| Marks Awarded %:
|
Marks Awarded after Lateness Penalty applied %:
|
| Penalties for Late Submissions
· Late submission of any item of coursework for each day or part thereof (or for hard copy submission only, working day or part thereof) for up to five days after the published deadline, coursework relating to modules at Levels 0, 4, 5, 6 submitted late (including deferred coursework, but with the exception of referred coursework), will have the numeric grade reduced by 10 grade points until or unless the numeric grade reaches or is 40. Where the numeric grade awarded for the assessment is less than 40, no lateness penalty will be applied. · Late submission of referred coursework will automatically be awarded a grade of zero (0). · Coursework (including deferred coursework) submitted later than five days (five working days in the case of hard copy submission) after the published deadline will be awarded a grade of zero (0). · Where genuine serious adverse circumstances apply, you may apply for an extension to the hand-in date, provided the extension is requested a reasonable period in advance of the deadline. |
|
| Please refer to your student handbook for details about the grading schemes used by the School when assessing your work. Guidance on assessment will also be given in the Module Guide. | |
| Guidance on avoiding academic assessment offences such as plagiarism and collusion is given at this URL: http://www.studynet.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/LIS.nsf/lis/citing_menu | |
| ASSIGNMENT BRIEF
Students, you should delete this section before submitting your work. |
| This Assignment assesses the following module Learning Outcomes (Take these from the module DMD):
9a. Knowledge and Understanding: Successful students will typically have a knowledge and understanding of: 1. the history and major accomplishments of computer science and IT; 2. the importance and relevance of design principles in computer science, both for academic and business purposes; 3. future trends, innovation, and horizon scanning in computing; 4. the social, scientific and human aspects of computing and software engineering, how such aspects are relevant for business organisations, and therefore for their own academic progression and career development.
9b. Skills and Attributes: Successful students will typically be able to: 5. Describe and use principles of design for software development, UX (user experience) and other professional activities related to the exploitation of IT by individuals, organizations and businesses; 6. Gain, consolidate, pursue and manage some of the crucial skills expected of the IT professional: written communication, basic research methods, and basic calculations involving reasoning, probability and statistics for both academic and business purposes; 7. Describe and apply the above skills at an appropriate level within specific business-oriented case studies; to include effective individual and team communication, both in writing and verbally; 8. Demonstrate the effectiveness of inter-personal skills when engaging with stakeholders such as users or other team members.
|
| Assignment Brief:
You are required to submit a Word document containing a report and a software design diagram for a robot assistant in the UH computer labs Your design must be a single diagram. Your report must not exceed 1200 words (+/- 10%). |
| Submission Requirements:
You are required to submit a Word document containing your report via Studynet. Please note that you are encouraged to use Turnitin as part of your personal development. |
| This assignment is worth 30 % of the overall assessment for this module.
Marks awarded for: Please see the detailed marking scheme below. A note to the Students: 1. For undergraduate modules, a score above 40% represent a pass performance at honours level. 2. For postgraduate modules, a score of 50% or above represents a pass mark. 3. Modules may have several components of assessment and may require a pass in all elements. For further details, please consult the relevant Module Guide or ask the Module Leader. |
| Typical (hours) required by the student(s) to complete the assignment: 70 hours |
| Type of Feedback to be given for this assignment:
Feedback will be in the form of a score and tutor comments on your work. Feedback will be made available via Studynet and email.
|
Your task
As part of this assignment you are required to create a software design for a robot assistant in the UH computer labs.
The design should identify the major software components, drawing on the principles of modular design introduced in the lectures. You should indicate the relationships and the information flow between components. The design should be included as a diagram within your Word document. You may wish to create the design in Powerpoint, Visio or another drawing program and paste the resultant picture into Word.
The focus of your report should be on the following questions:
– What functions will your system provide?
– What accessibility features have you included and why?
You will be expected to draw on the principles of accessible design as discussed in the lectures. You might also use your knowledge and understanding of the topic as supplemented by:
- the module reading materials;
- secondary research
Please use the Harvard Referencing System (see http://www.studynet2.herts.ac.uk/ptl/common/LIS.nsf/lis/busharvard) to reference your sources.
There is no fixed structure for your report, but it would be important to ensure that the three components below are present:
- Introduction and functionality.
