SENG 205 Software Engineering Project Report

COURSE:      Bachelor of Information Technology
Unit Code: 	SENG 205
Unit Title: 	Software Engineering
Type of Assessment: 	                Project Report
Kent Institute Australia

Unit Learning Outcomes addressed:

  1. Describe compare and contrast various methodologies for software development processes
  2. Importance of and approaches to project and change management
  3. Describe modern tools and the contexts for their appropriate use for software development, configuration, support, installation, and managing incremental updates
  4. Be able to select an appropriate development method for a complex problem and give technical reasons for the choice
  5. Be able to define adequate metrics over a defined software process and critically and objectively determine its capability level and course of action towards improvement
  6. Be able to gather requirements, develop specifications, design, implement and test a prototype

Assessment Description:

Your Assessment 2 will be Complete Project Documentation presented as a formal report to the client showing plans, detailed requirements elicitation, high level design, detailed component design, justifications for the choice of software development models, formal documentation, budget breakdown, and timeline. You need to write 3000 words report for Assessment 2. You need to work in group of 4-5 students. Further details of assignment would be provided on the Moodle site.

Assessment Submission:

The Project Report will be submitted in week 11 of the trimester. Assignment should be submitted on time. However, consideration will be offered only under severe medical condition or unanticipated extenuating circumstances. You must provide appropriate supporting paper for consideration.

Marking Guide (Rubric):

Assessment Attributes

Fail (Unacceptable)

0-49%

Pass (Functional)

50-64%

Credit (Proficient)

65-74%

Distinction (Advanced)

75 -84%

High Distinction
(Exceptional)

85-100%

Research

10/65

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

25/65

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

10/65

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

10/65

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

10/65

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

General notes for assessment tasks

Content for Assessment Task papers should incorporate a formal introduction, main points and conclusion.

Appropriate academic writing and referencing are inevitable academic skills that you must develop and demonstrate in work being presented for assessment. The content of high quality work presented by a student must be fully referenced within-text citations and a Reference List at the end. Kent strongly recommends you refer to the Academic Learning Support Workshop materials available on the Kent Learning Management System (Moodle). For details please click the link http://moodle.kent.edu.au/kentmoodle/mod/folder/view.php?id=3606 and download the file titled “Harvard Referencing Workbook”. This Moodle Site is the location for Workbooks and information that are presented to Kent Students in the ALS Workshops conducted at the beginning of each Trimester.

Kent recommends a minimum of FIVE(5) references in work being presented for assessment. Unless otherwise specifically instructed by your Lecturer or as detailed in the Unit Outline for the specific Assessment Task, any paper with less than five (5) references may be deemed not meeting a satisfactory standard and possibly be failed.

Content in Assessment tasks that includes sources that are not properly referenced according to the “Harvard Referencing Workbook” will be penalised.

Marks will be deducted for failure to adhere to the word count if this is specifically stated for the Assessment Task in the Unit Outline. As a general rule there is an allowable discretionary variance to the word count in that it is generally accepted that a student may go over or under by 10% than the stated length.

General Notes for Referencing

References are assessed for their quality. Students should draw on quality academic sources, such as books, chapters from edited books, journals etc. The textbook for the Unit of study can be used as a reference, but not the Lecturer Notes. The Assessor will want to see evidence that a student is capable of conducting their own research. Also, in order to help Assessors determine a student’s understanding of the work they cite, all in-text references (not just direct quotes) must include the specific page number(s) if shown in the original. Before preparing your Assessment Task or own contribution, please review this ‘YouTube’ video (Avoiding Plagiarism through Referencing) by clicking on the following link: link: http://moodle.kent.edu.au/kentmoodle/mod/folder/view.php?id=3606

A search for peer-reviewed journal articles may also assist students. These type of journal articles can be located in the online journal databases and can be accessed from the Kent Library homepage. Wikipedia, online dictionaries and online encyclopaedias are acceptable as a starting point to gain knowledge about a topic, but should not be over-used – these should constitute no more than 10% of your total list of references/sources. Additional information and literature can be used where these are produced by legitimate sources, such as government departments, research institutes such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), or international organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO). Legitimate organisations and government departments produce peer reviewed reports and articles and are therefore very useful and mostly very current. The content of the following link explains why it is not acceptable to use non-peer reviewed websites (Why can't I just Google?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N39mnu1Pkgw

(thank you to La Trobe University for access to this video).