IT Capstone Industry ICT3055
- Subject Code :
ICT3055
AssessmentOverview
|
AssessmentTask |
Type |
Weighting |
Due |
Length |
ULO |
|
Assessment1:ProjectLog-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: Keygroupmeetingdiscussionpoints and decisions made; All activities undertaken during the project. These must clearly detail all individualcontributions/activitiesversus those undertaken by other members of the group; All interim implemented steps undertakenandanypartialorinterim artefacts produced. This needs to include a clear justification for any implementation approaches, methodologies and/or strategies adopted; |
Individual
Invigilated
|
25% |
Week2, Week4, Week6, andWeek8 |
Log-book (total2000) |
ULO4 ULO5 |
|
Assessment2:Presentation(Individual)Students prepare and deliver an oral presentation covering the following elements: Overviewoftheproblemaddressed Summaryofapproachtakentoaddress the problem Description of the artefact implemented,justifyingallkey implementationstrategiesand approaches adopted Reviewoftestinganduseracceptance undertaken/planned |
Individual
Invigilated
|
15% |
Week10 |
Presentation 15 minutes maximum;15 slides maximum (equiv. 1500 words) |
ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 ULO5 |
|
Assessment3:ArtefactandUser Documentation (Group) Students submit the artefact, technical specifications, justification on how the artefactaddressestheITproblem,anduser documentation to accompany the artefact |
Group
|
40% |
Week11 |
4000words + Artefact
(total 6000 wordsequiv.) |
ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 ULO5 |
|
AssessmentTask |
Type |
Weighting |
Due |
Length |
ULO |
|
Assessment4:ProjectReflection(individual) Reflection on the students journey in the unit focused on (a) the skills and knowledge theywereabletodrawonfromearlierparts 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% |
Week6, andWeek12 |
2*750words |
ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4 ULO5 |
equiv.equivalentwordcountbasedontheAssessmentLoad EquivalenceGuide.Itmeansthisassessmentis equivalent to the normally expected time requirement for a written submission containing the specified number of words.
Assessment1:ProjectLog-book
|
Duedate: |
Week2,Week4,Week6,andWeek8 |
|
Group/individual: |
Individual |
|
Wordcount/Timeprovided: |
Log-book(total2000) |
|
Weighting: |
25% |
|
UnitLearningOutcomes: |
ULO4,ULO5 |
|
Note |
WhileyoumayuseChatGPTorotherAItoolstoenhanceyour understandingofthesubject,noAI-generated materials, includingcopiedandeditedtext,maybe includedinthefinal submission.MoredetailsongenerativeAIcanbefoundinthe AcademicIntegrityModule,underthepagetitledGenerativeAI: GuidelinesforStudents |
Assessment1Detail
Thisassessmentrequiresstudentstodocumentdecisions,contributions,andimplementedstepswith justifications for adopted methodologies. It directly aligns withULO4, as students must persuade stakeholders (or team members) about their design and implementation approaches. Reflecting on individualcontributionsandthemethodologiesusedhelpsfulfillULO5,asstudentscriticallyevaluate their strategies and performance in the project.
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. All activities undertakenduring theproject,andthe implementedstepsneedto be presented. Aclearjustification 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. Students required to submit a progress report comprisingofpreviousagreedobjectivesfromICT3054,progressontheseobjectivesandabriefplanwith milestones tocompletethe project.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.The report should detailtheindustry-basedprojectassignedtoyoubyyourlecturer,focusingonspecificaspects.Inaddition,itshouldbelinkedwiththedesignedmodelsthestudentscompletedonProjectA.
Studentswillnotbeassessedonworkthatisproducedinlabsessionsothatattendanceisrequiredas part of this assessmentas itis invigilatedassessment. Students arerequiredtosubmit thework that they have completed during the lab session.
Assessment1MarkingCriteriaandRubric
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 projects artefacts thisis the only possible measurement of progress. Back up claims of successful activity completion by including the generated or updated artefact with the status assessment.
