Assessment Structure, Key Dates & Rules Assessment 1, Summative (30%), Individual basis: UoB Weeks 1-5, Deadline Thursday 23rd October 1pm You must program your robot to autonomously complete the Foraging Challenge, adhering

Learning & Assessment in Brief

SEMTM0043 is assessed by 100% coursework split into two assessments, A1 and A2, weighted 30% and 70% respectively. The emphasis of this coursework is to prepare you to develop and conduct a scientific experiment with a robotic system, including how to report and evaluate results. The main teaching/learning mechanism of this unit is to give you direct, hands-on experience of these activities via project-based learning. You will be working with a robotic system: a Pololu 3Pi+ mobile robot.  Working with hardware takes an investment of time and practice. The unit is split into two periods. In the first 5 weeks, you will be primarily taught through practical lab sessions to develop fundamental skills with a robotic system by engaging with the “Foraging Challenge”. In a second 5 weeks, working in teams (groups), you will be primarily taught through regular supervision for self-directed study to conceive, design, conduct, evaluate and report a scientific experiment conducted with your 3Pi+ robot, developing post-graduate critical thinking skills.

Pololu 3Pi+ Mobile Robot

Assessment Structure, Key Dates & Rules

Assessment 1, Summative (30%), Individual basis: UoB Weeks 1-5, Deadline Thursday 23rd October 1pm

You must program your robot to autonomously complete the Foraging Challenge, adhering specification and requirements detailed from page
6. Your assessment submission must be individual work. Your code will be algorithmically checked for plagiarism against all other code submissions made to the unit.

• Deadline for final submission: UoB Week 5, Thursday 23rd October 1pm. Composed of:
• An online self-assessment form with a valid URL to a web- hosted video of your robot completing the Foraging Challenge.
• Your final version of working code used to uploaded Blackboard, which must compile without errors.
• The requirements for your video demonstration are provided on page 8.
• You must use Arduino C in programming your 3Pi+.
• You cannot attach extra electronics (e.g. sensors) to your 3Pi+.
• You are not permitted to use any external software libraries within your solution with the exception of standard C libraries (e.g. math.h), or those specified within the provided labsheets. Copying code from external libraries constitutes the use of the same libraries and is an assessment offense.

Assessment 2, Summative (70%), team basis:

UoB Weeks 5,7-11, Deadline Thursday 4th December 1pm
Working in a team of 2, 3 or 4 students, your team must produce a 6-page report which details a scientific experiment conducted with your robotic system (3Pi+), adhering to the Assessment 2 Specification, detailed from page 15.

• Final Report Deadline: UoB Week 11, Thursday 4th December, 1pm.
• All team members must each provide via Blackboard:
• A copy of the 6-page report prepared by the team.
• The working source code used for the experiments, which must compile without errors.
• An individual personal statement on the efficacy of your role within the project and team.
• You must use Arduino C in programming your 3Pi+.
• You cannot attach extra electronics (e.g. sensors) to your 3Pi+.
• You are not permitted to use any external software libraries within your solution with the exception of standard C libraries (e.g. math.h), or those specified within the provided labsheets.
• All team members must contribute equally to the body of work.
• Your team must attend weekly supervision meetings. Attendance to supervision meetings is mandatory.
• Supervision meetings will have minutes taken. On a weekly basis, the minutes will be emailed back to you, which will include your stated current progress, goals set, and an agreed distribution of equity to reflect team member contributions.
• The mark awarded for your 6-page report will be applied equally between members, unless there is a significant disagreement of contribution.

If there is significant disagreement of team member contribution (>10% difference), a viva between all team members and two academics to determine 

Kit Contents

On Loan for 11 Weeks:
Register your kit with the QR code on the label, or via this link.
You can take it home.

• 1 Box
• Pololu 3Pi+ Robot
• 4 AAA Re-chargable Batteries
• Battery Recharger (UK)
• 2 Cable ties
• 4 Plastic Hooks
• 1 Puck with Magnet
• 1 USB cable
• 1 Dice

You are required to return all parts of the kit in week 11.
Cable ties and plastic hooks do not need to be disassembled on kit return.
Please remove the batteries from the robot on kit return.

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria, 30% Weighting

More detailed descriptions and context of these challenges are provided on subsequent pages.

