Final Year Projects.

1
Introduction

• Final Year Projects.
• Mr.R.M. Kinmond

2
Aim

• An introduction to the final year Project (fyp)
  process as conducted at Staffordshire University
  in regard to Stafford Computing

3
E-commerce
Software Engineering
CDS
Internet Technology
And more
Multimedia
Business Computing
BIT
BCIT
Games
Mobile
Communications technology
Computing science
Project.
Information systems
Identity
Forensic
Intelligent systems
Web media technology
Graphics
Computer science
Computer systems
4
What do they have in common?

• Engineering approach
• Application of IT
• Research
• Planning
• Analysis
• Design
• Testing
• Conclusion

5
Understanding and Defining The problem

• Award requirements
• Your career ambitions
• Your skills
• The skills you want to aquire.
• Resources
• Time
• Supervisor/route advisor approval
• Ethical basis

6
Historically .. Culturally

• Changes this year
• EOS viva
• Gradex entry
• Degree means you can problem solve
• FYP chance to prove this
• Hardest thing yet
• What is level three thinking/behaviour
• Your project is essentialist and individualistic

7
Today's Perspective

• Project idea and title
• Supervisor
• what is required
• who is suitable
• what if..
• Practicalities
• Logging on
• Proposal selection

8
The importance of the title

• One starting point
• The project list
• Combine ideas
• Apply new technologies
• New domains
• Job adverts
• Skills for career
• 105 staff suggested projects
• Interesting
• Informative
• Technology used
• Domain applied

9
Aims and Objectives

• Aims
• Broad over view
• General purpose
• Problem being solved
• Ambitions and golas
• Objectives
• Measurable may constrain your ambitions
• May be too ambitious
• Think!

10
Methodological reflections..

• methodology
• Structured approach
• Suitability?
• SDLC, spiral, evolve, extreme, agile, object, web
• Guide lines
• Standards
• SSADM, RAD, uml, wsdm, psdm, dsdm, multiview,
  softsystems etc.. Etc
• Hybrid / combinedwhy?

11
Importance of Technique?

• Analysis and design techniques
• Erms
• Dfds
• Normalisation
• Pseudocode
• Use Case diagrams
• Rich pictures
• Story boards
• Personas
• Etc etc.

12
Tools! Is size important

• Self is a concept that is fundamental to our
  being
• If I believe self is.then self is.

13
References

• Not for these slides just to show you the
  approach
• Burkitt, I (1991) Social Selves. London, Sage
• Burr, V. (2002) The case for the person in social
  psychology. BPS Social Psychology Conference
• Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of meaning Cambridge,
  Mass. Havard Uni press
• Dennett, D.C. (2003). The self as a responding
  and responsible artifact. Annals of the New
  York Academy of Sciences, 1001, 39-50.
• Gazzaniga, M.S. (2000). Cognitive Neuroscience a
  reader. Oxford Blackwell.
• Geertz, C. (1984) From the natives point of
  view on the nature of anthropological
  understanding. In R. Shweder Culture theory
  essays on mind, self and emotion. Cambridge uni
  Press.
• Kihlsrom, J.F. (1993). What does the self look
  like? In Srull, T.K. and Wyer, R.S. (Eds). The
  Mental representation of trait and
  autobiographical knowledge about the self
  Advances in social cognition Vol. 5. Hillsdale,
  NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• McCann, D. and Sato, T. (2000). Personality,
  cognition and self. European Journal of
  Personality, 14, 449-461.
• Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing
  information about the self. Journal of
  Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
• Markus, H. and Nurius, P. (1986). Possible
  selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
• Neisser, U. and Jopling, D.A. (1997). The
  conceptual self in context. Cambridge Cambridge
  University Press.
• Ramachandran, V.S. and Hirstein, W. (1997). Three
  Laws of Qualia What Neurology Tells Us about the
  Biological Functions of Consciousness, Qualia and
  the Self. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4,
  429-458.
• Ramachandran, V.S. (2003). Neuroscience the New
  Philosophy. www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecture
  5.shtml
• Turk, D.J., Heatherton, T.F., Macrea, C.N.,
  Kelley, W.M. and Gazzaniga, M.S. (2003). Out of
  Contact, out of Mind The distributed nature of
  self. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
  1001, 65-78.