CIS110-6 Distributed and Parallel Computing Technologies Assignment 1 Brief | PG | AY25-26

What am I required to do in this assignment?

For this assignment, you will work in groups of four students. Each group will select a specific area within distributed and parallel technologies to investigate. The aim is to develop a strong understanding of your chosen area, explore state-of-the-art approaches, and examine cutting-edge applications.

Topic Selection

Choose your research area from the list of keywords provided on the Assignment Group tab in BREO.
Your investigation and report must focus on this selected area.

Research and Referencing

Use knowledge from lectures and practical sessions, referencing them directly to explain the background and rationale for the technologies discussed.

Support your work with well-referenced secondary research, including several research papers (preferably journal articles), conference papers, or research books. Each group member must select and review at least one research paper. Well-known open-source projects may also be considered.

Group Tasks and Deliverables

1. Presentation

Prepare a group presentation (maximum 10 slides) to be delivered during the practical sessions in Week 4 (14th and 15th Oct 2025).
The presentation should clearly delegate subtopics among group members.

2. Written Portfolio (Report)

Submit a group report (maximum 20 pages, excluding appendices) that includes:

Title Page: Include the assignment title, group member names, student numbers, table of contents and abstract. (1–2 paragraphs): Summarise the content and findings (all members contribute).

Introduction (1–2 pages): Introduce your selected research area (all members contribute).
Individual Research Paper Reviews (approx. 2 pages each): Each member reviews one research paper, discussing its rationale, methods, findings, and conclusions. Clearly indicate the author of each review.

Discussion: Theoretical Context (2 pages): Highlight your selected area within distributed and parallel computing theories, referencing lecture/practical content. Discuss findings from the reviewed papers in terms of transparency, scalability, synchronisation, etc. (all members contribute).

Conclusions (max 1 page): Summarise key findings (all members contribute).

References: List all sources using the Harvard Referencing System or the system in the provided template.
Supporting Materials (optional): Include source code, Git repositories, demonstration videos, etc., as Appendix 4.

3. Appendices (not included in page count; recommended as separate files)

Appendix 1: For each main research paper, provide title, author(s), affiliation(s), abstract, and publication details.
Appendix 2: Attach minutes from all group meetings.
Appendix 3: Include practical session results:
Source code and test results for the “Calculator RESTful Web Service” (Week 3 Distributed practical)
Results from the Week 3 Parallel practical on Java multithreading
Appendix 4: Other prototypes and links to source code (if available)

Formatting and Submission

Use the provided report template, including a title page, table of contents, headings, sub-headings, and figure captions.
Follow a professional referencing approach. Guidance is available on BREO and at the Learning Resource Centre’s Guide to Referencing.
All submissions will be checked for similarity and AI-generated content. Plagiarism will be penalised.

Group Organisation

Groups must not exceed four members. Sign up for a group on BREO and ensure all names and student numbers appear on the report’s cover page. Only one report per group should be submitted.
Arrange regular group meetings and attach minutes in the appendix.
In case of disputes, inform the lecturer or unit coordinator within the first two weeks for resolution.

Additional Deliverables

Presentation: 10 slides maximum, delivered in Week 4 practical sessions.
Report: One per group, max 20 pages (excluding appendices), submitted via BREO.
Peer Reflection Form: Each student submits a confidential reflection via BREO, discussing group work experiences, challenges, information gathering, collaboration, learning outcomes, and suggestions for future improvement.
Supporting Materials: Optional, as appropriate.

Keywords:

Each Group made available on BREO is labelled with one of the Keywords to be researched.  Please check the Keywords first and then make you choice of topic for your group.

What do I need to do to pass? How do I achieve a good grade?

A comprehensive set of deliverables is required, including a word-processed report. Your submission should demonstrate a strong understanding of the key issues in distributed and parallel computing (DPC). You are expected to research, critically reflect on, and explain both current research and emerging trends in distributed and parallel technologies.

Your report should clearly show an awareness of the challenges in distributed and parallel architectures (DPA) and a solid understanding of your selected research topic. There should be clear evidence that you have a thorough grasp of the topic and the methodologies covered in the module so far, supported by further reading and independent research.

Lectures and practical sessions introduce the fundamental theories and concepts of distributed and parallel computing, including transparency, scalability, and synchronisation in distributed systems, as well as implementations of parallel computing, programming language features for parallelism, and the concept of speedup. You should draw on this knowledge where relevant and incorporate it into the discussion section of your report.

How will my assignment be marked? Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations (see the Unit Information Form uploaded on BREO) and the specific marking criteria below (marking rubric). Please read carefully as they will help you prepare and evaluate your own work before you submit. They will also help you understand the grade and feedback received once marked.

	70%+ (Distinction)	60-69% (Commendation)	50-59% (Pass)	40-49% (Pass) Threshold Standard	30-39% (Fail)	0-29% (Fail)
1	A submission which clearly demonstrates an awareness of the issues of DPA and an understanding of selected research topics.	A report that shows an appreciation of the issues of DPC, including good signs of original thought.	A report that shows some appreciation of the issues of DPC, with limited signs of original thought.	A full set of deliverables.  A word-processed report.  A good attempt at understanding the issues of DPC.	An assignment report which does not meet the Pass criteria but which is sufficiently close to be redeemable with some extra, but limited, effort	A clear failure.  An assignment report which does not meet the Pass criteria or which suggests any amount of plagiarism from any source
2	Clear evidence (supported by prototype if possible) in the report that the student has a sound, and perhaps complete, grasp of the selected topic and methodology covered by the module to date.	Some evidence (not supported by prototype or any other means) in the report that the student has a sound, and perhaps complete, grasp of the selected topic and methodology covered by the module to date.	Some evidence in the report that the student has a good level of grasp of the selected topic and methodology covered by the module to date.	Limited evidence in the report that the student has a good level of grasp of the selected topic and methodology covered by the module to date.	Limited understanding of selected topic	Completely mis concept on the selected topic
3	Clear evidence of further reading and research.	Sufficient evidence of further reading and research.	Some evidence of further reading and research.	Limited evidence of further reading and research.	No evidence of further reading and research.	No further reading or no research.
4	Fully completed practical sessions with high quality outputs.	Fully completed practical sessions with quality outputs.	Completed practical sessions	Partially completed practical sessions with majority of the functions in place	Partially completed practical sessions missing majority of the functions	No submission of expected practical sessions
5	Professional presentation.  Demonstration of an excellent level of subject knowledge.  Clarity of message and content.  Audible and pace appropriate to the audience.  Very good response to questions.	Very good presentation.  Demonstration of a very good level of subject knowledge.  Good presentation pace and audibility.  Good response to questions.	Good presentation.  Demonstration of a good level of subject knowledge.  Reasonably clearly structured presentation appropriate to the audience.  Satisfactory response to questions.	Acceptable presentation.  Demonstration of an acceptable level of subject knowledge.  Shows some attempts to structure materials for the presentation.  Weak response to questions.	Weak presentation.  Demonstration of a weak level of subject knowledge.  Presentation is difficult to understand due to poor structure and/or pace.