CSY1064 Software Engineering Fundamentals Assignment 1, Brief | UoN

CSY1064 Learning Outcomes Aligned to This Assessment

Aim:

This assessment aims to develop and demonstrate knowledge and understanding of conducting requirements engineering, designing, and documenting system specifications and interfaces for a client-driven project based on simulated client interviews and collaborative teamwork.

Subject-Specific Knowledge, Understanding, Application and Employability Skills

CSY1064 Assessment Overview:

This assignment requires you to complete all tasks to achieve the learning outcomes. You'll need to complete this assessment as part of your assigned project groups, recording the contributions of each team member throughout the project in the work log, leading to the development of the report and the client presentation.

Key Elements for the Assessment. 

Document Client Interview Findings and Conduct Further Problem Domain Investigation:

• Formally document your client interview findings
• Investigate other problem domain areas, such as comparable systems, legislation, and user group questionnaires. 

Requirements Specification Development

• Develop a comprehensive requirements specification that outlines the key functionalities and system constraints based on your problem domain review.
• Ensure the document includes prioritised system features and meets professional standards for clarity and completeness.

System Interface Design:

• Create detailed interface designs that include wireframes, navigation diagrams, and mock-ups to support system development.
• Address areas such as usability, accessibility, and client requirements in the design documentation.

System Architecture Analysis and Design:

• Document the analysis and design of the core system architecture, including class charts and other relevant system diagrams/charts.
• Ensure the designs reflect an efficient and effective structure, adhering to industry best practices.

Internal Testing and Documentation Quality Review:

• Implement and document internal testing strategies for the design, ensuring quality and adherence to requirements.
•  Review all report sections for consistency, coherence, and adherence to academic and professional formatting standards.

Collaborative Presentation Preparation:

• Work as a group to prepare and present the project findings to stakeholders. Ensure the presentation includes the problem domain summary, key designs, and project recommendations.
• Use visual aids effectively to enhance the delivery and impact of the presentation.

Group Reflection and Work Log:

• Reflect on group activity contributions to the project, highlighting critical skills developed and challenges faced.
• Maintain a detailed work log documenting individual contributions throughout the project phases

CSY1064 Assessment Tasks

Project groups must work together to develop a suitable technical report outlining the following key sections: 

1) Subsequent Problem Domain Investigation Findings.
2) A Requirement Specification for all the key software components.
3) Suitable Interface Designs for the key software applications.
4) Suitable System Analysis and Design Documentation for the core records management system.

Week by week, you will be taught the skills required to complete these activities and effectively document the deliverables in the report.

Documentation Required

The following documentation should be submitted as a suitably formatted report containing the sections outlined in the DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS section below. 

In an attempt to emulate the typical time constraints of working life, we will assume that your employer has set a seven-week deadline (weeks 8-14) after completing your client interviews, in which the project report should be completed. At the end of this seven-week period, you will be required to give a 20-minute presentation to the key stakeholder (Matthew Jones), where you will outline the designs you have produced. (Your module tutor will provide all relevant dates)

To successfully present your study designs and recommendations, preparation for the project presentation is essential. All group members are expected to contribute towards the final presentation, and appropriate visual aids are encouraged. (We will teach presentation skills in a subsequent week).

CSY1064 Assessment Deliverables

As stated previously, there are three deliverables for this project: 

1) Study Report:  A report should be compiled outlining all the major features of a typical software engineering project. (See the DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS section below for the suggested report sections and content)

2) Report Presentation: All members of your assigned group should help present an overview of the study, including: 

a) Introduction - Aims and Objectives
b) An overview of key Problem Domain investigation details
c) Key business problems to be resolved
d) Essential system interface designs
e) Potential benefits and costings of the proposed solution for the client
f) Conclusion – Development Recommendations and the cost estimate for the client

3) Project Worklog: A breakdown of the individual group member's contribution, included as an appendix in the final report submission

CSY1064 Assessment Regulations and Polices

Assessment Submission

• The deadline is 11.59 pm (British time) on the due date provided on NILE
• Submit your work on NILE under: Assessment and Submission | Assignment 1 Technical Report (The submission should be carried out by the group leader only)
• The completion and submission of your assignment is the responsibility of the group leader.
• Only work submitted through NILE will be graded
• Submission should be in the appropriate format, e.g., a Word document. 

