SOLUTION: Software Engineering | My Assignment Tutor

Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.Assessment Brief ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458Version 2: 11th October, 2019 Page 1 of 3 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051ASSESSMENT BRIEF COURSE: Bachelor of Information TechnologyUnit Code:SENG 205Unit Title:Software EngineeringType of Assessment:Written ReportLength/Duration:1000 Words (+/- 10%)Unit Learning Outcomesaddressed:1) Describe compare and contrast various methodologies for softwaredevelopment processes5) Be able to select an appropriate development method for a complexproblem and give technical reasons for the choice6) Be able to gather requirements, develop specifications, design,implement and test a prototypeSubmission Date:Week 5Assessment Task:Initial Design – the plan and its justificationTotal Mark:20 marksWeighting:20 % of the units’ total marksStudents are advised that submission of an Assessment Task past the due date without a formallysigned approved Assignment Extension Form (Kent Website MyKent Student Link> FORM – AssignmentExtension Application Form – Student Login Required) or previously approved application for otherextenuating circumstances impacting course of study, incurs a 5% penalty per calendar day,calculated by deduction from the total mark.For example. An Assessment Task marked out of 20 will incur a 1 mark penalty for each calendar day.More information, please refer to (Kent Website MyKent Student Link> POLICY – Assessment Policy &Procedures – Student Login Required) Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.Assessment Brief ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458Version 2: 11th October, 2019 Page 2 of 3 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION:Assessment 1 will be an initial design of your project – showing your project plan and its justification. Youneed to write 1000 words summary on initial project information, elicit high level requirements, classifyand prioritize the high level requirements, choose a software development methodology and justify itschoice, initial project timeline, and preliminary budget breakdown. You need to work in groups of 4-5students. Further details of assignment is provided on the Moodle site in “Project Outline” Document inAssessment Briefs folder.ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION:The Assessment 1 be submitted in Week 5 of the trimester on Moodle. Assignment should be submittedon time. However, consideration will be offered only under severe medical condition or unanticipatedextenuating circumstances. You must provide appropriate supporting paper for consideration.MARKING GUIDE (RUBRIC): AssessmentAttributesFail (Unacceptable)0-49%Pass (Functional)50-64%Credit (Proficient)65-74%Distinction (Advanced)75 -84%High Distinction(Exceptional)85-100%Research5/20Little evidence ofresearch.Sources are missing,Inappropriate, poorlyintegrated or lackingcredibility. Lacks clearlink of sources withessay. No in textcitationsA minimum of 5academic sources. Basicuse of sources tosupport ideas, generallywell-integrated, mostsources are credible.May be weaknesseswith paraphrasing orintegration /application.Research is generallythorough. Good use ofsources to supportideas, mostly wellintegrated, sources arecredible. May beweaknesses withparaphrasing orintegration/ application.Thorough research isindicated. Very good use ofsources to support ideas,well integrated, sources arecredible. May be minorweaknesses withparaphrasing orintegration/application.Thorough research isindicated. Professionaluse of sources tosupport ideas, wellintegrated, sources arecredible. Very minor,if any, weaknesses withparaphrasing orIntegration/application.Information /Content5/20Report lackscoherence; topic ispoorly addressed;little analysis.Report is generallycoherent; topic isaddressed; analyses inreasonable depth withsome description. Thereare someinconsistencies andweaknesses with flow.Report is coherent andflows well; topic isaddressed quitethoroughly; analyses inconsiderable depth.There may be someinconsistencies andweaknesses with flow.Report is very coherent andflows well; topic isaddressed thoroughly;analyses in depth. Theremay be minorinconsistencies andweakness with flow.Professional work.Report is very coherentand flows well; topic isaddressed thoroughly;analyses in great depth.Very minor, if any,inconsistencies andweaknesses with flow.Structure4/20Topic, concepts andthesis are not clear inintroduction.Material in the body isgenerally poorlysequenced. Nodiscernibleconclusion; no links tointroduction.Topic, concepts andthesis are stated withsome clarity inintroduction. Materialin body is generallylogically sequenced;some weaknesses.Conclusion does notclearly summariseessay; links