Criteria Description	Mark (max 100)	Skills Demonstrated
Beginner Difficulty	(50-58%)
Actively search within the map area for 4 minutes then stop.  The robot must not leave the map area. Your video must demonstrate the robot interacting with  the black boundary of the coursework map.  The robot should not stop moving within the 4 minute period.  The robot must be shown  to stop after 4 minutes.	50	The ability to control motors and read sensors to produce safe autonomous behaviour within a time limited period.  Example Video
Actively search area for 4 minutes as per “Beginner Difficulty”.  After 4 minutes, the robot is demonstrated to return to the start area, with the robot stopping with some part of the  white robot body  within the start area. The robot must be shown to come to a complete stop.	58	The ability to control motors and read sensors to produce safe autonomous behaviours within a time limited period. The ability to control the motion of the robot towards a target location with higher precision.
Intermediate Difficulty	(60-68%)
Puck location must be randomised using the dice. Robot  must actively search area, correctly detect puck, and  push the puck outside the map area. The robot can then return to the start area, and stop with some part of  the white robot body within start area, pausing moving for  a minimum of 4 seconds to wait for a new puck location to be randomised using the dice. The robot  should then repeat the  above requirements. The robot must stop after 4 minutes of  activity regardless of  which activity it is engaged in. Apart from  pausing for the puck relocation, your robot should remain active for 4 minutes without leaving the map at any point.	58 + ( n * 2 ) where n is the number of pucks correctly pushed outside the map, requiring a minimum of 1 puck, up to 5 pucks total.	The ability to control motors and read sensors to produce a series of discrete robot behaviours to achieve different goals.  The ability to control the motion of the robot towards different  target locations with higher precision, and a repeatable level of  performance within a time limited period. Example Video
Expert Difficulty	(70-100%)
Puck location must be randomised using the dice.  Robot must actively search area, correctly detect puck,  push the puck back into the start area, stopping with some part of  the puck within the start area. The robot should then pause  for a minimum of 4 seconds to wait for a new  puck location to be randomised using the dice. The robot must stop after 4minutes of activity regardless of  which activity it is engaged in. Apart from pausing for the puck relocation, your robot  should remain active for 4 minutes, only leaving the map to position itself to return a puck.	65 + ( n * 5 ) where n is the number of pucks correctly returned, requiring a minimum of 1 puck, up to 7 pucks total.	The ability to control motors and read sensors to produce more complex autonomous behaviours, including basic path planning and fault tolerance. The ability to analyse and refine a solution to  mitigate the effects of noise/error over extended periods of continuous robot operation with guaranteed reliability. Example Video

Assessment 1 Video Rules

Video Rules:

1.Your University of Bristol student ID card must be made visible at the start of your video recording. This constitutes your declaration that your video submission is your own independent work.
2.Your video must capture the performance of your robot running the code you developed. Your code submission will be checked against the performance demonstrated in the video.
3.You must provide a single video (no editing) that captures the performance of your robot completing the Foraging Challenge.
4.Once your robot has been powered-on, it must not be reset, touched or adjusted. At the point of interference, any further marks will be forfeit.
5.Your robot must have either the OLED or LCD display attached that shows the time remaining in seconds being updated from when your robot begins moving. Code for this functionality is provided for you.
6.The puck location must be determined by rolling the dice, and the puck must be placed on the corresponding map location by number. The puck must be centred on the location, covering the circle marking. If the puck is not placed centred on the location marking, the marks for collecting that puck may be forfeit.

Video Examples:

Beginner Difficulty, 50%
Intermediate Difficulty, 68% 
Expert Difficulty, 95%

7.Once a puck has been placed, it must not be repositioned or touched. If your robot pushes the puck out of position, the robot must continue to visit all 6 locations before the robot can return to start to initiate a puck relocation procedure (Step 5 for Intermediate and Expert difficulty descriptions, see pages 11 & 12).
8.The rolling of the dice must be visible within the video recorded. If the dice rolling or final dice face are not visible, no marks will be awarded relating to that dice roll.
9.Your robot must always be visible within the video.
10.Your robot must adhere to the 4minute time limit policy for robot operation. Time will be measured from when your robot first moves. No marks will be awarded for pucks returned outside of 4 minutes.
11.You must use the clear plastic puck and magnet provided to you without alterations.
12.You must use the coursework map provided to you without alterations, with the exception of clear tape that may be used to join two sheets of paper together.
13.Your robot must be demonstrated to come to a complete stop before the video recording ends.
14.If your video URL is not valid, if your submitted code does not compile, or if your code cannot produce the behaviours demonstrated in your video, your Assessment 1 mark will be based solely on the achievement evidenced in your code only and by the academic judgement of the unit director.

Assessment 1, Foraging Challenge Coursework Map

Foraging Challenge Description: Beginner Difficultly (Marks 50-58%)

Foraging Challenge Description: Intermediate Difficulty (Marks 60-68%)

Foraging Challenge Description: Expert Difficulty (Marks 70-100%)

Clarity on Start Area and Map Boundary Conditions

Modifying Your 3Pi+ for Foraging

Assessment 2

Assessment 2 Specification, Summative (70%), Team Basis

Using the skills and software you have developed in Assessment 1 you must identify a scientific experiment to conduct with your robotic system. You should draw on critical insight(s) of your robotic system to form a hypothesis, to demonstrate via the analysis of collected results, of either:

• An improvement to the robotic system operation from a baseline level of autonomous operation.
• A proof of an underlying characteristic, phenomenon, or principle of a robotic system and its consequence on autonomous operation.

