ASSESSMENT BRIEF
| COURSE: Bachelor of IT | |
| Unit Code: | DSAA204 |
| Unit Title: | Data Structure and Algorithms |
| Type of Assessment: | Assessment 4- Reflective Journal |
| Length/Duration: | 2500 words |
| Unit Learning Outcomes addressed: | Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of data structures and algorithms.Demonstrate reasoning about efficiency of algorithms.Assess and apply suitable recursive data structures and algorithms to IT systems and applications. |
| Submission Date: | Week 14 |
| Assessment Task: | Students are required to analyse the lecture materials of Weeks 1 to 11 and create concise content analysis. This will include summaries of the theoretical concepts contained in the course lecture slides, covering definitions, analysis and examples. |
| Total Mark: | 40 Marks |
| Weighting: | 40% |
| 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). More information, please refer to (Kent Website MyKent Student Link> POLICY – Assessment Policy & Procedures – Student Login Required) |
ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION:
Students are required to write a Reflective Journal in which they reflect on unit content and learning experiences between weeks 1 and 11. In this assignment you
should describe an interesting or important aspect of each week’s content/experiences, analyse this aspect of the week critically by incorporating and discussing academic or professional sources,
and then discuss your personal learning outcomes. The document structure is as follows (2500 Words):
1. Title Page
- Introduction (150 words)
- Introduce the focus of the unit and the importance of the unit to your chosen professional area. Provide a preview of the main experiences and outcomes you discuss in the body of the assignment
3. Body
Reflective paragraphs for each week from week 1 to week 11 (1 paragraph per week, ~200 words per paragraph).
In each reflective paragraph:
- DESCRIPTION (~50 words): Describe the week
- Generally, what was the focus of this week’s lecture and tutorial?
- What is one specific aspect of the week’s learning content that was interesting for
you? (e.g. a theory, a task, a tool, a concept, a principle, a strategy, an experience etc.)? Describe it and explain why you chose to focus on it in this paragraph. (*Note: a lecture slide is not an acceptable choice, but an idea or concept on it is)
- ANALYSIS (~75 words): Analyse one experience from the week
- Analyse the one specific aspect of the week you identified above.
- How did you feel or react when you experienced it? Explain.
- What do other academic publications or professional resources that you find in your own research say about this? (include at least 1 reliable academic or professional source from your own research). Critically analyse your experience in the context of these sources.
- OUTCOMES (~75 words): Identify your own personal learning outcomes
- What have you learned about this aspect of the unit?
- What have you learned about yourself?
- What do you still need to learn or get better at?
- Do you have any questions that still need to be answered?
- How can you use this experience in the future when you become a professional?
- Conclusion (100 words)
Summarise the most important learning outcomes you experienced in this unit and how you will apply them professionally or academically in the future.
5. Reference List
Your report must include:
- At least 10 references, 5 of which must be academic resources, 5 of which can be reliable, high- quality professional resources.
- Use Harvard referencing for any sources you use
- Refer to the Refer to the Academic Learning Support student guide on Reflective Writing and how to structure reflective paragraphs
ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION:
This assignment should be submitted online in Moodle through Turnitin.
The assignment MUST be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word format. Other formats may not be readable by markers. Please be aware that any assessments submitted in other formats will be considered LATE and will lose marks until it is presented in Word.
For assistance, please speak to our Academic Learning Skills Coordinators, in Sydney (als_syd@kent.edu.au) or in Melbourne (als_mel@kent.edu.au). They can help you with understanding the task, draft checking, structure, referencing and other assignment-related matters
MARKING GUIDE (RUBRIC):
Students will be awarded marks based on following criteria
| Marking Criteria | Fail (0 -4.5) | Pass (5 – 6) | Credit (6.5 -7) | Distinction (7.5-8) | High Distinction (8.5-10) |
| Research /10 | Little evidence of research. Sources are missing. Inappropriat e, poorly integrated or lacking credibility. Lacks clear link of sources with analysis. | A minimum of 5 academic sources and 5 other professional sources. Basic use of sources to support analysis, generally well- integrated, most sources are credible. | Research is generally thorough. Good use of sources to support analysis, mostly well integrated, sources are credible. | Thorough research is indicated. Very good use of sources to support analysis, well integrated, sources are credible. | Thorough research is indicated. Professional use of sources to support analysis, well integrated, sources are credible. |
| Fail (0-29.5) | Pass (30- 38.5) | Credit (39 -44.5) | Distinction (45- 50.5) | High Distinction (51-60) | |
| Content /60 5.5 marks per week – Descriptio n -Analysis – Outcomes | Journal lacks coherence; is poorly addressed; no proper description of unit content; little analysis. No discussion of personal learning outcomes. | Journal is generally coherent; unit content is described generally for all weeks, with occasional focus on relevant aspects; analyses are in reasonable depth with some connections to research. There are some inconsistencies and weaknesses with balance of discussion (description/analysis/outcom es). Discussion of personal learning outcomes is very basic. | Journal is coherent and flows well; description of unit content focusses on one appropriate aspect of each week; analyses are in considerable depth with good connections to research. There may be some inconsistencies and weaknesses with balance of discussion (description/analysis/outcom es). Discussion of personal learning outcomes is good. | Journal is very coherent and flows well; description of unit content is thorough and focusses clearly on one appropriate aspect of the week; analyses are in very good depth with strong connections made to research. Inconsistencies and weakness with balance of discussion (description/analysis/outcom es) are rare. Discussion of personal learning outcomes is insightful and in depth. | Outstanding work. Journal is very coherent and flows well; unit content is described thoroughly with invariably relevant choices of focus in each paragraph; analyses is in great depth and offers excellent discussion of relevant academic/professio nal discourse. Very minor, if any, inconsistencies and weaknesses with balance of discussion in paragraphs. Discussion of personal learning outcomes demonstrates excellent ability with reflective analysis. |
| Fail (0 -4.5) | Pass (5 – 6) | Credit (6.5 -7) | Distinction (7.5-8) | High Distinction (8.5-10) | |
| Structure /10 | Topic and focus are not clear in introduction. Body content poorly or never structured. No discernible conclusion; | Topic and focus are stated with some clarity in introduction. Body content demonstrates some logical paragraph structure with some weaknesses. Conclusion does not clearly summarise journal; links to introduction are not clear. | Topic and focus are clearly conveyed in introduction. Paragraphs in the body demonstrate good logical structure with few or minor weaknesses. Conclusion summarises journal; may be some weaknesses; generally clear links to intro. | Topic and focus are clearly outlined in introduction. Paragraphs in the body demonstrate very good logical structure with very few weaknesses. Conclusion mostly effectively summarises journal; with clear links to introduction. | Topic and focus are clearly outlined in introduction. Paragraphs in the body demonstrate excellent logical structure with no weaknesses. Conclusion effectively summarises journal; |
| no links to introduction. | with clear links to introduction. | ||||
| Fail (0 -4.5) | Pass (5 – 6) | Credit (6.5 -7) | Distinction (7.5-8) | High Distinction (8.5-10) | |
| Language /10 | Poor standard of writing. Word limit may not be adhered to. Incorrect format (e.g. includes Table of contents; bullet points; graphs etc.) | A minimum of 1000 words. Basic and sound standard of writing; some errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling. Inconsistencies with the formatting. | 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. | Professional standard of writing; no errors in punctuation, grammar and spelling. Correct formatting. |
| Fail (0 -4.5) | Pass (5 – 6) | Credit (6.5 -7) | Distinction (7.5-8) | High Distinction (8.5-10) | |
| Referencin g /10 | No referencing is evident or, if done, is inconsistent and technically incorrect. No or minimal reference list, mixed styles. No in text citations | 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. May be weaknesses with paraphrasing or integration /application. | Good attempt to reference sources; inconsistencies and technical errors in style. Few inaccuracies in reference list and all references listed. Some ability emerging with paraphrasing or integration/ application. | Very good attempt to reference sources; very minor inconsistencies and technical errors in style. Thorough and consistent reference list and all references listed. Good ability with paraphrasing or integration/ application. | Professional level of referencing and acknowledgment; no errors of style evident. Thorough and consistent reference list and all references listed. Very good ability with paraphrasing or integration/ application. |
GENERAL 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.
GENERAL 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).
Get expert help for DSAA204 Data Structure and Algorithms and many more. 24X7 help, plag-free solution. Order online now!