Assessment1MarkingCriteriaand Rubric
|
MarkingCriteria |
NotSatisfactory (0-49%ofthecriterionmark) |
Satisfactory(50-64%ofthe criterionmark) |
Good (65-74% of the criterionmark) |
Very Good (75-84%ofthe criterionmark) |
Excellent(85-100%ofthe criterionmark) |
|
Criterion1 (6.25marks) Constructionandimplementationoftheplanned tasks:Werethe 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-endconnectivity 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-endconnectivity 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-endconnectivity 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 werecompletedand linkstoanyother taskperformedare available in the iteration report. Adequateandclear information regardingthefront- endandback-end connectivity is provided |
|
Criterion-2 (6.26 marks) Teamwork and good organization and Individual Work:Wasa satisfactory level of team corporation clear every week? Was the critical thinking and evaluationof the team- workexperience considered? |
Teammemberdidnot attend most team project meetings. Individualworkisnot showed clearly. Inadequate considerationto the questions posed. |
Team member attended and participatedin some project teammeetings. Few of the Individual work showed.Identifiessome personal assumptions, values, and perspectives |
Team member attended and participatedin several project team meetings.Individual work showed. Identifies some personal assumptions, values, and perspectives;recognizes some assumptions, valuesandperspectives |
Team member attended and participatedin most project teammeetings. Individual work showed almost clearly. Identifies strengths and weaknesses in performancewithin team; recognizes personal assumptions, values,and perspectives |
Team member attended and participated in all project team meetings. Individual work showed clearly. Identifies strengths andweaknessesin performancewithin team; recognizes personal assumptions,values, andperspectives |
|
Criterion-3 (6.25marks) Testingdocumentation:Were the tasks evaluated against specific requirements? |
Few tasks evaluated against specific requirements. The system is not tested, andtheScreenshots and explanation of the required task tested, database is completelytestedby inserting, updated, and also can be deleted updated,andalsocanbe deleted. |
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, databaseiscompletely tested by inserting, updated, and also can be deleted |
Severaltasksevaluated 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,updated,and also can be deleted |
Almosttasksevaluated 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,updated,and also can be deleted |
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,updated,and also can be deleted. |
|
Criterion-4 (6.25 marks)Documentationonhowtorunthesystem:Was an explanationprovided for the completed tasks? |
No explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is no documentationto support the system's deployment, use and maintenance. |
Abriefexplanation provided for all completed tasks. There is generic documentationto support the system's deployment, use andmaintenance. Supporting information. |
An explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is basic documentationto support the system's deployment, use andmaintenance. Supporting information. |
A thorough explanation provided for all completed tasks. Thereissufficient documentationto support the system's deployment, use andmaintenance. Supporting information. |
A detailed explanation provided for all completed tasks. There is sufficientandsuitable documentation to support the system's deployment, use and maintenance. Supporting information. |
Assessment2:Presentation
|
Duedate: |
Week10 |
|
Group/individual: |
Individual |
|
Wordcount/Timeprovided: |
Presentation15minutesmaximum;15slidesmaximum(equiv.1500 words) |
|
Weighting: |
15% |
|
UnitLearningOutcomes: |
ULO1,ULO2,ULO3,ULO4,ULO5 |
|
Note |
WhileyoumayuseChatGPTorotherAItoolstoenhanceyour understandingofthesubject,noAI-generated materials, includingcopiedandeditedtext,maybe includedinthefinal submission.MoredetailsongenerativeAIcanbefoundinthe AcademicIntegrityModule,underthe pagetitledGenerativeAI: GuidelinesforStudents |
Assessment2Detail
Presenting a summary of the problem, approach, implemented artefact, and testing outcomes involvesjustifyingtheITsolution,directlyaddressingULO1andULO4.Explaininguserdocumentation andthetestingprocessalignswithULO2.Therequirementtoapplyadvancedknowledgeinjustifying approaches reflectsULO3. The critical evaluation during the presentation reviews project strategies and outcomes, satisfyingULO5.
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,justifyallkeyimplementationstrategiesandapproachesadopted,andreviewoftesting anduseracceptanceundertaken/planned.ThiswillhelpyoutoachieveULO1,ULO2,ULO3,ULO4,and ULO5. The primary task for this assessment is to complete development of your project. The report shoulddetailtheindustry-basedprojectassignedtoyoubyyourlecturer,focusingonspecificaspects. In addition, it should be linked with the designed models the students completed on Project A.
Assessments2MarkingCriteriaandRubric
Theassessmentwillbemarkedoutof100andwillbeweighted15%ofthetotalunitmark.The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.