Your ability to conceive of a scientific experiment, to conduct the experiment, and to communicate the results is representative of the depth of your understanding of a robotic system, allowing you to demonstrate skills of analysis, evaluation and synthesis.

You should make the Pololu 3PI+ robot the focal point of your study – therefore, you are strongly advised not to conduct a study that focuses on off-board/offline tools, such as machine learning, data fitting, statistical analysis, etc. These may be components of your work but keep your primary investment and interest on the robotic system (Pololu 3Pi+ robot). We are interested in substantiating new knowledge about the complex relationship between an autonomous robot and its task environment. For example, it is recommended you avoid a study that demonstrates Machine Learning can classify a dataset, because this substantiates knowledge on Machine Learning and not the robotic system.

Your experiment should be designed such that the body of work is reproducible and repeatable via a robust implementation and experiment methodology. The conclusions you can draw and the insight you can articulate will be underpinned by the credibility of the results presented. The value and significance of your work should be reflected in the introduction where context is provided, and in the analysis, evaluation and conclusion of your study.
These elements will be assessed by the evidence provided in your team submission of a 6-page report in a conference style. A template of a report is provided which also contains guidance.

Working in a team of 2,3 or 4 students, your team must produce a 6-page report which documents a scientific experiment conducted with your robotic system (Pololu 3Pi+). Your report must be based on and include data retrieved through empirical study of your robotic system. Your report should effectively communicate against the four criteria on the following page, which gives guidance on how they can be demonstrated.

Assessment 2 Criteria:

Your team report will be assessed with consideration to the following Assessment 2 criteria below and the general University marking criteria and scales for level 7 (PGT/MSc). Feedback will be provided addressing the same criteria where appropriate. A spreadsheet of these same criteria and examples of common feedback is available on the Blackboard unit page

Criteria		Weight	Description	What to look for:
1	Situation of  Project	0.25	This can be generally understood as the “scholarly/academic  basis” for the presented study, which articulates value (i.e. applications), interest (i.e. knowledge gained) and relevance to scientifically investigating robotic systems. To be considered primarily against the Introduction and  Literature Review sections, to support the presentation of Research Questions and/or Hypotheses.	A clear general description of the area of work/topic. – review the problem area investigated with implications to support  the value of the undertaking. – discuss the constraints/affordances of the project area to define scope. – increase the readers knowledge & understanding of specialist concepts sufficiently. – justify the scope/ambition of the work as appropriate. – support the merits of the specific investigation made.
2	Technical  Contributions	0.3	This can be generally understood as the “technical contributions” concerning the critical thinking and insight of conception, design,  making, and preliminary testing, including technical mastery in identifying scientific methods for measuring the system, technology,or subject of study. This criteria can primarily be considered against the Implementation  and Experiment Methodology documentation.	Sufficient technical detail for reproducibility, in both construction and  measurement approaches. Insightful technical discussion of rationale for attribution of work to student.  Justified choices via an analytical problem discussion/decomposition. Appropriate selection of methodological approaches for measurement for  credible data. Appropriate design of experimental evaluation techniques for meaningful data.
3	Knowledge  Contributions	0.3	This can be generally understood as the “knowledge contributions“ concerning critical thinking and insight in the reasoning and argument for research questions/hypotheses, conception of experiment scenario(s)/task(s), the interpretation of results, insights gained and broader implications. This criteria can primarily be considered bridging the Hypothesis,  Methodology, Results, Conclusion and Future Work sections.	Clear reasoning for insightful research questions/hypothesis. An experimental scenario/task that facilitates testing against a hypothesis. A clear line of argument that utilises evidence to support intellectual insight/products.  Varied qualitative and quantitative results, utilising distribution in plots. Awareness and evaluation of potential limitations, such as interpretation of results,  and/or ways to improve the intellectual rigour of future research. If engineering/solution focused: – a critical argument/hypothesis on which performance characteristics to  evaluate: characterising the solution by evaluating positive performance, underlying causal factors, performance limitations and failure modes. – an argument for a fair and meaningful comparative study, to provide a  relative evaluation of a new artificial system.
4	Presentation & Communication	0.15	This can be generally understood as a “measure of quality, correctness & consistency of communication” for the whole report with emphasis on critical choices of plots/figures, clarity, structure, use of language; correctness of citation, concepts, theory, academic conventions, etc. Criteria 1,2,3 can be appraised broadly for information content – in limited cases via inferred meaning and registering a shortfall in quality of presentation and communication against Criteria 4.  High quality (i.e. work of distinction) work must achieve high marks across all  criteria (1,2,3 & 4), taken as a whole and in synergy.	Clear structuring to the document, e.g. logical use of titled subsections. Internal document referencing (e.g. equations, figures) and sign-posting (sections) Critical thought exercised on which content to include and exclude. Communication that is concise and progressively builds the  readers understanding. Finessed use of varied diagrams, photographs, figures, etc, as necessary. High attention to detail, without spurious, redundant and/or unreferenced elements. Clarity in the resolution of figures, captions, labels, etc. Correctness of terminolo