SENG 205 Software Engineering Assessment 1

Assessment Attributes

Fail (Unacceptable)

0-49%

Pass (Functional)

50-64%

Credit (Proficient)

65-74%

Distinction (Advanced)

75 -84%

High Distinction
(Exceptional)

85-100%

Research

5/20

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

5/20

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

4/20

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

3/20

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 900 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

3/20

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