Admin Participation Marks
To receive full 5 marks allocated for participation, meet the criteria A, B, and C.
A Earned more than half of weekly participation points in at least 10 weeks.
- Weekly quiz(es), if any:
- Quizzes open around the lecture time and stay open until the next lecture starts. In some weeks, there will be two quizzes (because two smaller quiz is easier for you to manage than one big quiz).
- When awarding participation points for quizzes, we look for two conditions:
- Condition 1: submitted early i.e., within four days of the lecture i.e., lecture day + three more days (reason: to encourage learning the weekly topics before doing the weekly tasks)
- Condition 2: answered correctly i.e., least 70% of the answers are correct (reason: to discourage random answers)
- You earn:
- 3 points if you satisfy both conditions.
- 2 points if only one of the conditions is satisfied.
- 1 point if submitted but both conditions are not satisfied.
- Weekly programming exercise (if any):
- 3 points if you submitted correct solutions for at least 75% of the exercises
- 2 points if you submitted correct solutions for 50-74% of the exercises
- 1 point if you submitted correct solutions for 25-49% of the exercises
- TEAMMATES peer evaluation sessions: 2 points per session
- Other weekly activities:
- There could be other activities related to the lecture, tutorial, or the administration of the module.
- Refer the activity description for evaluation criteria.
- Each activity earns 2 points unless specified otherwise.
Lecture in week N:
- In-lecture quiz and other activities are counted for week
Nlecture participation. - Post-lecture quiz (if any) is counted for Week
N+1
B Received good peer evaluations
- -1 for each professional conduct criterion in which you score below average (based on the average of ratings received).
Admin Peer Evaluations → Criteria (Conduct)
- Evaluated based on the following criteria, on a scale
Poor/Below Average/Average/Good/Excellent:
Peer Evaluation Criteria: Professional Conduct
- Professional Communication :
- Communicates sufficiently and professionally. e.g. Does not use offensive language or excessive slang in project communications.
- Responds to communication from team members in a timely manner (e.g. within 24 hours).
- Punctuality: Does not cause others to waste time or slow down project progress by frequent tardiness.
- Dependability: Promises what can be done, and delivers what was promised.
- Effort: Puts in sufficient effort to, and tries their best to keep up with the module/project pace. Seeks help from others when necessary.
- Quality: Does not deliver work products that seem to be below the student's competence level i.e. tries their best to make the work product as high quality as possible within her competency level.
- Meticulousness:
- Rarely overlooks submission requirements.
- Rarely misses compulsory module activities such as pre-module survey.
- Teamwork: How willing are you to act as part of a team, contribute to team-level tasks, adhere to team decisions, etc. Honors all collectively agreed-upon commitments e.g., weekly project meetings.
- No penalty for scoring low on competency criteria.
Admin Peer Evaluations → Criteria (Competency)
- Considered only for bonus marks, A+ grades, and tutor recruitment
- Evaluated based on the following criteria, on a scale
Poor/Below Average/Average/Good/Excellent:
Peer Evaluation Criteria: Competency
- Technical Competency: Able to gain competency in all the required tools and techniques.
- Mentoring skills: Helps others when possible. Able to mentor others well.
- Communication skills: Able to communicate (written and spoken) well. Takes initiative in discussions.
C Tutorial attendance/participation not too low
Low attendance/participation can affect participation marks directly (i.e., attended fewer than 7) or indirectly (i.e., it might result in low peer evaluation ratings).
+ Bonus Marks
In addition, you can receive bonus marks in the following ways. Bonus marks can be used to top up your participation marks but only if your marks from the above falls below 5.
- [For lecture participation] Participated in lecture activities (e.g., in lecture polls/quizzes) in at least 10 lectures: 1 mark
- [For perfect peer ratings] Received good ratings for all 10 peer evaluations criteria: 1 mark
- [For helping classmates] Was very helpful to classmates e.g., multiple helpful posts in forum: 1 mark
Examples:
- Alicia earned 1/2, 3/5, 2/5, 5/5, 5/5, 5/5, 5/5, 5/5, 5/5, 5/5, 4/5, 5/5 in the first 12 weeks. As she received at least half of the points in 11 of the weeks, she gets 5 participation marks. Bonus marks are not applicable as she has full marks already.
- Benjamin managed to get at least half of the participation points in 9 weeks only, which gives him 5-1 = 4 participation marks. But he participated in 10 lectures, and hence get a bonus mark to make it 5/5.
- Chun Ming met the participation points bar in 8 weeks only, giving him 5-2 = 3 marks. He lost 2 more marks because he received multiple negative ratings for two criteria, giving him 1/5 participation marks.
Where to find your participation marks progress
Your participation progress can be tracked in this page from week 3 onward.
Admin Individual Project (iP) Grading
Total: 20 marks
Implementation [10 marks]: Requirements to get full marks:
- Achieve more than 90% of all deliverables by the end.
- Requirements marked as optional or if-applicable are not counted when calculating the percentage of deliverables.
- When a requirement specifies a
minimalversion of it, simply reaching that minimal version of the requirement is enough for it to be counted for grading -- however, we recommend you to go beyond the minimal; the farther you go, the more practice you will get.