Discuss what the functions provided by your system are. For example,
- Respond to a student signalling for help (raised hand)
- Monitor student screens to ensure students are performing tasks accurately
- Alert students (via sound / visual displays) when class is about to end
- Alert students when it detects they are about to leave without logging off
- Log off for students should they ignore this alert
- Raise an alert to the tutor if the robot cannot assist a student
These are not the only possible relevant functions, and you will need to justify your choices.
- Accessibility of your design
Justify why your design is accessible. You will need to make specific references to your functional and design choices, and consider the different accommodations which must be made.
It is unlikely that your design will be accessible to all sections of society. You are required to justify why you have made the accessibility choices that you have.
- References
You will need to include at least three references (the lecture material may count as one of these). You should use Harvard-style referencing.
Marking criteria (100 marks)
| Criteria | Fail
0-30 |
Marginal Fail
30-39 |
Marginal Pass
40 – 49 |
Clear Pass
50-59 |
Good
60-69 |
Very good
70-79 |
Excellent
80-89 |
Outstanding
90-100 |
| Content | Report: No discernible structure. Very difficult to follow. Many grammar/ spelling errors. No presentation of ideas. Report is too brief and/or incomplete. No evidence of evaluation.
Design: Poor design. A substantial number of user needs are neglected and the accessibility challenges are inadequately addressed. Limited and unrealistic conceptualization of technological capability. Lack of a demonstrated understanding demonstrated of modular design. |
Report: content factually incorrect in several major aspects. Content inadequately expressed content. Ideas not clearly presented and logic of these omitted. Report omits necessary detail and explanation. No evidence of critical evaluation. example.
Design: Inadequate design. No accessibility challenges have been identified. Unrealistic or limited conceptualization of technological capability. Lack of a demonstrated understanding demonstrated of modular design. |
Report: content factually correct but inadequately expressed content. Ideas understandable, but not clearly presented. Report is adequate, but lacks sufficient detail and explanation. Very limited evidence of critical evaluation. example.
Design: Marginally adequate design. Limited accessibility challenges have been identified. Unrealistic or limited conceptualization of technological capability. Limited understanding demonstrated of modular design. |
Report: Report lacks some clarity and has grammar, spelling, structure errors. Ideas not always clearly presented. Satisfactory report, but report tends to be descriptive and/or lacking details/explanations. Limited evidence of critical evaluation.
Design: Satisfactory design. Some accessibility challenges have been identified. Unrealistic or limited conceptualization of technological capability. Limited understanding demonstrated of modular design. |
Report: Writing is mainly clear with some spelling/ grammar errors with some structural issues. Ideas presented with some issues in clarity. Good depth and breadth, some critical evaluation. Clear set of findings. Work can be extended by integrating literature/theory.
Design: Good design, but with some room for improvement. Accessibility challenges have been identified and solutions partially explored. Adequate conceptualization of technological capability. Adequate understanding of modular design principles. |
Report: Articulate, fluent writing style and structure. Very few grammar and spelling errors or structural issues. Ideas presented with clarity. Very good, solid report. Clear set of findings. Evidence of critical evaluation. Work can be extended by integrating literature/theory.
Design: Very good design. Accessibility challenges have been identified and solutions partially explored. Good conceptualization of technological capability. Modular design principles are sound and appropriate to the system. |
Report: Fluently written with very few errors. Very minor grammar/spelling or structural errors. Ideas presented with excellent clarity.
Excellent referencing. Excellent report, with some integration of literature/theory into the work. Commendable set of findings and critical evaluation.
Design: Coherent, well-thought out design. Multiple accessibility challenges have been identified and solutions explored. Good conceptualization of technological capability and use of modular design principles to facilitate functionality. |
Report: Lucid presentation high clarity. No significant grammar/ spelling /structural errors. Ideas presented with exceptional clarity.
Outstanding referencing and use of technical terms, few, if any, mistakes Outstanding quality, precision and coverage. Literature/theory integrated very well. Clear evidence of critical evaluation.
Design: Professional-level design. Multiple accessibility challenges have been identified and innovative solutions explored. Comprehensive conceptualization of technological capability and a thorough understanding of modular design and how this may affect functionality and accessibility. |
