CT059-3-2-SAT Software Architecture and Testing

Marking Scheme

Page 1 of 4

ASIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

GROUP ASSIGNMENT MARKING SCHEME
GROUP COMPONENT (70%)
Question 1 (20%)
Criteria / Grade
Documentation
Coherency
(5 marks)

Fail

Marginal Fail

Pass

Credit

Distinction

01
Very poor
documentation
standards and
information flow;
Report totally
disorganized - no
visible structure

2
Rather poor
documentation standards
and coherency; Structure
of report visible but
missing some
components

2.5 3
Average documentation
standards met and some
minor inconsistency of
info being discussed;
Structure of report visible
but with some minor
omissions

3.5
Good documentation
standards met and flow
of information; Structure
of report visible with
hardly any omissions

45
Excellent documentation
standards met and
smooth flowing
information among all
discussion in all
questions; Report well
structured with hardly
any omissions / errors

Application & Analysis

(10 marks)

03
No evidence or very
poor analysis done

4
Limited analysis done
and failed to relate to
the problems and issues
addressed

56
Merely general
application of evaluation
method and analysis done
and very little relations to
the problem/issues
addressed and listed a
few recommendations

7
Good analysis that
clearly relates to the
problems
and issues addressed,
and discussion was deep

Research & References

(5 marks)

01
No or very limited
citations/ references

2
Some attempts made to
do citation / references
but either
irrelevant/outdated or
not according to Harvard
Name Referencing

2.5 3
Some citations/references
noted but either
irrelevant/outdated or not
according to Harvard
Name Referencing

3.5
Most of the
citations/references
noted and are
relevant/up-to-date using
Harvard Name
Referencing

8 10
Excellent application of
evaluation methods and
analysis that is used and
discussion was
appropriate to identify
the problems /issues
addressed with justifiable
recommendations
45
Many
citations/references that
are relevant/up-to-date
and using Harvard Name
Referencing noted

&

ASIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION

NOV 2015

CT059-3-2-SAT Software Architecture and Testing

Marking Scheme

Page 2 of 4

Question 2 and Question 3 (25% x 2 = 50%)

Criteria / Grade
Documentation
Coherency
(5 marks)

Fail

Marginal Fail

Pass

Credit

Distinction

01
Very poor
documentation
standards and
information flow;
Report totally
disorganized - no
visible structure

2
Rather poor
documentation standards
and coherency; Structure
of report visible but
missing some
components

2.5 3
Average documentation
standards met and some
minor inconsistency of
info being discussed;
Structure of report visible
but with some minor
omissions

3.5
Good documentation
standards met and flow
of information; Structure
of report visible with
hardly any omissions

45
Excellent documentation
standards met and
smooth flowing
information among all
discussion in all
questions; Report well
structured with hardly
any omissions / errors

Application & Analysis

(15 marks)

05
No evidence or very
poor analysis done

67
Limited analysis done
and failed to relate to
the problems and issues
addressed

89
Merely general
application of evaluation
method and analysis done
and very little relations to
the problem/issues
addressed and listed a
few recommendations

10 11
Good analysis that
clearly relates to the
problems
and issues addressed,
and discussion was deep

Research & References

(5 marks)

01
No or very limited
citations/ references

2
Some attempts made to
do citation / references
but either
irrelevant/outdated or
not according to Harvard
Name Referencing

2.5 3
Some citations/references
noted but either
irrelevant/outdated or not
according to Harvard
Name Referencing

3.5
Most of the
citations/references
noted and are
relevant/up-to-date using
Harvard Name
Referencing

12 15
Excellent application of
evaluation methods and
analysis that is used and
discussion was
appropriate to identify
the problems /issues
addressed with justifiable
recommendations
45
Many
citations/references that
are relevant/up-to-date
and using Harvard Name
Referencing noted

&

INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT (30%)

ASIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION

NOV 2015

CT059-3-2-SAT Software Architecture and Testing

Marking Scheme

Page 3 of 4

Question 4 (30%)
Criteria / Grade
Documentation
Coherency
(5 marks)

Fail

Marginal Fail

Pass

Credit

Distinction

01
Very poor
documentation
standards and
information flow;
Report totally
disorganized - no
visible structure

2
Rather poor
documentation standards
and coherency; Structure
of report visible but
missing some
components

2.5 3
Average documentation
standards met and some
minor inconsistency of
info being discussed;
Structure of report visible
but with some minor
omissions

3.5
Good documentation
standards met and flow
of information; Structure
of report visible with
hardly any omissions

45
Excellent documentation
standards met and
smooth flowing
information among all
discussion in all
questions; Report well
structured with hardly
any omissions / errors

Application & Analysis

(20 marks)

07
No evidence or very
poor analysis done

89
Limited analysis done
and failed to relate to
the problems and issues
addressed

10 12
Merely general
application of evaluation
method and analysis done
and very little relations to
the problem/issues
addressed and listed a
few recommendations

13 14
Good analysis that
clearly relates to the
problems
and issues addressed,
and discussion was deep

Research & References

(5 marks)

01
No or very limited
citations/ references

2
Some attempts made to
do citation / references
but either
irrelevant/outdated or
not according to Harvard
Name Referencing

2.5 3
Some citations/references
noted but either
irrelevant/outdated or not
according to Harvard
Name Referencing

3.5
Most of the
citations/references
noted and are
relevant/up-to-date using
Harvard Name
Referencing

15 20
Excellent application of
evaluation methods and
analysis that is used and
discussion was
appropriate to identify
the problems /issues
addressed with justifiable
recommendations
45
Many
citations/references that
are relevant/up-to-date
and using Harvard Name
Referencing noted

&

Note:
ASIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION

NOV 2015

CT059-3-2-SAT Software Architecture and Testing

Marking Scheme

Page 4 of 4

1. To calculate the Final Individual Marks (100%) where 70% of group component and 30% of individual component, proceed with the following:a) Firstly, the group marks of 70% will be calculated from the total score awarded for the all three questions in the Group Component.
b) Workload matrix will be referred to where respective percentage of individual contribution is then noted and keyed into the MsExcel Marking
Scheme to obtain corresponding individual marks.
c) Next, the individual marks of 30% will be calculated directly based on respective individual contribution.
d) Thus, the Final Individual Marks (100%) can then be summed up for respective individual by adding the 70% of group marks and 30% of
individual marks as can be seen in the MsExcel Marking Scheme.
2. Please see attached Marking Scheme of the MsExcel format for a clearer calculation method. Kindly observe some cells with formulas.

ASIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION

NOV 2015