Microsoft Word - SENG 205 - Assessment Brief 2 T1 2022.docx
Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
ABN XXXXXXXXXXCRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
Assessment Brief
Version 2: 14th November 2022 Page 1 of 4
ASSESSMENT BRIEF 2
COURSE: Bachelor of Information Technology
Unit Code: SENG205
Unit Title:
Software Engineering
Type of Assessment: Written Report
Length/Duration: 1000 Words (+/- 10%)
Unit Learning Outcomes
addressed:
1) Describe compare and contrast various methodologies for software
development processes
5) Be able to select an appropriate development method for a complex
problem and give technical reasons for the choice
Submission Date: Week 5
Assessment Task: Initial Design – the plan and its justification
Total Mark: 15 marks
Weighting: 15 % of the units’ total marks
Students are advised that submission of an Assessment Task past the due date without a formally
signed approved Assignment Extension Form (Kent Website MyKent Student Link> FORM – Assignment
Extension Application Form – Student Login Required) or previously approved application for other
extenuating 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.
ABN XXXXXXXXXXCRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
Assessment Brief
Version 2: 14th November 2022 Page 2 of 4
ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION:
Assessment 2 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
eakdown. 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. The student’s contribution and performance towards preparing the report will be accessed via peer review
document.
ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION:
The Assessment 2 be submitted in Week 5 of the trimester on Moodle. 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%)
Research Little evidence of A minimum of 5 Research is generally Thorough research is Thorough research is
20 research. academic sources. Basic thorough. Good use of indicated. Very good use of indicated. Professional
Sources are missing, use of sources to sources to support sources to support ideas, use of sources to
Inappropriate, poorly support ideas, generally ideas, mostly well well integrated, sources are support ideas, well
integrated or lacking well-integrated, most integrated, sources are credible. May be minor integrated, sources are
credibility. Lacks clear sources are credible. credible. May be weaknesses with credible. Very minor,
link of sources with May be weaknesses weaknesses with paraphrasing or if any, weaknesses with
essay. No in text with paraphrasing or paraphrasing or integration/application. paraphrasing or
citations integration /application. integration/ application. Integration/application.
Requirements
15
Poor standard of
identifying
equirements,
classification and
prioritization.
Basic standard of
identifying requirements,
classification and
prioritization.
Good standard of
identifying requirements,
classification and
prioritization.
Very good standard of
identifying requirements,
classification and
prioritization.
Professional standard of
identifying requirements,
classification and
prioritization.
Methodology
15
Poor justification
about the chosen
software
development
methodology, the
project time line and
udget
eakdown
are not presented.
Basic justification about
the chosen software
development
methodology, the
project time line and
udget
eakdown are
poorly presented.
Good justification about
the chosen software
development
methodology, the
project time line and
udget
eakdown are
somewhat well
presented.
Very good justification
about the chosen software
development methodology,
the project time line and
udget
eakdown are very
well presented.
Excellent justification
about the chosen
software development
methodology, the
project time line and
udget
eakdown are
professionally
presented.
Structure Topic, concepts and Topic, concepts and Topic, concepts and Topic, concepts and thesis Topic, concepts are
15 thesis is not clear in thesis is stated with thesis is clearly are clearly outlined in clearly outlined in
introduction. some clarity in conveyed in introduction. Material in introduction. Material
Material in the body is introduction. Material introduction. Material in body is logically and clearly in body is logically and
generally, poorly in body is generally body is logically and sequenced; very few or clearly sequenced; very
sequenced. No logically sequenced; clearly sequenced; few minor weaknesses. minor, if any,
discernible some weaknesses. or minor weaknesses. Conclusion mostly weaknesses. Conclusion
conclusion; no links to Conclusion does not Conclusion summarizes effectively summarizes effectively summarizes
introduction. clearly summarizes essay; may be some essay; with essay; with
essay; links to weaknesses; generally, recommendations and clear recommendations and
introduction is not clear links to intro. links to introduction. clear links to
clear. introduction.
Group and
Good
Organization
10
Group has serious issues
with member
engagement. Ideas are
not exchanged. The
group atmosphere
is highly competitive
and/or individualistic. C
onflicts that arise are
not dealt with or cannot
e resolved and/or
there are no effective
group interactions. The
group does not
establish roles for
each member and/or
the workload is
unequally distributed.
Group is only engaged
with encouragement or
not all members are
engaged. Ideas may not
e exchanged
effectively. There is a
general atmosphere
of respect for group
members, but
some members of
the group do not feel free
to ask questions and
contribute. There is no
decision-
making process, decisions
are mainly made by
individuals. No clear
oles for
each member, and/or
the workload is unequally
Group is engaged but can
e distracted. Ideas are
exchanged with
encouragement. There is a
general atmosphere
of respect for group
members, but
some members of
the group do not feel free
to ask questions and
contribute. Members are
generally able to resolve
conflicts through open
discussion with outside
assistance. A procedure for
making decision is
established by the group,
ut it not clear and/or it
focuses on individuals. The
group establishes informal
Everyone is engaged most of
the time. The exchange of ideas
is effective most of the
time. There is a
general atmosphere of respect
for all group members.
The majority of group members
feel free to ask questions and
contribute. Members are
generally able to resolve
conflicts through open
discussion. A clear procedure
for making decisions
is informally established by the
group. The
group establishes clear and
formal roles for each member
Everyone is fully engaged
with effective exchange of
ideas. Members of the
group share respect for
each other. All members of
the group feel free to ask
questions
and contribute. Conflicts
are resolved with
open dialogue
and compromise. A clear
procedure for
making decisions is
formally established by the
group. The group
establishes and documents
clear and formal roles for
each member
Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
ABN XXXXXXXXXXCRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
Assessment Brief
Version 2: 14th November 2022 Page 3 of 4
distributed. roles for each member.
The workload could be
distributed more equally.
and distributes
the workload equally.
and distributes the
workload equally.
Language/ Poor standard of A minimum of 900 Good standard of Very good standard of Professional standard of
Presentation writing. Word limit words. Basic and sound writing; few e
ors in writing; very few or minor writing; no e
ors in
15 may not be adhered standard of writing; punctuation, grammar e
ors in punctuation, punctuation, grammar
to. Inco
ect format some e
ors in and spelling. Almost grammar and spelling. and spelling. Co
ect
(e.g., includes Table of punctuation, grammar co
ect format. Co
ect formatting. formatting.
contents; bullet and spelling.
points; graphs etc.) Inconsistencies with the
formatting.
Referencing No referencing is Basic and sound Good attempt to Very good attempt to Professional level of
10 evident or, if done, is attempt to reference reference sources; reference sources; very referencing and
inconsistent and sources; may be some inconsistencies and minor inconsistencies and acknowledgment; no
technically inco
ect. inconsistencies and technical e
ors in style. technical e
ors in style. e
ors of style evident.
No or minimal technical e
ors in style. Few inaccuracies in Thorough and consistent Thorough and
reference list, mixed Reference list is reference list and all reference list and all consistent reference list
styles. No in text generally complete with references listed. references listed. and all references listed
citations 1 or 2 references
missing.
Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
ABN XXXXXXXXXXCRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
Assessment Brief
Version 2: 14th November 2022 Page 4 of 4
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
efer 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/folde
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
esearch. Also, in order to help Assessors determine a student’s understanding of the work they cite, all in-text
eferences (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/folde
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 Li
ary homepage. Wikipedia, online
dictionaries and online encyclopaedias are acceptable as a starting point to gain knowledge about