Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing
Assignment Brief 2022/2023
|Module Title Software Development Project||Group||Cohort (Sept/Jan/May) Sept||Module Code 7047 CEM|
|Coursework Title (e.g. CWK1) CW1 – Group presentation & demo||Hand out date: 12/09/22|
|Lecturer Dr. Yih-Ling Hedley||Due date: 27/10/22 18:00 (extension on 03/11/22 18:00)|
|Estimated Time (hrs): 50 Word Limit*: n/a||Coursework type: Group work||20 Credit value assessed (approx. 67% of module marks)|
|Submission arrangement online via Aula: File types and method of recording: A PDF file and online submission Mark and Feedback date: 18/11/2022 Mark and Feedback method: A mark and feedback sheet on Aula|
Module Learning Outcomes Assessed:
- Evaluate and apply appropriate software development approaches (e.g. agile) to the design and development of a software product in a team work environment to meet the time constraints and quality requirements.
- Evaluate and apply current technologies and platforms to deliver software solutions in order to meet the business requirements.
- Evaluate software solutions against a range of software quality metrics and effectively communicate information and analysis both verbally and in writing.
- Evaluate commercial risks of a software production with professional, social, legal, ethical awareness according to the professional codes of conduct guided by computing related professional bodies. e.g. British Computer Society (BCS)
Task and Mark distribution
This is a group-based assignment to report on the full-stack development of a software product of your choice, agreed by the team. You should form a group of 5 members to undertake a group project and deliver a software product of your choice (with the technologies or platforms agreed by the team).
- A group presentation video (a maximum of 20 mins up to one GB file size, e.g., using Microsoft Teams recording converted to the MP4 format, or an equivalent agreed by the team) for the following areas:
- Presentation slides
- Evaluation of key agile techniques applied to develop and manage the group software project with evidence of using software tools (LO1)
- Evaluation of the group software product against ONE appropriate quality metric of your group choice with evidence of data generated from the metric (LO1, LO3)
- Evaluation of the project risks, social, professional, legal and ethical issues associated with the group software project (LO4)
- Demonstration of software feature(s)
- Working of the most significant or innovative feature(s) implemented in the chosen the technologies and platforms to meet the business requirements supported with a rationale for the development (LO1, LO2)
- Presentation slides
- Peer assessment rating: as an individual member of the group, you need to submit a rating for each of your team members in terms of his/her contribution to the group project (using the
‘Peer Assessment’ template on Aula.)
- As a team member, you should ensure that you contribute to the different aspects of software project, including design, implementation and testing.
2. You should provide a rationale for the features of your project, in relation to other existing similar systems.
- You must add consent forms that are signed by your users if your project involves any users, e.g., for user requirements or usability testing. No personal details should be used in your software product prototype.
The assessment criteria are as detailed as below:
|GROUP PRESENTATION ASSESSMENT CRITERIA||CW1 marks|
|Presentation Slides – Evaluation||60|
|Quality of evaluation in the following areas related to the group software project: Key agile techniques with evidence of using software toolsONE software quality metric with evidence of data generated from the metricThe project risks, social, professional, legal and ethical issues|
|Demonstration – Software Solutions||30|
|Quality / complexity / creativity (supported with a rationale for software features)|
|Peer Assessment (overall project) Give the rating out of 10 (10 being the highest rating) for the contribution of each individual team member||10|
- Coventry University now uses the APA Referencing Style. If you started your course before 1st September 2020, you may continue to use the Coventry University Guide to Referencing in Harvard Style until you graduate. For support and advice on this, see the online referencing guidance or contact your Academic Liaison Librarian.
- Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support.
- Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as outlined here.
- The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks, laptops or personal computer. Students should therefore regularly back-up any work and are advised to save it on the University system.
- If there are technical or performance issues that prevent students submitting coursework through the online coursework submission system on the day of a coursework deadline, an appropriate extension to the coursework submission deadline will be agreed. This extension will normally be 24 hours or the next working day if the deadline falls on a Friday or over the weekend period. This will be communicated via your Module Leader.
- You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on your Aula Web.
- Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by other students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be reported to the academic conduct panel. This applies to both courseworks and exam answers.
- A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in you having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your own work.
- If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original version and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts.
- You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either for your current course or for another qualification of this university, unless this is specifically provided for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information. Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. it has already been published/submitted, you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to be self-plagiarism.
Overall mark guidelines to students
|Work mainly incomplete and /or weaknesses in most areas||Most elements completed; weaknesses outweigh strengths||Most elements are strong, minor weaknesses||Strengths in all elements||Most work exceeds the standard expected||All work substantially exceeds the standard expected|
|Content||Structure and Style||Demonstration|
|90-100% Distinction||Distinction – Professional work delivered in the quality of contents to a professional level||Distinction – Professional work delivered in the quality of structure and style to a professional level||Distinction – Professional work delivered in quality, complexity and creativity to a professional level|
|80-89% Distinction||Distinction – Outstanding work delivered in the quality of contents to an outstanding level||Distinction – Outstanding work delivered in the quality of structure and style to an outstanding level||Distinction – Outstanding work delivered in quality, complexity and creativity to an outstanding level|
|70-79% Distinction||Meets learning outcomes||Distinction – Excellent work delivered in the quality of contents to an excellent level||Distinction – Excellent work delivered in the quality of structure and style to an excellent level||Distinction – Excellent work delivered in quality, complexity and creativity to an excellent level|
|60-69% Merit||Merit – The work delivered in the quality of contents to a very good level||Merit – The work delivered in the quality of structure and style to a very good level||Merit – The work delivered in quality, complexity and creativity to a very good level|
|50-59% Pass||Pass – The work delivered in the quality of contents to a good level||Pass – The work delivered in the quality of structure and style to a good level||Pass – The work delivered in quality, complexity and creativity to a good level|
|40-49% Pass||Pass – The work delivered in the quality of contents to a basic level||Pass – The work delivered in the quality of structure and style to a basic level||Pass – The work delivered in quality, complexity and creativity to a basic level|
|30-39% Fail||Fail – The poor work delivered in the quality of contents||Fail – The poor work delivered in the quality of structure and style||Fail – The poor work delivered in quality, complexity and creativity|
|20-29% Fail –||Fails to achieve learning outcomes||Fail – clear failure of work delivered in the quality of contents||Fail – The work of a clear failure delivered in the quality of structure and style||Fail – The work of a clear failure delivered in quality, complexity and creativity|
|0-19%||Fail – little or no work delivered in the contents||Fail – little or no work delivered||Fail – little or no work delivered|
Get expert help for 7047 CEM Software Development Project and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!