Assessment 1 and 2
Assessment Brief: BIS3006 IS Capstone Industry Project B Trimester 3, 2022 Assessment Overview Assessment Task Type Weighting Due Length ULO Assessment 1: Project Log-book (Individual) Students attend weekly team meeting and every two weeks submit an individual project Log-book. The log-book is a cumulative log of: • Key group meeting discussion points and decisions made; • All activities undertaken during the project. These must clearly detail all individual contributions/activities versus those undertaken by other members of the group; • All interim implemented steps undertaken and any partial or interim artefacts produced. This needs to include a clear justification for any implementation approaches, methodologies and/or strategies adopted; Individual Invigilated 25% Week 2, Week 4, Week 6, and Week 8 Log-book (total 2000) ULO4 ULO5 Assessment 2: Presentation (Individual) Students prepare and deliver an oral presentation covering the following elements: • Overview of the problem addressed • Summary of approach taken to address the problem • Description of the artefact implemented, justifying all key implementation strategies and approaches adopted • Review of testing and user acceptance undertaken/planned Individual Invigilated 15% Week 10 Presentation 15 minutes maximum; 15 slides maximum (equiv. 1500 words) ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 ULO5 Assessment 3: Artefact and User Documentation (Group) Students submit the artefact, technical specifications, justification on how the artefact addresses the IT problem, and user documentation to accompany the artefact Group 40% Week 11 4000 words + Artefact (total 6000 words equiv.) ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 ULO5 Assessment Task Type Weighting Due Length ULO Assessment 4: Project Reflection (individual) Reflection on the student’s journey in the unit focused on (a) the skills and knowledge they were able to draw on from earlier parts of the course; (b) the areas where they needed development and how they addressed those; (c) how they would approach a project like this next time. Individual 20% Week 6, and Week 12 2*750 words ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 ULO5 equiv. – equivalent word count based on the Assessment Load Equivalence Guide. It means this assessment is equivalent to the normally expected time requirement for a written submission containing the specified number of words. Assessment 1: Project Log-book Due date: Week 2, Week 4, Week 6, and Week 8 Group/individual: Individual Word count/Time provided: Log-book (total 2000) Weighting: 25% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO4, ULO5 Assessment 1 Detail This is assessment item designed to assess your team's Key group meeting discussion points and decisions made, your individual contribution to the overall outcome of the project. This will help you to achieve ULO4 and ULO5. All activities undertaken during the project, and the implemented steps need to be presented. A clear justification for any implementation approaches need to be provided, methodologies and/or strategies adopted; The individual element relates to low-level work item specification and evaluation. The tasks associated with this assessment item are as follows. For each iteration, and for every fortnightly submission, identify specific work items that will support achieving the iteration objectives. This assessment item is assessed through fortnightly iteration plans and evaluations in conjunction. Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 25% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page. Assess each activity separately and specifically against the intended outcome stated in the iteration plan. All activities must result in some change to the project’s artefacts – this is the only possible measurement of progress. Back up claims of successful activity completion by including the generated or updated artefact with the status assessment. Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric Marking Criteria Not Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion mark) Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion mark) Good (65-74% of the criterion mark) Very Good (75-84% of the criterion mark) Excellent (85-100% of the criterion mark) Criterion – 1 (25 marks) Construction and implementation of the planned tasks: Were the tasks completed to a satisfactory standard? Few possible tasks were completed and links to any other task performed are available in the iteration report. No information regarding the front-end and back- end connectivity is provided Some possible tasks were completed and links to any other task performed are available in the iteration report. Little information regarding the front-end and back-end connectivity is provided Several possible tasks were completed and links to any other task performed are available in the iteration report. Some information regarding the front-end and back-end connectivity is provided Almost possible tasks were completed and links to any other task performed are available in the iteration report. Most of the information regarding the front-end and back-end connectivity is provided All possible tasks were completed and links to any other task performed are available in the iteration report. Adequate and clear information regarding the front-end and back-end connectivity is provided Criterion -2 (25 marks) Teamwork and good organization and Individual Work: Was a satisfactory level of team corporation clear every week? Team member did not attend most team project meetings. Individual work is not showed clearly. Team member attended and participated in some project team meetings. Few of the Individual work showed. Team member attended and participated in several project team meetings. Individual work showed. Team member attended and participated in most project team meetings. Individual work showed almost clearly. Team member attended and participated in all project team meetings. Individual work showed clearly. Criterion -3 (25 marks) Testing documentation: Were the tasks evaluated against specific requirements? Few tasks evaluated against specific requirements. The system is not tested, and the Screen shots and explanation of the required task tested, database is completely tested by inserting, updated, and also can Some tasks evaluated against specific requirements. The system is tested little bit and few of the Screen shots and explanation of the required task tested, database is completely tested by inserting, Several tasks evaluated against specific requirements. The system is generally tested and the Screen shots and explanation of the required task tested, database is completely tested by inserting, Almost tasks evaluated against specific requirements. The system is almost tested, and the Screen shots and explanation of the required task tested, database is completely tested by inserting, All tasks evaluated against specific requirements. The system is adequately tested, and the Screen shots and explanation of the required task tested, database is completely tested by inserting, be deleted updated, and also can be deleted. updated, and also can be deleted updated, and also can be deleted updated, and also can be deleted updated, and also can be deleted. Criterion -4 (25 marks) Documentation on how to run the system: Was an explanation provided for the completed tasks? No explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is no documentation to support the system's deployment, use and maintenance. A brief explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is generic documentation to support the system's deployment, use and maintenance. Supporting information. An explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is basic documentation to support the system's deployment, use and maintenance. Supporting information. A thorough explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is sufficient documentation to support the system's deployment, use and maintenance. Supporting information. A detailed explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is sufficient and suitable documentation to support the system's deployment, use and maintenance. Supporting information. Assessment 2: Presentation Due date: Week 10 Group/individual: Individual Word count/Time provided: Presentation 15 minutes maximum; 15 slides maximum (equiv. 1500 words) Weighting: 15% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4, ULO5 Assessment 2 Detail Students prepare and deliver an oral presentation covering that give an overview of the problem addressed, summarise the approach taken to address the problem, describe the artefact implemented, justify all key implementation strategies and approaches adopted, and review of testing and user acceptance undertaken/planned. This will help you to achieve ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4, and ULO5. The primary task for this assessment is to complete development of your project. Assessments 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 15% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page. Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric Marking Criteria Not Satisfactory (0-49% of the criterion mark) Satisfactory (50-64% of the criterion mark) Good (65-74% of the criterion mark) Very Good (75-84% of the criterion mark) Excellent (85-100% of the criterion mark) Criterion - 1 (25 marks) Achieves functional objectives: Does the implementation point out the ability to deploy the project? Student has no skills in the implementation. Student points out accepted skills in