Assessment2MarkingCriteriaandRubric
|
MarkingCriteria |
NotSatisfactory (0-49% of thecriterion mark) |
Satisfactory(50-64%ofthecriterion mark) |
Good (65-74%ofthecriterion mark) |
Very Good (75-84%ofthe criterion mark) |
Excellent(85-100%ofthe criterion mark) |
|
Criterion-1 (3.75 marks)Achieves functional objectives:Does the implementation point out the abilitytodeploy theproject? |
Student has no skills inthe implementation. |
Student points out accepted skills in the implementation. Acceptedqualitycode provides by the students with no bags. Inaddition,almostthe functionality ofthe project implemented. |
Student points out average skills in the implementation. Good quality code provides by thestudentswithnobags. In addition, almost the functionalityoftheproject implemented. |
Studentpointsoutvery good skills in the implementation.Very good quality code provides by the students with no bags. Inaddition,almostthe functionality ofthe projectimplemented. |
Student points out high skills in the implementation. High qualitycodeprovidesby thestudentswithno bags.In addition, all functionality of the projectimplemented. |
|
Criterion-2 (3.75marks)Achievesnon functional objectives. Implement the secure methods for data encryption, data securityanddata breach to maintain the privacy Of end users |
Non-functional requirementsnot tested and validated |
Few of the Non- functional requirements tested and validated.Few security requirements tested. |
Some of the Non- functional requirements tested and validated.Some security requirements tested. |
Non-functional requirements almost alltested and validated.Almost securityrequirements tested. |
Non-functional requirements Completelytestedand validated.All security requirements tested. |
|
Criterion-3(3.75 mark)The Project implementa tion/ simulation are understanda bleand maintainable |
Programscodesare notcommented |
Project implementation/ simulation provided littleexplanationsof the codesbeing used |
Project implementation/ simulation provided basic explanations of the codes being used |
Project implementation/ simulation good explanations of the codesbeing used |
Projectimplementation/ simulation are understandable and maintainable |
|
Criterion4 (3.75marks)Doesthetest model point outtheability to evaluate and testtheproject? |
Studenthasnoskillsin testingandvalidation. |
Student points out the testing process through the accepted test plan. The requested functionality tested, and the project outcomes evaluated. The project is validated against the project goal. |
Student points out the testingprocessthroughthe good test plan. The requested functionality tested, and the project outcomes evaluated. The project is validated against the project goal. |
Student points out the testing process through the very good test plan. The requested functionality tested, and the project outcomes evaluated. The project is validated against the project goal. |
Student points out the testing process through the efficient test plan. The requested functionality tested, and the project outcomes evaluated.Theprojectis validated against the projectgoal. |
Assessment3:ArtefactandUserDocumentation
|
Duedate: |
Week11 |
|
Group/individual: |
Group |
|
Wordcount/Timeprovided: |
4000words+Artefact(total6000wordsequiv.) |
|
Weighting: |
40% |
|
UnitLearningOutcomes: |
ULO1,ULO2,ULO3,ULO4,ULO5 |
|
Note |
WhileyoumayuseChatGPTorotherAItoolstoenhanceyour understandingofthesubject,noAI-generated materials, includingcopiedandeditedtext,maybe includedinthefinal submission.MoredetailsongenerativeAIcanbefoundinthe AcademicIntegrityModule,underthe pagetitledGenerativeAI: GuidelinesforStudents |
Assessment3Detail
The artefact submission demonstrates how the IT solution addresses the industry problem, satisfyingULO1. The technical specifications and user manual reflect the ability to create high-quality user documentation (ULO2). Advanced IT knowledge and industry best practices are required to implement and document the artefact, meetingULO3. The justification and testing of the artefact addressULO4, while reflecting on team strategy links toULO5.
Students submit the artefact, technical specifications,justification onhow theartefact addressestheIT problem,and user documentation to accompany theartefact.evidenceofnetwork/systemworkingfunctionality(evidencecouldincludeascreencast/videoorscreenshots.Youwillnotbemarkedonthe communicationaspectofthisevidence,itissimplyproofthatyoursystemworks).ThiswillachieveULO1,ULO2,ULO3,ULO4,andULO5.Thestudentrequired to produce a User Manual that should include installation and configuration instructions ifrequired for testing, and document how to use the attributes implemented in the software.Inaddition, fullcopyofsystemdocumentationincludingasbuiltdesign.Thisassessmentisshowingtheability andtheskillsof thestudentsinwritingtheundermanual.Thereportshoulddetailtheindustry-basedprojectassignedtoyoubyyourlecturer,focusingonspecificaspects. In addition, it should be linked with the designed models the students completed on Project A.
