Difference: SoftwareSystemDesign2018 (65 vs. 66)

Revision 662018-05-02 - JimSkon

Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebHome"

SCMP 348 Software and System Design

James Skon
Line: 122 to 122
 
04-30 Kenyon Security Strategy Meet at the IT department over the Bookstore (normal class time)     System Prototype 3
05-2 Embedded Systems Activity       Test Report
05-4 Team Meeting       Complete System Documentation
Changed:
<
<
05-11 Friday, May 11 at 8:30-11:30 a.m. Each team presents full system design and demo      
>
>
05-11 Friday, May 11 at 8:30-11:30 a.m. Each team presents full system design and demo     Presentation Assessment Form, Final Project Assessment
 

Disability Statment

Kenyon College values diversity and recognizes disability as an aspect of diversity. Our shared goal is to create learning environments that are accessible, equitable, and inclusive. If you anticipate barriers related to the format, requirements, or assessments of this course, you are encouraged first to contact the office of Student Accessibility and Support Services (SASS) by emailing Erin Salva at salvae@kenyon.edu, then to meet with the instructor to discuss accommodation options or adaptations.

Software project grading rubric

Changed:
<
<
Criteria Excellent Acceptable Unacceptable
Documented & Maintainable
(The program is well-documented with appropriate names and comments making it easy to understand.)
  • all naming conventions are followed
  • both in-line and header comments are included and clearly explain the what the code accomplishes and how
  • white space is used well
  • most naming conventions are followed
  • some comments are confusing or missing
  • white space is used well in most places
  • poor or no use of naming conventions
  • too few or too many comments are used and they are unclear or inaccurate
  • poor use of white space
Adaptable & Reusable
(The program is modular, using abstraction well and any limitations are clearly specified.)
  • all interfaces between objects are clear
  • appropriate utility functions are used and well-documented
  • most code can be reused
  • most object interfaces are clear
  • some appropriate utility functions are used and documented
  • some code can be reused
  • poor object interface definitions
  • few or no utility functions
  • no code can be reused
Robust & Correct
(The program provides the correct output for all possible input.)
  • the program works completely as expected
  • the output is displayed to specification for all valid input
  • the program responds appropriately for all invalid input
  • the program works as expected for most input
  • there may be minor errors in output formatting for valid input
  • not all invalid input is handled reasonably
  • the program does not produce correct output for even the sample input
  • the program fails to handle invalid input
  • exceptions are not caught
Efficient & Elegant
(The program uses both time and space on the computer effectively, without losing source code clarity.)
  • no extra variables or definitions are used
  • the code is small, efficient yet still easily understood
  • extra variables do not make the code harder to understand
  • brute-force problem solving approach
  • extra variables are pervasive and confusing
  • the code is unnecessarily long and patched together
  25-20% 19-11% 10-0%
>
>
Category Developing
1-3
Competent
4-7
Accomplished
8-10
Score
Articulate requirements and design of the Project. Demonstrated understanding of requirement and design issues. Articulated requirement and design of the project. Described most constraints and variables to be maximized or minimized. Clearly articulated requirements and design and underlying issues. Clearly articulated constraints and variables to be maximized or minimized. Correctly answered clarifying questions, demonstrating mastery of issues.  
Plan the solution and implementation of the project. Identified some critical tasks. Created plan with some foreseeable problems. Identified critical tasks. Delegated tasks to team members. Created plan for task and project completion that is workable with some modifications. Identified critical tasks. Delegated tasks to team members. Accurately estimated time and resources for critical tasks. Created credible plan for task and project completion.  
Choose appropriate tools and methods for each task Selected appropriate tools and methods for most tasks. Identified strengths and weakness of most chosen tools. Selected appropriate tools and methods for each task. Identified strengths and weaknesses of various tools and methods. Cited reasons for choices. Selected appropriate tools and methods for each task. Articulated strengths and weakness of various tools and methods. Discussed and gave credible justification for choices.  
Give clear and coherent oral presentation Provided minimal presentation of design problem and results. Presentation was reasonable and organized. Presentation presented mostly in a professional manner Presentation was coherent and well organized. Presentation presented in a professional manner  
Give clear and coherent written final report Provided acceptable final report detailing all project phases and results. Provided acceptable final report detailing all project phases and results. Report was reasonable and organized. Report was provided mostly in a professional manner. Provided acceptable final report detailing all project phases and results. Report was coherent and well organized. Report presented design in a clear and professional manner.  
Function well as a team Contributions of team membersí variable. Lack of leadership on the project. Many individual contributions with some overlap. Most team members contributed. Little or no duplication of effort. Conflicts usually amicably resolved. Team members demonstrated some understanding of the overall project. Each team member contributed to the success of the design. Little or no duplicated effort. Few conflicts, amicably resolved. .Team members able to respond to audience's questions throughout the presentation.  
Create well documented set of life cycle products specific to the project Project documents/solution was acceptable but limited due to the background of the team. Project documents/solution met objectives set for the project. Project documents/solution considerations showed team generally understood the problem Project document/solution exceeded the initial objectives. Innovative approaches were demonstrated in the design. Solution indicated a thorough understanding of project.  
         
  Ghada Bakbouk <bakboukg@kenyon.edu>, camposb@kenyon.edu, downeyn@kenyon.edu, Miku Fukuyama <fukuyamam@kenyon.edu>, grigullb@kenyon.edu, Elizabeth Iduma <iduma1@kenyon.edu>, Malik Ahmed Khan <khanm@kenyon.edu>, mellen1@kenyon.edu, Tess Neau <neaut@kenyon.edu>, Harold Ogilvie-Thompson <ogilviethompsonh@kenyon.edu>, Emily Rachfal <rachfal1@kenyon.edu>, Joseph Schutz <schutzj@kenyon.edu>, Elvin Shrestha <shresthae@kenyon.edu>, Christian Solorio <solorioc@kenyon.edu>, Thomas Stanton <stantont@kenyon.edu>, Spalding Vance <vances@kenyon.edu>
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2019 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback