Marking criteria

Marking criteria



Task 1 section one Research Question (Individual Work)                           5 marks          

Grade Criteria
5 Excellent filtering of the URL, may show a narrowing down quickly to the more suitable answer
4 Very good range of URLs.
3 A good range of material covered from stack overview but it limited in the number/range of URLs covered
2 Poor range of stack overflow URls or ones which are not from stack overflow
1 Weak research showing little reading and selection.
0 missing


Task 1 section two Research Question (Individual Work)                           5 marks          

Grade Criteria
5 An outstanding selection of the correct technology needed to protect passwords, with implementation example from an external source. External source should give a detailed description and be from a reputable known source.
4 Answer is correct however the implementation or source may ether lay lack detail or be from a less well reliable source.
3 Answer has a reasonable choice but may not be the most optimal.
2 Answer has chosen a poor choice one which may exhibit security issues or may be missing an implementation.
1 Weak work: poor choice and missing elements.
0 Missing.


Task 1 section three Research Question (Individual Work)                                     20 marks        

The criteria used for marking will include:

  • The quality and scope of the literature survey.
  • The principle arguments and conclusions of the work undertaken.
Grade Criteria
90-100 % Demonstration of an Exceptional answer to the question, work contains sufficient high quality sources of information which are correctly referenced in the Harvard style. Work should contain no unsupported statements. Answer is near perfect with a detailed and balanced argument and an exceptional conclusion.
70-89 % Demonstration of an outstanding answer to the question, work contains no major flaws with only major issues with unsupported statements. High quality sources of information which is correctly referenced in the Harvard style. The answer should be detailed and concise, work should reflect a balanced and objective approach and with an outstanding conclusion.
60 -69 % Demonstration of a very good answer to the question, majority of the important statements should be supported with references to high quality academic sources. The answer should be detailed and concise, and balanced there may be some of the important points omitted due to lack of scope.
50 – 59 Satisfactory work exhibits a fair understanding of principles underpinning the questions but it is lacking one some depth, such as exhibiting poor referencing or a lack of reading. Work may show some omissions and may not fully address the questions..
40 – 49 Weak Unsatisfactory answer which is not balanced lacking any true depth and shows little in the way of reading. There may be some attempt to answer the question but it may contain flaws and significant omissions.
0 – 39 Work is incomplete and/or irrelevant. Work may sure significant sections which are highly derived.




Task 2 UML Designs and OOP considerations (Group work)                                                         10 marks



Implementable Class Diagram showing patterns and layers         5 marks

Justification of the patterns used or their absence                           5 marks


Grade Criteria
80-100 % Outstanding or exception diagram which clearly shows the system layers and the patterns used in the system. Narrative clearly explains the use of patterns and the reasons for the adoption or omission from the work.
60-79% Work is of good or very good quality. Diagram is clear however it lacks depth in the range of patterns chosen and/or considered. The rational for inclusion of omission has some minor weaknesses
50-59% Diagrams contain flaws which would affect the implementation.   Patterns may not be well considered and the narrative explaining the rational lacks depth. The application layers are not clearly defined.
0-49 % Diagrams are incomplete or non-implementable and or the consideration of pattern is either missing or is poor.



Task 3 Implementing the technical Solution (Group work)                                                            20 marks

The criteria used for marking will include:

  • scope Quality of technical implementation 15/20
  • Justification and implementation of data access layer                                     5/20
Grade Criteria
80-100 % A reasonable set of requirements are implemented given the time frame.  Importantly the scope of requirements should not be at the cost to the quality.

The system demonstrates excellent or outstanding engineering principles such as the use of patterns in the all three layers of the application. Presentation layer should use a pattern to separate responsibilities or presentation and control.


70-79 % Work is good or very good, the scope or the requirement may be limited but the engineering excellent. Or the scope may be high with a reduction in the level of the engineering principles applied. However the work overall is still very competent and has few problems such as a lack of patterns.
50-69% Quality of the application and/or the engineering has problems such as failure to consider patterns in the presentation layer. Code may suffer from problems with the way the engineering principles have been applied.
0-49 % Scope of the application is poor, significant issues with the engineering principles which are being applied. There is little consideration of the implementation of patterns.




Task 4 Testing (Group work)                                                                                                       10 marks

The criteria used for marking will include:

  • Test plan based on user requirements both negative and positive testing’s
  • Tool based unit testing also with test plan.


Grade Criteria
80-100 % Outstanding or Excellent Testing. Use of dependency injection and mocks where needed, positive and negative in nature. Tests must be at a unit and systems level, and be fully documented and unit level should be fully implemented in Visual Studio in built test suite.
60-79% Very good testing, covering a good range unit tests however it may lack some testing or many lack some negative testing.
50-59% Scope of the testing is incomplete this may be due to poor choices of presentation pattern or a lack of scope in the tests chosen. Documentation is poor regarding test.
0-49 % Testing in incomplete or missing.

Click Here to Place your order and Get 100% original paper on any topic done for Your


Task 6 Evaluation of the development process (Individual Work)                                            15 marks


Required items to evaluate

  • Critically evaluate selecting requirement.
  • Teamwork
  • Tool evaluation
Grade Criteria
80-100 % Outstanding or exceptional evaluation. Well balanced critical evaluation covering all three aspects. Work should identify problems and where applicable this may require quotes from the literature to back up the students statements.  Clear evidence that the student has understood weaknesses and has learn from them.
60-79% Good or Very good evaluation however it may lack some degree of balance or critical evaluation in some areas or maybe not as strong one of the three aspects required.
50-59 % Critical evaluation is lacking in depth. May contain some degree or inaccuracy or misconception.
0 – 49 % Missing key elements. Irrelevant material or poor non critical reflection of the work.



Task 7 Evaluation of the technical solution (Individual Work)                                                    15 marks


Required items to evaluate


Design and Implementation in relation OO (patterns and principles).

Grade Criteria
80-100 % Overall an excellent evaluation of the technical solution, Identification and reflection of the weaknesses, as well and the achievements. This must include the OO considerations such where patterns were used to good effect or missing or incorrectly used. Security must be discussed including what needs to be protected via encryption this must not be ‘book work’ but directly related to the implementation.
70-79% Good or very good. Weaknesses should be identified however there may be some degree of limited scope in the identification of what patterns could have been applied or some degree or lack of depth relating to the problems of applying cryptography to the system.
50-19 Satisfactory evaluation lacks some important items or lacks depth especially in offering alternatives or identification of weaknesses. Security evaluation has weaknesses in scope or type of security being recommended is limited in the understanding of the effect it will have on the application.
0-49 % Evaluation missing key elements and/or alternatives. The work lacks depth and/or lacks critical evaluation.





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *