Assessment 3: Project ReflectionReflection on the student’s journey in the unit focused on (a) The skills and knowledge they were able to draw on from earlier parts of the course. It has to include the desig

Assessment Brief: ICT3054 Capstone Industry Project A
Trimester 3, 2024

Assessment Overview

Assessment Task Type Weighting Due Length ULO
Assessment 1: Project Definition and Scope
The report defines the problem, describing the background and context,
and detailing the scope of the project to be undertaken. Individual

10%	Week 3	1500 words	ULO1 ULO2

Assessment 2: Requirements Analysis
Students submit a report covering their requirements analysis for the project. Individual

20%	Week 6	1500 words	ULO2 ULO3

Assessment 3: Project Reflection Reflection on the student’s journey in the unit focused on (a) the skills and knowledge they were able to draw on
from earlier parts of the course; (b) the areas where they needed development and how they addressed those; (c) how they would approach a project like this next time; (d) considerations for
BIS3006 IS Capstone Industry Project B Individual

30%	First: Week 7 and Second: Week 12	2*1000

words ULO5
Assessment 4: Report and Oral Defence
Students prepare and the Project Design, Feasibility Analysis, and Initial Implementation Plan and present and defend their solution design through an oral defence. Group

Invigilated

40%	Week 11	3000 words

Presentation 15 minutes maximum; 15 slides maximum (1500 word
equiv.) ULO1 ULO2 ULO3 ULO4
equiv. – equivalent word count based on the Assessment Load Equivalence Guide. It means this assessment is equivalent to the normally expected time requirement for a written submission containing the specified number of words.

Note for all assessments tasks:
• Students can generate/modify/create text generated by AI. They are then asked to modify the text according to the brief of the assignment.
• During the preparation and writing of an assignment, students use AI tools, but may not include any AI-generated material in their final report.
• AI tools are used by students in researching topics and preparing assignments, but all AI-generated content must be acknowledged in the final report as follows:

Format
I acknowledge the use of [insert the name of AI system and link] to [describe how it was used]. The prompts used were entered on [enter the date in ddmmyyy:] [list the prompts
that were used]
Example
Tools
I acknowledge the use of ChatGPT https://chat.openai.com to create content to plan and brainstorm ideas for my assessment. The prompts used were entered on 18 March, 2023:
• What are some key challenges in running an online business?

Assessment 1: Project Definition and Scope

Due date: Week 3
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 10%
Weighting: 1500 words
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2

Assessment 1 Detail
Assessment 1: Project Definition and Scope

The report defines the problem, describing the background and context, current Information System (IS) in the Projects, Components of the Information System (IS), Current Business Problems, and detailing the scope of the projectto be undertaken. It also include the Business Case and Development Strategy. The report for project definition and scope should be in the area of Software Development, Computer Networking, Cloud computing and/or Security and consider topics such as Software development, Network Design, IT Security, Routing and Switching, Virtualization Technologies, Server Administration & Maintenance, Cloud Applications, Cloud Computing Business Models and others. The report should detail the industry- based project assigned to you by your lecturer, focusing on specific aspects.

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 10 and will be weighted 10% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 1 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion mark) Satisfactory (50-64% of the
criterion mark) Good
(65-74% of the criterion mark) Very Good (75-84% of the
criterion mark) Excellent (85-
100% of the criterion mark)
Criterion -1 (1 mark) Does the business case is established for the project proposal, and the project scope described in the field of software development, computer networking
and/or security. Business case is not established for the project proposal, and the project scope is not described Business case is established for the project proposal, and the project scope generally described Business case is established for the project proposal, and the project scope described Business case is established for the project proposal, and the project scope clearly described Business case is established for the project proposal, and the project scope clearly and specifically described.
Criterion-2 (1 mark) Does project charter identifies your goals the clientwants your project to achieve in software development, computer networking and/or security and items that are in and out
of scope for this particular project Project charter is not identifying your goals the clientwants your project to achieve and items that are in and out of scope for this particular project Project charter is generally identifying your goals the client wants your project to achieve and items that are in and out of scope for this particular project Project charter is identifying your goals the clientwants your project to achieve and items that are in and out of scope for this particular project Project charter clearly identifies yourgoals the clientwants your project to achieve and items that are in and out of scope for this particular project. Project charter is clearly and specifically identifying your goals the clientwants your project to achieve and items that are in and out of scope for this particular project

Criterion-3 (8 marks) Does the Vision document demonstrate the ability of spelling out the core idea and the business case justifying the development effort. Business case is not addressed and captures the business value of the proposed system. Business needs is not expressed.
Functional and Non- functional requirements are related to business needs and identified. Business case is addressed and vaguely captures the business value of the proposed system. Some Functional andNon- functional requirements are related to business needs and identified. Business case is addressed and captures the business value of the proposed system. Business needs expressed.
Functional and Non- functional requirements are related to business needs and identified. Business case is clearly addressed and captures the business value of the proposed system. Business needs clearly expressed.
Functional and Non- functional requirements are related to business needs and clearly and specifically identified. Business case is clearly and specifically addressed and capturesthe business value of the proposed system.
Business needs clearlyand specifically expressed.
Functional and Non- functional requirements are related to business needs and clearly and specifically identified.

Assessment 2: Requirements Analysis

Due date: Week 6
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 1500 words
Weighting: 20%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO2, ULO3

Assessment 2 Detail
Assessment 2: Requirements Analysis
Students submit a report covering their requirements analysis for the project of software development, computer networking, cloud computing and/or security project. Students provide a detailed discussion of the business requirements, functional requirements and technical requirements. The report should detail the industry-based project assigned to you by your lecturer, focusing on specific aspects.
So, in this assessment, build the initial "Requirements Model" to support the project vision that identifies and defines the final project scope, and its functional and non-functional requirements.

• Identify all use cases.
• Draw use case diagrams.
• Describe the use cases.
• Draw the Activity Diagram.
• Draw sequence diagrams.
• Draw Domain Class Diagrams

Assessments 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 20 and will be weighted 20% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 2 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria Not Satisfactory(0-
49% of the criterion mark) Satisfactory
(50-64% of the criterion
mark) Good
(65-74% of the criterion
mark) Very Good (75-84% of the
criterionmark) Excellent (85-100% of the
criterionmark)
Criterion (5 marks) Does  Business requirements correctly  analyzed and documented? Does Designing the component of the software,   and/or network and show the interaction help inunderstanding if a proposed  system structure is likely to deliver the required system performance
and dependability? No critical and minor components of the designed software
and/or network identified. All components of the designed software and/or network built that show clear and significant interactions between a system and its environment. All components of the designed software and/or network built that show clear and significant interactions between a system and its environment. All components of the designed software and/or network built that show clear and significant interactions between a system and its environment. All components of the designed software and/or network built that show clear and significant interactions between a system and itsenvironment.
Criterion (5 marks) Technical requirements   are correctly analyzed and documented Technologies  that meet   project technical requirements    of project areidentified, evaluated,    and documented Key  technical requirements have not been identified Evaluation   and documentation omits key technologies Key technicalrequirements are correctly identified and documented.   Key technologiesthat are likely to have capacity to meet project requirements have been identified, evaluated,  and documented Most technical requirements    are correctly analysed and documented.   Key technologies that are likely to have capacity to meet  project
requirements have been identified, accurately evaluated,  and professionally documented All technical
requirements   are correctly analysed and documented.  Most technologies that are likelyto have capacity to meet project
requirements have been identified, accurately evaluated,  and professionally documented All technical requirements are correctly analysed and professionally documented
All technologies that are likelyto have capacity to meet project requirements have been identified, accurately evaluated, andprofessionally
documented

Criterion (5 marks) Does  Functional requirements are correctly  analyzed and documented? Does the behavioral models Show the dynamic behavior of a system as it is executing.
Show what happens or what is supposed to happen when a system responds to a stimulus from its environment. No activity diagrams built Some activity diagrams are built and clearly and significantly   show  the sequence   of  actions involved  in   processing input data    and generating an associated output. All state machine diagrams  built  and clearly and significantly Shows how    a  system responds to external and internal events. All state machine diagrams built based on the assumption and that events may cause a transition from one state to another. Several activity diagrams are built and clearly and significantly   show  the sequence   of  actions involved  in   processing input data    and generating an associated output. All state machine diagrams  built  and clearly and significantly Shows how    a  system responds to external and internal events. All state machine diagrams built based on the assumption and that events may cause a transition from one state to another. Almost   all activity diagrams  built   and clearly and significantly show the sequence of actions  involved   in processing    input data and
generating an associated output. All state machine diagrams built  and
clearly and significantly Shows how a system responds to external and internal events. All state machine diagrams built based  on   the assumption   and that events may  cause  a transition  from  one state to another. All activity diagrams are built clearly and significantly show the sequence of actions involved in processing input data and generating an associated output. All state machine diagrams built and clearly and significantly Shows how a system responds to
external and internal events. All state machine diagrams built based on the assumption and that events may cause a transition from one
state to another.
Criterion (5 marks) Does the Non- Functional requirementsare correctly analyzed and documented? Does the analysis of non- functional requirements demonstrate an ability to identify,
quantify, prioritize, and communicate No critical and significant non- Functional requirements Some critical and
significant non- Functional requirements addressed and justified. Prioritization of  them clearly and  correctly justified against specific needs of project.
Costs and benefits of addressing all of them clearly identified and discussed in relation to
specific needs of project. Several critical and significant non-Functional requirements addressed and  justified.
Prioritization of them clearly and correctly justified against specific needs of project. Costs and benefits of addressing all of them clearly identified and discussed in relation to specific needs
of project. All critical and Almost all critical and significant   non- Functional requirements addressed and justified. Prioritization of them clearly and correctly justified against specific needs of project. Costs and  benefits    of addressing all of them clearly identified   and
discussed in relation to specific needs of project. All critical and significant Non- Functional requirements
addressed and justified. Prioritization of them clearly and correctly justified against specific needs of project.
Costs and benefits of
addressing all of them clearly identified and

required system qualities?  All critical and significant external interfaces identified. significant external interfaces
identified. All critical and significant external
interfaces identified. discussed in relation to specific needs of project. All critical and significant external
interfaces identified.

Assessment 3: Project Reflection

Due date: First: Week 7 and
Second: Week 12
Group/individual: Individual
Word count/Time provided: 2*1000 words
Weighting: 30%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO5

Assessment 3 Detail
Assessment 3: Project Reflection
Reflection on the student’s journey in the unit focused on (a) The skills and knowledge they were able to draw on from earlier parts of the course. It has to include the design model of the software and/or logical (network topology, addressing, naming, VLANs, VPNs etc.) as well as the physical design (which equipment to use, chosen LAN and WAN technology etc) on from earlier parts of the course; (b) the requirements in part a for solutionand provide information on how the design is to be implemented (Installation plans, user guides, administration plans etc.).; (c) The proposed designed model should be linked to the customer requirements set out in the Requirements Specification. So, a test plan needs to be provided to document the testing parameters for the system you arebuilding to justify the system is evaluated against the system requirements documented in Assessment Item 2; (d) considerations for ICT3055 Capstone Industry Project B. The report should detail the industry-based project assigned to you by your lecturer, focusing on specific aspects.

So, this assessment, the student should build the Design Models: (Some Networking and security projects might need to adjust or add some other models)

• Draw Data Flow Diagram (DFD)
• Draw Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD)
• Integrating the Use Cases into the User Interface (UI)
• Watch "Integrating the Use Cases into the User Interface (UI)" recorded video.
• Design User Interface & Design System Interface
• Watch "User Interface and System Interface & System Architecture Design" recorded video.
• Design System Architecture (Environment)
• Design "Advance" Class Diagram

Assessments 3 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 30 and will be weighted 30% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Part-A
Marking Criteria Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion mark) Satisfactory
(50-64% of the criterion mark) Good
(65-74% of the criterion mark) Very Good
(75-84% of the criterion mark) Excellent
(85-100% of the criterion mark)
Criterion – 1 (6 marks) Does the initial project software and/or Network Design architecture plan set an achievable schedule to achieve the desired project results? Does the software and/or Network Design match documented project requirements? The plan is not clear regarding the project. The design fails to adequately address all key project requirements The plan fairly clearly and specific identifies the main structural components in a system and the relationships between them. The plan is fairly clear in linking the design and requirements model and the Design correctly addresses all keyproject requirements. The plan shows clearly when each architectural element and element of functionality will be delivered as iteration targets. All identified risk mitigation strategies are accounted for Contingency planning is thorough. The plan clearly identifies the main structural components in a system and the relationships between them. The plan is clear in linking the design and requirements model and the Design correctly addresses almostall (80%+) project requirements. The plan shows clearly when each architectural element and element of functionality will be delivered as iteration targets. All identified risk mitigation strategies are accounted for Contingency planning is thorough. The plan clearly and fairly specific identifies the main structural components in a system and the relationships between them. The plan is clear and fairly specific in linking between the design and requirements model will workbut isn’t aligned with what happens in industry (with the exception of approved work arounds). The plan shows clearly when each architectural element and element of functionality will be delivered as iteration targets. All identified risk mitigation strategies are accounted for Contingency planning is
thorough. The plan clearly and specific identifies the main structural components in a system and the relationships between them. The plan is clear and specific in linking between the design and requirements model using an industry standard solution (with the expectation of approved work arounds). The plan shows clearly when each architectural element and element of functionality will be delivered as iteration targets. All identified risk mitigation strategies are accounted for Contingency planning is
thorough.

Part-B
Marking Criteria Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion
mark) Satisfactory
(50-64% of the criterion
mark) Good
(65-74% of the criterion
mark) Very Good
(75-84% of the criterion
mark) Excellent (85-100% of the
criterion mark)
Criterion (4.5 marks) Does the structural models show logical groupings of objects (network topology, addressing, naming, VLANs, VPNs etc.) and the physical groupings of objects (which equipment to use, chosen LAN and WAN technology etc) into coherent
subsystems? There is no design (logical and physical) diagrams. Some design (logical and physical) diagram with each subsystem shown as a package with enclosed objects. Several design (logical and physical) diagrams with each subsystem shown as a package with enclosed objects. Almost design (logical and physical) diagrams with each subsystem shown as a package with enclosed objects. All design (logical and physical) diagrams with each subsystem shown as a package with enclosed objects.
Criterion (4.5 marks) Does the dynamic models build in early stage of the software and/or Network Design process? Sequence models are not designed Some Sequence models clearly and specifically designed and showed the object interactions. All State machine models clearly and specifically designed and showed how individual objects change their state in response to events. Several Sequence models clearly and specifically designed and showed the object interactions.
All State machine models clearly and specifically designed and showed how individual objects change their state in
response to events. Almost Sequence models clearly and specifically designed and showed the object interactions.
All State machine models clearly and specifically designed and showed how individual objects change their state in
response to events. All Sequence models clearly and specifically designed and showed the object interactions. All State machine models clearly and specifically designed and showed how individual objects change their state in response to events.
Criterion (4.5 marks) Does the interfaces specify so that objects and subsystems can be designed in parallel? Component interfaces are not defined. Some Component interfaces are defined precisely so that other objects can use them. All system and user
interfaces defined. . Several Component interfaces defined precisely so that other objects can use them. All system and user
interfaces are defined. Almost Component interfaces defined precisely so that other objects can use them. All system and user
interfaces are defined. All Component interfaces are defined precisely so that other objects can use them. All system and user
interfaces are defined.

Criterion (4.5 marks) Does the proposed software and/or Network Design Implementation plan match documented
project requirements Implementation plan would not allow an IT professional to implement your design and meet most project requirements with some
minor clarifications Implementation plan would allow an IT professionalto implement yourdesign and meet most project requirements withsome
minor clarifications Implementation plan would allow an IT professionalto implement your design and meet all project requirements withsome
minor clarifications Implementation plan would allow an IT professional to implement your design and meet all project requirementswith
minimal clarifications Implementation plan would allow an IT professional to implement your design and meet allproject requirements without
any furtherclarifications
Criterion (6 marks)
Testing parameters
for evaluation of system performance against business, functional, non-functional and technical requirements are correctly identified
and analysis Testing parameters will not allow for accurate testing of one or more essential business, functional and technical requirements Testing parameterswill allow for accurate testing ofessential business,functional and technical requirements Testing parameters will allow for accuratetesting of key business, functional and technical requirements Testing parameters will allow for accuratetesting of most business, functional and technical requirements Testing parameterswill allow for accurate testing ofall business, functional and technical requirements

Assessment 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Assessment 4: Report and Oral Defense

Due date: Week 11
Group/individual: Group
Word count/Time provided: 3000 words
Weighting: 40%
Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3, ULO4

Assessment 4 Detail
Assessment 4: Report and Oral Defense
Students prepare and the Project Design, Feasibility Analysis, and Initial Implementation Plan and present and defend their solution design through an oral defense. The report should detail the industry-based project assigned to you by your lecturer, focusing on specific aspects.
Students are required to bring their final projects (final report) along with their PowerPoint slides to the class in week 11. During that week, there will be a discussion about their final reports in addition to their presentation.

Assessments 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric
The assessment will be marked out of 40 and will be weighted 40% of the total unit mark. The marking criteria and rubric are shown on the following page.

Assessment 4 Marking Criteria and Rubric

Marking Criteria Not Satisfactory
(0-49% of the criterion mark) Satisfactory
(50-64% of the criterion mark) Good
(65-74% of the criterion
mark) Very Good
(75-84% of the criterion
mark) Excellent
(85-100% of the criterion mark)
Criterion (2.4 marks) Does the revised Vision give a clear idea of the business case and final functional, non- functional, and technical requirements
of the project The Vision has not been updated even though the expected outcomes of the project clearly need to be revised. The Vision has been partially updated to reflect a few changes in project scope. The Vision has been updated to
reflect some changes in project scope. The Vision has been updated to
reflect most changes in project scope. The Vision has been thoroughly updated to reflect any and
all changes in project scope.
Criterion (2.4 marks) Does the report demonstrate the skills in Feasibility Analysis? Does the revised requirement model clearly define the functional, non- functional, and data requirements for the project? Report hasn't provided a demonstration about the skills in Feasibility Analysis. The requirement model has not been updated even though the functional, non- functional, and data requirements for the project clearly need to be revised. Reporting demonstrates the basic skills in Feasibility Analysis, and present and justify their solution. The requirement model provided with an explanation. The requirement model has been thoroughly updated to reflect any and few changes in functional, non-
functional, and data. requirements for the Reporting demonstrates competent or basic skills in Feasibility.
Analysis, and present and justify their solution.
The requirement model provided with an explanation. The requirement model has been thoroughly updated to reflect some changes in functional, non- functional, and data requirements for the Reporting demonstrates high-level skills in Feasibility Analysis, and present and justify their solution. The requirement model provided with an explanation. The requirement model has been thoroughly updated to changes in functional, non- functional, and data requirements for the Reporting demonstrates highly advanced skills in Feasibility Analysis, and present and justify their solution. The requirement model provided with an explanation. The requirement model has been thoroughly updated to reflect all changes in functional, non- functional, and data requirements for the
project?

Criterion (2.4 marks) Does the report demonstrate the skills in the Initial Implementation Plan? Does the revised Master Test Plan clearly indicate the overall testing strategy, the priority, level of effort, basic techniques, and coverage to be achieved in each type of testing, as well as acceptance and remediation procedures? Report hasn't provided a demonstration about the skills in Initial Implementation Plan. The master test plan does not set out a reasonable plan for testing. Reporting demonstrates the basic skills in the Initial Implementation Plan and present and justify their solution. The initial plan provided an explanation. The master test plan sets out a plan for testing during the remaining development. Reporting demonstrates competent or basic skills in the Initial Implementation Plan and present and justify theirsolution. The initial plan provided an explanation. The master test plan sets out a prioritized, reasonable, and achievable plan for testing during the remaining development. Reporting demonstrates high-level skills in the Initial Implementation Plan and present and justify their solution.
The initial plan provided an explanation.
The master test plan sets out a good quality, prioritized, justified, reasonable and achievable plan for testing during the remaining development. The master test plan sets out a prioritized, reasonable, and achievable plan for testing during the remaining
development. Reporting demonstrates highly advanced skills in the Initial Implementation Plan and present and justify their solution. The initial plan provided an explanation. Themaster test plan sets outa very high quality, well thought out, clearly prioritized, well justified, reasonable and achievable plan for testing during the remaining development.
Criterion (2.4 marks) Does the report demonstrate the skills in Project Design? Does the revised executable software and/or Network Design Architectural of your project clearly identified? Report hasn't provided a demonstration about the skills in Project Design Reporting demonstrates the basic skills in Project Design, present and justified their solution Reporting demonstrates competent or basic skills in Project Design,
present and justified their solution Reporting demonstrates high-level skills in Project Design, present and justify their solution. The executable architecture implements the proposed architecture, with no
significant elements
missing Reporting demonstrates highly advanced skills in Project Design, present and justify their solution. The fully implements the proposed architecture, with no missing elements.

Criterion (2.4 marks) Does the proposed architecture formulate set of goals and describes the philosophy? The goals and philosophies haven't explained Some goals that the architecture needs to meet in its structure and behavior, and philosophies well explained. The Issues
that drive the philosophy identified Several goals that architecture needs to meet in its structure and behavior, and philosophies well explained. The Issues
that drive the philosophy identified Almost all goals that architecture needs to meet in its structure and behavior, and philosophies well explained. The Issues
that drive the philosophy identified All goals that architecture needs to meet in its structure and behavior, and philosophies well explained. The Issues
that drive the philosophy identified.
Criterion (2.4 marks) Does the proposed architecture identified and link to the requirements? The critical architecturally significant requirements not correctly identified Some critical architecturally significant requirements correctly identified and link to the requirements that must be implemented
to realize the architecture. Several critical architecturally significant requirements correctly identified and link to the requirements that must be implemented to realize the architecture. Almost critical architecturally significant requirements correctly identified and link to the requirements that must be implemented to realize the architecture. All critical architecturally significant requirements correctly identified and link to the requirements that must be implemented to realize the architecture.
Criterion (2.4 marks) Does the proposed software and/or Network Design architecture listed the assumptions and dependencies that drive software and/or Network Design architectural decisions? Does the proposed architecture
Listed the decisions that have been made? The list of the assumptions and dependencies not provided. A comprehensive list of the assumptions and dependencies, and list of decisions and constraints identified. Decisions completely consistent with goals and philosophies, sensible, and well justified with reference to specific needs of project. A comprehensive list of the assumptions and dependencies, and list of decisions and constraints identified. Decisions completely consistent with goals and philosophies, sensible, and well justified with reference to specific needs of project. A comprehensive list of the assumptions and dependencies, and list of decisions and constraints identified. Decisions completely consistent with goals and philosophies, sensible, and well justified with reference to specific needs of project. A comprehensive list of the assumptions and dependencies, and list of decisions and constraints identified. Decisions completely consistent with goals and philosophies, sensible, and well justified with reference to specific needs of project.

Criterion (2.4 marks) Does the proposed software and/or Network Design architecture described the mechanisms? The architectural mechanisms are not listed. Some architectural mechanisms are listed and described the current state of each one. Mechanisms related to architecturally significant requirements. Several architectural mechanisms are listed and described the current state of each one. Mechanisms related to architecturally significant requirements. Almost all the architectural mechanisms are listed and described the current state of each one. Mechanisms related to architecturally significant
requirements. All the architectural mechanisms are listed and described the current state of each one. Mechanisms related to architecturally significant requirements.
Criterion (12 marks) Does the test plan give a clear idea of the acceptance testing? All features to be tested, features not to be tested, resource requirements, testing schedule, test writing,  test
coverage, test
deliverables, pre- requisite for test execution, bug
reporting  and tracking mechanism, test metrics identified in the test
plan. Some features to be tested, features not to be tested, resource requirements, testing schedule, test writing, test coverage, test deliverables, pre- requisite for test execution,  bug reporting and tracking mechanism, test metrics identified in the test plan. Several features to be tested, features not to be tested, resource requirements, testing schedule, test writing, test coverage, test deliverables,  pre-
requisite for test execution, bug reporting and tracking mechanism, test metrics identified in the test plan. Almost features to be tested, features not to be tested, resource requirements, testing schedule, test writing, test coverage, test deliverables, pre- requisite for test execution,  bug reporting and tracking mechanism, test metrics identified in the test plan. All features to be tested, features not to betested,
resource requirements, testing schedule, test writing, test coverage, test deliverables, pre- requisite for test execution, bug reporting and tracking mechanism, test metrics identified in the test plan.

Criterion (3 marks) Logical sequence and ease of presentation. Use of available time and overall organization of the seminar. There is no Logical sequence Audience cannot understand some of the presentation.
because there is no sequence of information and either
falls short or goes over the time limit. Audience has difficulty following presentation because student jumps around but is close to being on time. Presents information in logical sequence that the audience can follow and delivered close to time given. Presents information in logical, interesting sequence that the audience can easily follow and delivered on time.
Criterion (3 marks) Audience engagement and interest maintained. Expertise and ability are shown tojustify results and conclusions to peers. Audience engagement and interest haven't maintained Demonstrates just a basic does grasp of information about the project throughout the report; Student reads all of report with no eye contact or the video sounds like a prepared speech.
Student mumbles or incorrectly pronounces terms and speaks too quietly audience members or
viewers to hear. Demonstrates comfort with explanations but fails to elaborate at times in the report. Students occasionally make eye contact, but still reads most of report fromnotes or the screen. Student's voice is low. Student incorrectly pronounces
terms. Audience members orviewers have difficulty hearing all thepresentation. Demonstrates ease with explanations and willing to elaborate at times in the report. Students maintain eyecontact most of the time but frequently return to notes. Student's voice is clear.Student pronounces most words correctly. Most audience members or viewers can hear the presentation. Demonstrates full knowledge (more than required) with explanations and elaboration of the project in the report; Maintains eye contact with audience or the camera,seldom returning to notes.
Student uses a clear voice that all audience members or viewers canhear the
presentation.
Criterion (2.8 marks) Audience Interaction and Impact Skills
How well the questions
were handled in the 'live' seminar. The questions were handled Cannot answer all questions about subject. Able to answer only rudimentary questions from the audience. Answers to all questions but fails to elaborate at times. Answers all questions with detailed explanations and elaboration.