2026/7, Trimester 2, In Person,
VIEW FULL DETAILS
| Occurrence: | 001 |
| Primary mode of delivery: | In Person |
| Location of delivery: | MERCHISTON |
| Partner: | |
| Member of staff responsible for delivering module: | Brian Davison |
| Module Organiser: | |
| Student Activity (Notional Equivalent Study Hours (NESH)) |
| Mode of activity | Learning & Teaching Activity | NESH (Study Hours) | NESH Description |
| Face To Face | Lecture | 20 | Lectures provide the conceptual frameworks underpinning LO1, LO2, and LO3, organised around a single recurring argument: AI tools amplify engineering discipline rather than replace it. Early lectures build the analytical vocabulary for LO1; middle lectures develop the design and implementation knowledge for LO2; later lectures address the professional and governance dimensions of LO3. Lectures contextualise rather than substitute for practical work. |
| Face To Face | Practical classes and workshops | 20 | The practical programme develops all three outcomes through a longitudinal artefact-centred design. A founding artefact produced in Block 1 is carried through eight blocks, accumulating analytical depth as skills develop. Systematic evaluation exercises address LO1; design and instrumentation exercises address LO2; threat modelling and governance documentation address LO3. The final project integrates all three outcomes. |
| Online | Guided independent study | 159.75 | Guided independent study integrates and applies skills from lectures and practicals, primarily serving LO2 and LO3. Assessments are sequenced to scaffold this: the Failure Analysis Report consolidates LO1 before design work begins; the Workflow Design Document requires independent synthesis across LO2 and LO3; and the final project demands sustained application of all three outcomes. Formative log reviews at Blocks 3, 6, and 9 provide structured progress checkpoints. |
| Face To Face | Demonstration | 0.25 | The demonstration assesses all three outcomes and authenticates student work by requiring live system demonstration and responses to unpredictable theoretical and practical questions. This verifies that the development log and design decisions reflect the student's own understanding. Examiners probe analytical reasoning (LO1), implementation and workflow decisions (LO2), and governance and ethical judgement (LO3). |
| Total Study Hours | 200.00 | |
| Expected Total Study Hours for Module | 200.00 | |
| Assessment |
| Type of Assessment | Weighting % | LOs covered | Week due | Length in Hours/Words | Description |
| Practical Skills Assessment | 20 | 1 | Week 5 | HOURS= 1500 words | The Failure Analysis Report requires students to conduct a systematic audit of the AI-generated codebase produced in Block 1, evaluating it against the module quality rubric. Students must identify and classify defects by type, assess whether each could have been detected at the point of generation through disciplined review, and critically evaluate the AI-suggested fixes they accepted or rejected during the Block 3 practical. The report should demonstrate analytical rigour rather than mere enumeration: the quality of reasoning about why defects arose and how they should be addressed is weighted above the quantity of defects found. |
| Report | 20 | 2 | Week 8 | , WORDS= 2000 words | The AI Workflow Design Document requires students to produce a professional-grade plan for the AI-assisted development project they will execute in Blocks 9 and 10. The document must specify the chosen toolchain and justify each selection against quality and risk criteria; define the prompt strategy and requirements decomposition approach; establish quality gates and testing standards including mutation score expectations; design the human-in-the-loop checkpoints and Decision Log structure; outline the AgentOps instrumentation plan including Token-to-Feature ratio tracking; and present an AI-specific risk register identifying the principal failure modes and their mitigations. The document is assessed as a professional engineering deliverable: clarity, internal consistency, and the quality of risk reasoning are weighted alongside technical completeness. |
| Practical Skills Assessment | 40 | 1~2~3 | Week 13 | HOURS= 2000-3000 words | The Final System is a working software artefact demonstrating disciplined AI-assisted development. It is assessed on code quality against the module rubric, architectural coherence, test coverage meeting the mutation score floor, and security posture. Sophistication of functionality is considered but is not the primary criterion.The Development Log is a structured record of the AI-assisted development process maintained throughout Blocks 9 and 10. It must document every significant AI-human decision point, record the reasoning behind accepted and rejected AI suggestions, present the Decision Log entries required by the workflow design, report Token-to-Feature ratio data for significant features, and provide evidence of AgentOps instrumentation in practice. The log is assessed as a professional accountability document: it should demonstrate that the student was in control of the development process at every stage, not merely that the process produced a working system. The suggested wordcount refers to discursive log content and excludes code, diagrams, and log entries. |
| Oral Assessment | 20 | 1~2~3 | Week 13 | HOURS= 15 minutes | The viva is conducted in the week following Block 10 to allow students to reflect on their completed work rather than defend work in progress.The session is structured in three phases. The first five minutes require the student to demonstrate their working system and give a brief unprompted account of the development process and the key decisions made. The following eight minutes consist of examiner-led questioning, drawing on the submitted Development Log and probing the reasoning behind specific prompt strategies, toolchain choices, quality interventions, and workflow decisions, alongside broader questions on the professional, ethical, and governance dimensions of the work (security trade-offs, intellectual property considerations, environmental cost, etc.) and the student's own assessment of responsible practice. The final two minutes invite the student to reflect critically on what they would do differently and what the experience revealed about AI-assisted development as a professional discipline.The viva assesses LO2 through questioning on implementation and workflow decisions, and LO3 through the student's capacity to articulate and defend independent positions on governance and ethical dimensions under examination conditions. It is also the module's primary authorship verification mechanism: a student who has not genuinely authored their own development process will be unable to provide coherent, specific answers about the decisions recorded in their log. |
| Component 1 subtotal: | 80 | | |
| Component 2 subtotal: | 20 | | | | |
| Module subtotal: | 100 | | | | |