Your project proposal should outline your plan and goals for the implementation project and provide background on your topic. Your goal is to demonstrate comprehension of your chosen problem and describe a reasonable approach to achieve your goals.
Your proposal should include the following information:
- Title of your project
- The names of the students in your group
- The specific problem you will be trying to solve, including the prototype and final deliverables
- A summary of the related literature you reviewed and any background necessary to understand your project
- A description of the methods you plan to use in your project including any tools/frameworks and or data sets (if relevant)
- Alternative plans to reduce (or increase) the project scope
Remember that this is just a proposal and not a contract. You are permitted to (and it is expected you will) deviate from this proposal as your project evolves.
Your proposal should be drafted in LaTeX and be approximately 2-3 pages in length including any figures. A template can be found here (Links to an external site.). Your proposal will be evaluated for a clear problem statement, a thorough literature review, appropriate methods that demonstrate comprehension of the problem, and realistic and specific alternative plans.
Keep the following ACM guidelines in mind while writing your proposal (and any other technical document this semester)
- Write in a straightforward style.
- Try to avoid long or complex sentence structures.
- Briefly define or explain all technical terms that may be unfamiliar to readers.
- Explain all acronyms the first time they are used in your text---e.g., "Digital Signal Processing (DSP)".
- Explain local references (e.g., not everyone knows all city names in a particular country).
- Explain "insider" comments. Ensure that your whole audience understands any reference whose meaning you do not describe (e.g., do not assume that everyone has used a Mac or a particular application).
- Explain colloquial language and puns. Understanding phrases like "red herring" may require a local knowledge of English. Humor and irony are difficult to translate.
Grading (Rough-Draft: 7 points)
There are seven mandatory sections of hte proposal, one point will be assigned to an honest attempt at each section.
Grading (Final-Draft: 15 points)
For the final draft, grading will be over content quality (9), structure & organization (3), and style, mechanics, & citations (3). These sections total to 15 points.
Content Quality (9)
- Excellent (9pts).
Paper clearly summarizes the relevant literature. The proposed methodology including tools, frameworks, and/or datasets is well defined. Clearly articulates plans to increase or decrease the scope of the project.
- Good/Fair (6pts).
Paper summarizes the relevant literature. The proposed methodology including tools, frameworks, and/or datasets is defined, but with some ambiguity. Includes some plans to increase or decrease the scope of the project.
- Needs Improvement (3pts).
Provides little in terms of relevant literature. The proposed methodology including tools, frameworks, and/or datasets is defined, but with a considerable amount of ambiguity. Includes little to increase or decrease the scope of the project.
- Poor (0pts).
Paper does not summarize the relevant literature. The proposed methodology including tools, frameworks, and/or datasets are not well defined. No plans are given to increase or decrease the scope of the project.
Structure and Organization (3)
Excellent (3 pts).
Paper flows logically. Paragraphs clearly guide the reader through a progression of ideas.
Good/Fair (2 pts).
Paper flows logically, though some elements of organization and coherence are missing. Paragraphs guide the reader through a progression of ideas.
Needs Improvement (1 pts).
Paper is missing several elements of organization and coherence. Ideas are loosely connected.
Poor (0 pts).
Paper lacks organization and coherence. There is no connection of ideas.
Style, Mechanics, and Citations (3)
- Excellent (3 pts).
Almost entirely free of spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. Demonstrates thorough and thoughtful editing and revision. All sources are cited correctly and completely. Correctly formatted using the given template, accounting for all sections.
- Good/Fair (2 pts).
May contain a few spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors, but they don't impede understanding. Demonstrates editing and revision. Sources are cited correctly and completely. Correctly formatted using the given template, accounting for all sections.
- Needs Improvement (1 pts).
Several spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors that distract the reader. Demonstrates minimal editing and revision. Incomplete citations. Some formatting issues.
- Poor (0 pts).
Pervasive spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors that distract the reader. No evidence of editing or revision. Missing citations citations. Incorrectly formatted.