ICT206 Software Engineering Assessment :
ICT206
SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
ICT206 Software Engineering ASSESSMENT BRIEF
| Type of Assessment: | Written Report + Presentation |
| Submission Date: | Week 12 |
| Length/Duration: | 4000 words Report + 20 Minutes Presentation |
| Assessment Task: | Group Task |
| Total Mark: | 50 Marks (50%) |
ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION:
In this group project, you will work in teams of 3-5 students. Each team should select an appropriate topic for this software engineering project. You are required to write a report of 4000 words to submit in the Moodle, and also present for 20 minutes as a group during the class time in week 12.
In this assessment you need to gather Requirements and develop a Design of your project then present and explain the design of the chosen solution to the client. You are required to complete Project Documentation presented as a formal report to the client showing plans, detailed requirements elicitation, detailed requirements analysis and prioritization, high level design, detailed component design, justifications for the choice of software development models, create a Hi-Fidelity prototype following the design principles learned as part of the unit, formal documentation, budget breakdown, and detailed project timeline.
Software ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION:
This is a group activity and students are required to work with their respective group members. No individual submission will be accepted. You have to nominate someone as your group leader to coordinate the assignment submission.
ยท The 4000 words report should be submitted online in Moodle by one member of the team ONLY (Group Leader) on Sunday Week 12.
- You need to present for 20 minutes as a group during the class time in week 12. All team-members must present for a minimum of 4 minutes each. The presentation will be immediately followed by a 5-minute Q&A session.
You will not receive any marks for this assignment if your group members collectively report against you for non-participation or non-cooperation.
The assignment MUST be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word format. Other formats may not be readable by markers. This assignment should be submitted online in Moodle. Hardcopy or email submission will not be accepted.
MARKING GUIDE:
| Assessment Attributes | Fail (Unacceptable) (0-49%) | Pass (Functional) (50-64%) | Credit (Proficient) (65-74%) | Distinction (Advanced) (75-84%) | High Distinction (Exceptional) (>85%) |
| Reseqrch 10% | Little evidence of research. Sources are missing, Inappropriate, poorly integrated or lacking credibility. Lacks clear link of sources with essay. No in text citations | A minimum of 5 academic sources. Basic use of sources to support ideas, generally well-integrated, most sources are credible. May be weaknesses with paraphrasing or integration /application. | Research is generally thorough. Good use of sources to support ideas, mostly well integrated, sources are credible. May be weaknesses with paraphrasing or integration/ application. | Thorough research is indicated. Very good use of sources to support ideas, well integrated, sources are credible. May be minor weaknesses with paraphrasing or integration/application. | Thorough research is indicated. Professional use of sources to support ideas, well integrated, sources are credible. Very minor, if any, weaknesses with paraphrasing or Integration/application. |
| Information / Content 60% | Report lacks coherence; topic is poorly addressed; little analysis. | Report is generally coherent; topic is addressed; analyses in reasonable depth with some description. There are some inconsistencies and weaknesses with flow. | Report is coherent and flows well; topic is addressed quite thoroughly; analyses in considerable depth. There may be some inconsistencies and weaknesses with flow. | Report is very coherent and flows well; topic is addressed thoroughly; analyses in depth. There may be minor inconsistencies and weakness with flow. | Professional work. Report is very coherent and flows well; topic is addressed thoroughly; analyses in great depth. Very minor, if any, inconsistencies and weaknesses with flow. |
| Structure 15% | Topic, concepts and thesis are not clear in introduction. Material in the body is generally poorly sequenced. No discernible conclusion; no links to introduction. | Topic, concepts and thesis are stated with some clarity in introduction. Material in body is generally logically sequenced; some weaknesses. Conclusion does not clearly summarise essay; links to introduction are not clear. | Topic, concepts and thesis are clearly conveyed in introduction. Material in body is logically and clearly sequenced; few or minor weaknesses. Conclusion summarises essay; may be some weaknesses; generally clear links to intro. | Topic, concepts and thesis are clearly outlined in introduction. Material in body is logically and clearly sequenced; very few or minor weaknesses. Conclusion mostly effectively summarises essay; with recommendations and clear links to introduction. | Topic, concepts are clearly outlined in introduction. Material in body is logically and clearly sequenced; very minor, if any, weaknesses. Conclusion effectively summarises essay; with recommendations and clear links to introduction. |
| Language/ Presentation 10% | Poor standard of writing. Word limit may not be adhered to. Incorrect format (e.g. includes Table of contents; bullet points; graphs etc.) | A minimum of 2500 words. Basic and sound standard of writing; some errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling. Inconsistencies with the formatting. | Good standard of writing; few errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling. Almost correct format. | Very good standard of writing; very few or minor errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling. Correct formatting. | Professional standard of writing; no errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling. Correct formatting. |
| Referencing 5% | No referencing is evident or, if done, is inconsistent and technically incorrect. No or minimal reference list, mixed styles. No in text citations | Basic and sound attempt to reference sources; may be some inconsistencies and technical errors in style. Reference list is generally complete with 1 or 2 references missing. | Good attempt to reference sources; inconsistencies and technical errors in style. Few inaccuracies in reference list and all references listed. | Very good attempt to reference sources; very minor inconsistencies and technical errors in style. Thorough and consistent reference list and all references listed. | Professional level of referencing and acknowledgment; no errors of style evident. Thorough and consistent reference list and all references listed. |
Visit:https://auspali.info/
Also visit:https://www.notesnepal.com/archives/767
YOUR COMMENT