tointroduction are notclear.Topic, concepts andthesis are clearlyconveyed inintroduction. Material inbody is logically andclearly sequenced; fewor minor weaknesses.Conclusion summarisesessay; may be someweaknesses; generallyclear links to intro.Topic, concepts and thesisare clearly outlined inintroduction. Material inbody is logically and clearlysequenced; very few orminor weaknesses.Conclusion mostlyeffectively summarisesessay; withrecommendations and clearlinks to introduction.Topic, concepts areclearly outlined inintroduction. Materialin body is logically andclearly sequenced; veryminor, if any,weaknesses. Conclusioneffectively summarisesessay; withrecommendations andclear links tointroduction.Language/Presentation3/20Poor standard ofwriting. Word limitmay not be adheredto. Incorrect format(e.g. includes Table ofcontents; bulletpoints; graphs etc.)A minimum of 900words. Basic and soundstandard of writing;some errors inpunctuation, grammarand spelling.Inconsistencies with theformatting.Good standard ofwriting; few errors inpunctuation, grammarand spelling. Almostcorrect format.Very good standard ofwriting; very few or minorerrors in punctuation,grammar and spelling.Correct formatting.Professional standard ofwriting; no errors inpunctuation, grammarand spelling. Correctformatting.Referencing3/20No referencing isevident or, if done, isinconsistent andtechnically incorrect.No or minimalreference list, mixedstyles. No in textcitationsBasic and soundattempt to referencesources; may be someinconsistencies andtechnical errors in style.Reference list isgenerally complete with1 or 2 referencesmissing.Good attempt toreference sources;inconsistencies andtechnical errors in style.Few inaccuracies inreference list and allreferences listed.Very good attempt toreference sources; veryminor inconsistencies andtechnical errors in style.Thorough and consistentreference list and allreferences listed.Professional level ofreferencing andacknowledgment; noerrors of style evident.Thorough andconsistent reference listand all references listed Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.Assessment Brief ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458Version 2: 11th October, 2019 Page 3 of 3 TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051GENERAL NOTES FOR ASSESSMENT TASKSContent 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 anddemonstrate in work being presented for assessment. The content of high quality work presented by a studentmust be fully referenced within-text citations and a Reference List at the end. Kent strongly recommends yourefer 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=3606and download the file titled “Harvard Referencing Workbook”. This Moodle Site is the location for Workbooksand information that are presented to Kent Students in the ALS Workshops conducted at the beginning of eachTrimester.Kent recommends a minimum of FIVE (5) references in work being presented for assessment. Unless otherwisespecifically instructed by your Lecturer or as detailed in the Unit Outline for the specific Assessment Task, anypaper 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 “HarvardReferencing Workbook” will be penalised.Marks will be deducted for failure to adhere to the word count if this is specifically stated for the Assessment Taskin the Unit Outline. As a general rule there is an allowable discretionary variance to the word count in that it isgenerally accepted that a student may go over or under by 10% than the stated length.GENERAL NOTES FOR REFERENCINGReferences 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 notthe Lecturer Notes. The Assessor will want to see evidence that a student is capable of conducting their ownresearch. Also, in order to help Assessors determine a student’s understanding of the work they cite, all in-textreferences (not just direct quotes) must include the specific page number(s) if shown in the original. Beforepreparing your Assessment Task or own contribution, please review this ‘YouTube’ video (Avoiding Plagiarismthrough Referencing) by clicking on the following link: link:http://moodle.kent.edu.au/kentmoodle/mod/folder/view.php?id=3606A search for peer-reviewed journal articles may also assist students. These type of journal articles can be locatedin the online journal databases and can be accessed from the Kent Library homepage. Wikipedia, onlinedictionaries and online encyclopaedias are acceptable as a starting point to gain knowledge about a topic, butshould 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 asgovernment 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 andgovernment departments produce peer reviewed reports and articles and are therefore very useful and mostlyvery 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).