SENG 205 Software Engineering Assessment 1

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

Assessment Description:

Assessment 1 will be an initial design of your project – showing your project plan and its justification. You need to write 1000 words summary on initial project information, elicit high level requirements, classify and prioritize the high level requirements, choose a software development methodology and justify its choice, initial project timeline, and preliminary budget breakdown. You need to work in groups of 4-5 students. Further details of assignment is provided on the Moodle site in “Project Outline” Document in Assessment Briefs folder.

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 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

Not the Exact Question you were looking for? Post your question for instant answers.