The Learning Outcomes are interrelated. For instance, "working effectively in a team" does not mean that 33.333333% of the mark is given for some mysterious activity called "teamwork" that can be entirely separated from programming. On the other hand, implementing as many features as possible (let alone writing as many lines of code as possible) is not the objective either; the code needs to contribute to the "programming in the large" challenge by being well designed and integrated with the work of the team as a whole.
The assessment of this module is to some extent modelled on the procedures for final-year projects, specifically in the central function of the demonstration and the final report (analogous to the dissertation).
Factors in the assessment include the product produced during the course of the project, as presented in the demonstration and documented in the report, and the report itself. Criteria for the assessment of the report include sound program development principles as evidenced by the specification, design and implementation of the project, as well as analysis of the trade-offs faced by the team and evaluation of the work done.
Teamwork will also be a factor in the assesment. This will be assessed on the basis of the demonstration and the report, with additional evidence given by the records maintained by the demonstrator about the weekly progress and management of the team during the semester.
Team members are required to identify the individual contribution of each team member to the whole module in the report. This may include particularly significant contributions by individuals, or problematic contributions. An extreme and important case of the latter are team members having dropped out of all or part of the project. It is equally possible to argue that all or some members of the team worked so closely together on all or some parts of the project that they believe to deserve the same mark. These comments will be taken into account in the assessment together with other evidence, but they do not by themselves determine the ratio of individual marks. The breakdown of contributions is itself a factor in the assessment, and it may reflect badly on team members if an individual contribution is exaggerated or, conversely, unduly diminished.
The contribution of each team member to the overall outcome will be judged on the basis of the report and the demonstration, backed up by attendance records, weekly progress reports and comments from the demonstrator for the team. Where appropriate, the CVS repository may also be considered as additional evidence of programming activity or its absence. An important factor is the individual contribution breakdown in the report, which will be considered in the light of all the evidence.
There is no numerical team mark, and no entitlement to marks by virtue of being a member of the team irrespective of contribution. Depending on the team, marks for different members may be the same, or they may differ by any amount.
Based on all the available evidence on the project, a percentage mark is chosen for each student in the team. The final percentage mark for each student will explicitly NOT be computed by a standard weighting of the factors. Instead, academic judgement will be used by the Module Examiner in the implicit weighting according to the nature of the project and the individual contribution based on the module Learning Outcomes. (See the Learning Outcomes section of the Syllabus page.)
A marking form will be used in the assessment.
Following the university's assessment regulations for taught undergraduate modules, a mark can only be changed if the evidence used in determining it is shown to be deficient. The professional judgement of the Module Examiner cannot be challenged.