for your proposal documents. These categories double as areas the faculty use to both assess work for completeness and evaluation.
- Proposal was submitted on time
- The title of the proposal is appropriate
- The abstract provides a concise summary
- The introduction section clearly describes the proposed work
- The introduction section motivates the proposed work
- The related work section describes relevant literature
- The related work section situates the proposed project in the broader scope
- The method section explains the process to be utilized in the proposed study
- The method section includes at least one of the following: the description of algorithms, programming languages, libraries, platforms, software tools, hardware
- The method section includes a demonstration of feasibility
- The evaluation section describes how the work will be validated
- The proposal includes a detailed schedule The conclusion section discusses the impact of the proposed work
- The conclusion outlines avenues for future work
- The proposal includes at least twelve references
- The proposal consists of at least
3000words - The proposal follows a logical flow
- The proposal includes visual aids, where appropriate, which fall under the broad categories of:
imagefiguretablegraph
- There are no typographical or grammatical errors and no extraneous text in the proposal
- The proposal was released correctly on GitHub
- The proposal uses the correct LaTeX format
Proposal defenses take the form of an in-person oral presentation of between 10 and 15 minutes. Time is dedicated as follows:
- 10 minutes: student presentation
- 5 minutes: questions posed by First and Second readers in succession
- brief deliberation of Proposal document and presentation, during which the presenting student leaves the room
After deliberation, the First Reader indicates if the presenter has passed the Proposal stage. Students will not be given a grade on their document or presentation at this time.
If a student passes the Proposal defense, they are permitted to continue work on developing two (2) draft chapters of their thesis document.
Should readers determine that a student does not pass the Proposal defense, changes will be requested via issues filed on the GitHub repository containing the Proposal document. In addition, the student will be asked to attend a follow-up defense. During this follow-up defense, students are expected to address the gaps identified by the previous defense.
- Thesis was submitted on time
- The title of the thesis is appropriate
- The abstract provides a concise summary
- The introduction section clearly describes the completed work
- The introduction section motivates the completed work The related work section describes relevant literature
- The related work section situates the completed project in the broader scope
- The method section explains the process utilized in the completed study
- The method section addresses as many of the following which are applicable (minimum
1):
description of algorithmsprogramming languageslibrariesplatformssoftware toolshardware
- The experimental results section includes a description of experiments such that a reader should be able to reproduce them
- The evaluation subsection describes how the work is validated
- The experimental results section details threats to validity
- The discussion and future work section discusses the impact of the conducted work
- The conclusion outlines avenues for further and/or future work
- The thesis includes at least twelve references
- The thesis consists of at least
7500words - The thesis follows a logical flow
- The thesis includes appropriate visual aids, which fall under the broad categories of:
imagefiguretablegraph
- There are no typographical or grammatical errors and no extraneous text in the thesis
- The thesis was released correctly on GitHub
- The thesis uses the correct LaTeX format
Keep in mind that all word counts represent a minimum acceptable threshhold of content required for completion. It is likely that other requirements listed above are not fulfilled thoroughly with only a minumum word count. While meeting minimum requirements will guarantee a passing grade, it may not necessarily presage the evaluation you want. Keep this in mind as you are working toward exhaustively documenting your project process.
Thesis defenses take the form of an in-person oral presentation of between 10 and 15 minutes. Time is dedicated as follows:
- 10 minutes: student presentation
- 5 minutes: questions posed by First and Second readers in succession
- brief deliberation of Proposal document and presentation, during which the presenting student leaves the room
After deliberation, the First Reader indicates if the presenter has passed the defense. Students will not be given a grade on their document or presentation at this time.
If a student passes the Thesis defense, it is possible that their reader(s) will suggest minor revisions to documents. It is the student's responsibility to consider and implement changes appropriate to the nature of feedback received. Not addressing reader concerns in final documents may adversely affect the evaluation of the quality of the project, resulting in a lower letter grade.
In some cases, the changes required by faculty review of student work require significant revision and labor, but not so much so that student work is considered as "not passing." In these cases, a student's readers may come up with certain contingencies that must be fulfilled before judging a project to have passed the defense.
Should a student require these follow-up interventions, their First Reader will open an issue on the student's thesis repository containing the requested revisions. Once a student makes these revisions, and they have been accepted by a student's readers, the student will be notified that they have passed their defense.
Should readers determine that a student does not pass an initial Thesis defense, changes will be requested via issues filed on the GitHub repository containing the Thesis document. These changes are also student responsibility to implement and constitute more than minor suggestions or considerations.
The student must re-defend their thesis either through a full defense session or through a process developed with their thesis reader(s). Following significant revisions to the thesis document and/or presentation of that document, and if readers agree that work has met standards acceptable to the department, the student's work will be considered to have passed this requirement.