Design and Development of Object Oriented Systems - Assessment Criteria and Submission Guidelines

Knowledge & Understanding:

1.Demonstrate in-depth knowledge and understanding of current best practice in the design and development of Object Orientated systems

Intellectual / Professional skills & abilities:

2.Design a system using advanced object orientated principles and methods, such as Behavioural, Creational and Structural design patterns, ensuring a high level of quality and data security.

3.Implement and test Object Orientated programmes using advanced techniques ensuring a high level of quality and data security.

4.Critically evaluate the effectiveness of implemented Object Orientated applications

Personal Values Attributes (Global / Cultural awareness, Ethics, Curiosity) (PVA):

5.Demonstrate a professional understanding of the importance of software quality in the development of applications.

Assessment Criteria/Mark Scheme:

See Appendix A for assessment criteria. Note that this work is worth 100% of the module and that the marks total 100 marks.

Nature of the submission required:    

Individual work:  The individual report should be a single document, and it must be in  PDF format. You are required to upload this using Turn-it-in (ELP) as an originality report is required. Your work must be uploaded no later than 2nd January 2021. You should name this file so that it is clearly your individual work and should contain your student ID as part of the document name.

Group work: A ZIP file should be created that contains your entire Visual Studio project, including the test project. Justifications of choices made such as patterns used and the data access layer need to be in a PDF document called justifications. The document should be in the root of the folder, you also need to supply a file which contains a list of all names and student ids of the group members “group.txt”.

Each C# software component should have the names of the group members within the comments at the top of the code. The ZIP file should also contain files for your Design (Task 2) and Testing (Task 4) these should be in PDF format and need to be legible (easy to read) it is your responsibility to check the PDF files are legible.

Please note that the compression format has to be zip, you must not use: ‘rar’, ‘7z’ or compression formats.

Late work carries a penalty. Even if you are one minute late, the penalty has to be applied. Please make sure you give yourselves plenty of time to upload the work. Multiple submissions are possible.

It is your responsibility to check that you have uploaded the file correctly to the ELP. After uploading the file to the ELP, download the file and check that the contents are what you expect.

Where you have used words from someone else (quotations), they should be correctly quoted and referenced in accordance to the Northumbria Harvard System. You will be required to submit the report for the work via turn it in.

Cite them Right can be found here

Group work

The size of a group can be between two and six students, no groups may be larger than six but may be less; you are expected to form your own groups by the end of teaching week 4. One member of each group must email the module tutor giving the names of the group members. Anyone without a group at the beginning of week 6 will be assigned to a random group. In the rare event that a group is not working well together it may be disbanded. The module tutor will have final say when this occurs, It will only happen if there is sufficient documented proof that one member is not contributing to the work, in such eventualities it will be expected that each member does the remaining work on an individually basis, Alternatively students may be able to join another group who is willing to accept you and that there is still enough time to make a sufficient contribution to the new group. In such cases the module tutor must be notified.  

Expected size of written work is stated on the individual sections.

You must adhere to the university regulations on academic misconduct. Formal inquiry proceedings will be instigated if there is any suspicion of misconduct or plagiarism in your work. Refer to the University’s regulations on assessment if you are unclear as to the meaning of these terms. The latest copy is available on the university website. Quote or paraphrase other work with caution. Please discuss with the module tutor if you are unsure what is expected.

Handbook of Student Regulation can be found here

Fair use of code from the internet:

You are not permitted to use templates from the internet; any group which uses a template to create the architectural foundation of their work will be formally investigated for academic misconduct, all the work must be your own.

Small amounts of code can be taken and modified from the internet however all occurrences must be clearly indicated in the comments section at the top of each class. You must including in the comments section a reference to the original source. Methods and properties should also be marked as “copied from: URL” or “biased on: URL” if they have originated from an external source.

You are required to use github as a repository for your assessment. Your progress on the assessment will be monitored it is important that the group work is started early, groups which have not made sufficient progress can expect emails, you will be required to give the module tutor access to the github project at the commencement of the technical part of the assessment.

Reflective writing:

Tasks 5 and 6 are reflective writings; although many of you are aware of what reflective writing is. Past evidence indicates that some students do not understand what is required. It is not about ‘book work’ where your answer is basing on external sources, although you should use some academic papers to support your arguments. These questions are about what you and your group have done and what you have learned from the process. You are required to indentify positives and weaknesses in the group work.  Use the theory covered in the module to effectively aid you in this reflective evaluation of your work. The reflective commentary should be critical; you should identify what when wrong and demonstrate you have learned from the process. .ac.uk/