ASSESSMENT BRIEF- 2
COURSE:
Bachelor of Information Technology
Unit Code:
SENG 205
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
6) Be able to gather requirements, develop specifications, design,
implement and test a prototype individually and in a team.
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.
Assessment Brief
Version 2: 18st July 2022
Page 1 of 3
ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
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 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. The students 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.
M ARKING G UIDE (RUBRIC):
Assessment
Attributes
Fail (Unacceptable)
Pass (Functional)
Credit (Proficient)
Distinction (Advanced)
High Distinction
(Exceptional) (>85%)
Research
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
Report lacks
coherence; topic is
poorly addressed;
little analysis.
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.
Report is generally
coherent; topic is
addressed; analyses in
reasonable depth with
some description. There
are some
inconsistencies and
weaknesses with flow.
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.
A minimum of 900
words. Basic and sound
standard of writing;
some errors in
punctuation, grammar
and spelling.
Inconsistencies with the
formatting.
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.
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.
Report is coherent and
flows well; topic is
addressed quite
thoroughly; analyses in
considerable depth.
There may be some
inconsistencies and
weaknesses with flow.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Professional standard of
writing; no errors in
punctuation, grammar
and spelling. Correct
formatting.
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
Information /
Content
30
(0-49%)
Structure
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.
Language/
Presentation
15
Poor standard of
writing. Word limit
may not be adhered
to. Incorrect format
(e.g. includes Table of
contents; bullet
points; graphs etc.)
Referencing
15
No referencing is
evident or, if done, is
inconsistent and
technically incorrect.
No or minimal
reference list, mixed
styles. No in text
citations
(50-64%)
(65-74%)
(75-84%)
Report is very coherent and
flows well; topic is
addressed thoroughly;
analyses in depth. There
may be minor
inconsistencies and
weakness with flow.
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.
Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief
Version 2: 18th July 2022
Page 2 of 3
ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051
G ENERAL 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
refer 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=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.
G ENERAL 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
research. Also, in order to help Assessors determine a student’s understanding of the work they cite, all in-text
references (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/folder/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 Library homepage. Wikipedia, online
dictionaries and online encyclopaedias are acceptable as a starting point to gain knowledge about a topic, but
should 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 as
government 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 and
government departments produce peer reviewed reports and articles and are therefore very useful and mostly
very 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).
Kent Institute Australia Pty. Ltd.
Assessment Brief
Version 2: 18th July 2022
Page 3 of 3
ABN 49 003 577 302 CRICOS Code: 00161E RTO Code: 90458
TEQSA Provider Number: PRV12051