Students are required to bring their final projects (final report) alongwith theirPowerPoint slidesto theclass in week11.During thatweek, there will be a discussion about their final reports in addition to their presentation.
Assessments3MarkingCriteriaandRubric
The assessmentwill bemarkedout of 100andwill beweighted40%ofthetotalunit mark. Themarkingcriteriaandrubric are shownonthefollowing page.
Assessment3MarkingCriteriaand Rubric
|
MarkingCriteria |
NotSatisfactory (0-49%ofthecriterionmark) |
Satisfactory (50-64%ofthecriterionmark) |
Good (65-74%ofthecriterionmark) |
VeryGood (75-84%ofthecriterionmark) |
Excellent (85-100%ofthecriterionmark) |
|
Criterion1 (10marks) Does the student demonstratetechnical writing skills in a user manual? Does the student validate the scope? |
Studentsdidntproduce a comprehensive user manual and scope validation. |
Students produce an acceptedcomprehensive user manual providing some details.Thestudentsdid accept comprehensive validation to the scope |
Students produce a good comprehensive user manual providing mostofthedetails.The students did good comprehensive validation to the scope |
Studentsproducean effectively comprehensiveuser manual providing almost all the details. Thestudentsdidan effective comprehensive validation to the scope |
Studentsproducea high- quality comprehensive user manualprovidingall the details. The studentsdidhighlevel comprehensive validation to the scope |
|
Criterion2 (10marks) What manual and are you going to provide for networking/ securityprojects?Does the students provide evidence of network/system workingfunctionality (e.g.evidencecould |
Students didnt produce comprehensive explanations for the key networking/security projects. Students didnt provide evidence of network/system workingfunctionality |
Students produce an accepted comprehensive explanation for some networking/security projects. Students provide accepted evidence of network/system working functionality |
Students produce a good comprehensive explanation for mostof networking/security projects. Students providesomeevidence of network/system working functionality |
Students produce an effectively comprehensive explanations for almost all networking/security projects. Students providemostevidence of network/system working functionality |
Students produce a high- quality comprehensive explanations for all key networking/security projects. Students provide completed evidence of network/system workingfunctionality |
|
includeascreencast/ videoorscreenshots. |
|||||
|
Criterion3 (10marks) Does the student evaluate the project process andoutcomes? Does the student implement standardtesting parameters and evaluate systemperformance? Doesthestudent provide the built design? |
The students didnt produceanevaluation of project progress against the project proposal. Students didnt implement comprehensivestandardtestingparametersand evaluate system performance. Students provide the completed built design. |
The students produce an accepted evaluation of project progress against the project proposal. Students implement accepted standard testingparametersand evaluate system performance. Students provide accepted built design. |
The students produce a good evaluation of project progress against the project proposal. Students implement some standard testing parameters and evaluate system performance. Studentsprovidegood builtdesign. |
The students produce an effectively evaluation of project progress against the project proposal. Students implement most standard testing parameters and evaluate system performance. Students provide effective built design. |
The students produce a high- quality evaluation of project progress against the project proposal. Students implement comprehensivestandardtestingparametersand evaluate system performance. Students provide high level-builtdesign |
|
Criterion4 (10marks) Does the student define and discuss the project risks and challenges? Does the student demonstrate technical writing skills throughdevelopmentof appropriatetechnical manuals? |
Students didnt define anddiscussalltherisks andchallengesfacedin the project progress. Poor technical writing skillsthrough development of appropriatetechnical manuals |
Students define and discuss some of the risks and challenges faced in the project progress. Accepted technical writing skills throughdevelopmentof appropriate technical manuals |
Students define and discuss a most of the risks and challenges faced in the project progress. Good technicalwritingskills throughdevelopment of appropriate technicalmanuals |
Students define and discussalmostallthe risks and challenges faced in the project progress. Effective technicalwritingskills throughdevelopmentof appropriatetechnical manuals |
Students define and discussalltherisksand challengesfacedinthe project progress. High level technical writingskillsthrough development of appropriatetechnical manuals |
Assessment4:ProjectReflection
|
Duedate: |
Week6,andWeek12 |
|
Group/individual: |
Individual |
|
Wordcount/Timeprovided: |
2*750words |
|
Weighting: |
20% |
|
UnitLearningOutcomes: |
ULO1,ULO2,ULO3,ULO4,ULO5 |
|
Note |
WhileyoumayuseChatGPTorotherAItoolstoenhanceyour understandingofthesubject,noAI-generated materials, includingcopiedandeditedtext,maybe includedinthefinal submission.MoredetailsongenerativeAIcanbefoundinthe AcademicIntegrityModule,underthe pagetitledGenerativeAI: GuidelinesforStudents |
Assessment4Detail
- Reflecting on skills used in the project, challenges addressed, and future strategies connects to all ULOs:ULO1:ReviewingtheITsolutiondeveloped.ULO2:Reflectingondocumentationqualityandits impact.ULO3: Evaluating the application of advanced IT knowledge.ULO4: Considering stakeholder andteammanagementapproaches.ULO5:Criticallyanalyzingstrategiesandperformanceduringthe unit
Reflectiononthestudentsjourneyintheunitfocusedon(a)theskillsandknowledgetheywereable 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; (d) considerations forICT3055CapstoneIndustryProjectB.Thefinalproductincludes theactualworkingnetwork/system. Thereportshoulddetailtheindustry-basedprojectassignedtoyoubyyourlecturer,focusingonspecificaspects. In addition, it should be linked with the designed models the students completed on Project
Assessments4MarkingCriteriaandRubric
The assessment will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.
|
MarkingCriteria |
NotSatisfactory (0-49%ofthecriterion mark) |
Satisfactory (50-64%ofthecriterion mark) |
Good (65-74%ofthecriterion mark) |
VeryGood (75-84%ofthecriterion mark) |
Excellent (85-100%ofthecriterion mark) |
|
Criterion1 (4marks) Show how Network Engineerdocumentation link with the designed network in building manual for networking/security projects? |
Network Engineer documentationwasnt described and linked with the designed network in building manual for networking/security projects |
Network Engineer documentation described and linked with some designed network in building manual for networking/security projects |
Network Engineer documentation described and linked with most of the designed network in building manual for networking/security projects |
Network Engineer documentationclearly described and linked with almost all the designed network in building manual for networking/security projects |
Network Engineer documentation clearly and comprehensively described and linked with the designed network in building manual for networking/security projects. |
|
Criterion2 (4marks) Show how the explanationpresentedin the Network Engineer documentandhowitwill help in the maintenance stage? |
Network Engineer document wasnt provided accepted explanation to the programmer to become productive in maintainingthe software. |
Network Engineer document provided accepted explanation to the programmer to become productive in maintainingthe software. |
Network Engineer document providedan explanation to the programmer tobecome productive in maintaining the software. |
Network Engineer document provided clear explanation to the programmer to become productive inmaintainingthesoftware. |
Network Engineer document provided clear and comprehensive explanation to the programmertobecome productive in maintaining the software. |
|
Criterion3 (4marks) Show the evaluation of the project process and outcomes, including teammanagementdone inefficientway? |
No evaluation of the project process and outcomes. |
Accepted evaluation of the project process and outcomes. |
General evaluation of the project process and outcomes. |
Well evaluated of the project process and outcomes. |
Very well evaluated of the project process and outcomes. |
|
Criterion4 (4marks) Howthestatusofthe progress reported? |
Nostatusofprogressis reported. |
Accepted status ofprogressisreported. |
Overall status ofprogressisreported. |
Overall status reporting is well-defined and presents a clear overview of progress. |
Overall status reporting is well-defined and presents a clear overview of progress. |
|
Criterion -5(4 marks)Sufficient and appropriate information willsupportthesystem's implementation,useand maintenance |
Helpfilesnotandnouser documentation created |
Help files provided for the uses of the system anduserdocumentation created. Help files and user documentation cover few features whichprovidelittlehelp touser. |
Help files provided for the uses of the system anduserdocumentation created. Help files and user documentation cover some features whichprovidehelpto user. |
Help files provided for the uses of the system anduserdocumentation created. Help files and user documentation coveralmostallfeatures whichprovidegoodhelp touser |
Help files provided for the uses of the system anduserdocumentation created. Help files and user documentation cover all features which providegreathelpto user |