Work correctly uploaded to Turnitin will get a receipt for proof of submission

CSY1064  Assessment Criteria Weightings 

Table 1 provides an overview of the relevant weighting for each assessment component. Appendix 1 provides a more detailed breakdown of the marking criteria.

Table 1 – Assessable Components and Percentage Weighting of Each Element

Marking Criteria\Rubric

Please take a look at Appendix 1 for details on the marking criteria for this assignment.

Appendix 2: Group Marking Process and Peer Feedback Adjustment

In this module, group submissions, including both the project report and presentation, are evaluated using the marking criteria outlined in Appendix 1: DetailedMarking Criteria/Rubric Breakdown. The process for determining final individual marks incorporates peer feedback and is detailed below:

1. Group Marking:

The group submission is assessed collectively based on the marking rubric in Appendix 1, and a base grade is assigned to the entire group (e.g., C+).

2. Peer Feedback Collection:

During the presentation session, students complete a confidential peer feedback form that rates each group member's contribution on a scale of 0 to 5:

• 0 – No contribution
• 1 – Minimal contribution (very little effort and outputs)
• 2 – Below average contribution (some work but less than most of the group)
• 3 – Average contribution (equal work compared to most group members)
• 4 – Above average contribution (significant effort and outputs above average)
• 5 – Outstanding contribution (exceptional effort and high-quality outputs)

This feedback helps to assess the relative input of each student over the duration of the project.

3. Data Collation and Adjustment:

• The feedback scores for each member are averaged to determine their overall contribution level.
• Adjustments are made to individual grades based on the deviation from the group's average contribution score. If a member’s contribution is significantly above or below the average, their grade is adjusted accordingly.

4. Example of the Adjustment Process:

• Consider a group with a base grade of C+. The table below illustrates how individual contributions can affect the final grades:

Verification with Worklogs:

The adjusted grades are cross-checked against the work log documenting individual contributions throughout the project to ensure fairness and accuracy.

 Benefits of this Approach:

1) Recognition of Individual Effort: This structured process helps ensure each member’s efforts are recognised and reflected in the final grade, promoting equity in group assessments.

2) Encourages Accountability: Members who contribute less than expected are identified through the peer feedback system and are likely to receive a lower individual grade, ensuring minimal contributors do not benefit from the group's work without putting in comparable effort. This discourages free-riding and promotes active participation.

3) Rewards High Performers: Students who go above and beyond in their contributions can receive higher grades than the base group grade, even if the overall performance of the group is average or below average. This recognition can motivate students to contribute more significantly and showcase their dedication.

4) Promotes Fairness: By cross-checking peer feedback with worklogs, the process ensures that adjustments are fair and consistent, reflecting actual contributions. This builds trust in the group assessment process.

5) Prepares for Real-World Scenarios: The strategy simulates professional project experiences, where individual contributions are acknowledged, and underperformance can have tangible consequences. This prepares students for workplace environments where team members are held accountable for their work.

6) Incentivises Leadership and Initiative: Students who take the initiative and show leadership within the group can be rewarded for their extra efforts. This encourages the development of soft skills such as teamwork, communication, and leadership.

7) Ensures Minimum Standards for Passing: Members who make minimal or no contributions are at risk of failing, as their grades are adjusted downward significantly. This ensures that every member must participate and meet a minimum standard to pass the assessment.

8) Enhances Team Dynamics: The process encourages continuous participation and collaboration throughout the project period, as students are aware that their contributions are being evaluated by their peers. This can lead to better group cohesion and productivity.

9) Prevents Grade Inflation: By having an adjustment mechanism in place, the strategy prevents grade inflation that could occur if all members were automatically given the same score, regardless of their individual input.

10) Encourages Self-Reflection: Knowing that their peers will evaluate them encourages students to self-reflect on their contribution levels, potentially improving their work ethic and participation in future projects