- The code quality meets the following conditions:
- Reasonable use of OOP e.g., at least some use of inheritance, code divided into classes in a sensible way
- No blatant violations of the coding standard
- At least some errors are handled using exceptions
- At least half of public methods/classes have javadoc comments
- The code is neat e.g., no chunks of commented out code
- Reasonable use of SLAP e.g., no very-long methods or deeply nested code
Project Management [5 marks]: To get full marks, you should achieve,
- Submit some deliverables in at least 4 out of the 6 iP weeks (i.e., week 2 - week 7)
- Follow other requirements specified (e.g., how to use Git/Github for each increment, do peer reviews) in at least 4 weeks
Documentation [5 marks]: To get full marks, you should achieve,
- The product web site and the user guide is reasonable (i.e., functional, not hard to read, covers all features, no major formatting errors in the published view).
You can monitor your iP progress (as detected by our scripts) in the iP Progress Dashboard page.
Admin Team Project (tP) Grading
Note that project grading is not competitive (not bell curved). CS2113T projects will be assessed separately from CS2113 projects. Given below is the marking scheme.
Total: 45 marks ( 40 individual marks + 5 team marks)
See the sections below for details of how we assess each aspect.
1. Project Grading: Product Design [ 5 marks]
Evaluates: how well your features fit together to form a cohesive product (not how many features or how big the features are) and how well does it match the target user
Evaluated by:
- tutors (based on product demo and user guide)
- peers from other teams (based on peer testing and user guide)
Admin tP → PE → Grading Instructions for Product Design
Evaluate based on the User Guide and the actual product behavior.
| Criterion | Unable to judge | Low | Medium | High |
|---|---|---|---|---|
target user |
Not specified | Clearly specified and narrowed down appropriately | ||
value proposition |
Not specified | The value to target user is low. App is not worth using | Some small group of target users might find the app worth using | Most of the target users are likely to find the app worth using |
optimized for target user |
Not enough focus for CLI users | Mostly CLI-based, but cumbersome to use most of the time | Feels like a fast typist can be more productive with the app, compared to an equivalent GUI app without a CLI | |
feature-fit |
Many of the features don't fit with others | Most features fit together but a few may be possible misfits | All features fit together to for a cohesive whole |
In addition, feature flaws reported in the PE will be considered when grading this aspect.
Note that 'product design' or 'functionality' are not critical learning outcomes of the tP. Therefore, the bar you need to reach to get full marks will be quite low. For example, the Medium level in the rubric given in the panel above should be enough to achieve full marks. Similarly, only cases of excessive 'feature flaw' bugs will affect the score.
These are considered feature flaws:
The feature does not solve the stated problem of the intended user i.e., the feature is 'incomplete'
Hard-to-test features
Features that don't fit well with the product
Features that are not optimized enough for fast-typists or target users
2. Project Grading: Implementation [ 10 marks]
2A. Code quality
Evaluates: the quality of the parts of the code you claim as written by you
Evaluation method: manual inspection by tutors + automated-analysis by a script
Criteria:
-
At least some evidence of these (see here for more info)
- logging
- exceptions
- assertions
-
No coding standard violations e.g. all boolean variables/methods sounds like booleans. Checkstyle can prevent only some coding standard violations; others need to be checked manually.
-
SLAP is applied at a reasonable level. Long methods or deeply-nested code are symptoms of low-SLAP.
-
No noticeable code duplications i.e. if there multiple blocks of code that vary only in minor ways, try to extract out similarities into one place, especially in test code.
-
Evidence of applying code quality guidelines covered in the module.
2B. Effort
Evaluates: how much value you contributed to the product
Method:
- This is evaluated by peers who tested your product, and tutors.
Admin tP → PE → Question used for Implementation Effort
Consider implementation work only (i.e., exclude testing, documentation, project management etc.)
The typical iP refers to an iP where all the requirements are met at the minimal expectations given.
Use the person's PPP and RepoSense page to evaluate the effort.
- The score could be further moderated by this question answered by team members.
Admin Peer Evaluations → Questions used for Evaluating Implementation Effort
Uses the Equal Share +/- N% scale for the answer
3. Project Grading: QA [ 10 marks]
3A. Developer Testing:
Evaluates: How well you tested your own feature
Based on:
- functionality bugs in your work found by others during the Practical Exam (PE)
- your test code (note our expectations for automated testing)
- Expectation Write some automated tests so that we can evaluate your ability to write tests.
🤔 How much testings is enough? We expect you to decide. You learned different types of testing and what they try to achieve. Based on that, you should decide how much of each type is required. Similarly, you can decide to what extent you want to automate tests, depending on the benefits and the effort required.
There is no requirement for a minimum coverage level. Note that in a production environment you are often required to have at least 90% of the code covered by tests. In this project, it can be less. The weaker your tests are, the higher the risk of bugs, which will cost marks if not fixed before the final submission.
These are considered functionality bugs:
Behavior differs from the User Guide
A legitimate user behavior is not handled e.g. incorrect commands, extra parameters
Behavior is not specified and differs from normal expectations e.g. error message does not match the error
3B. System/Acceptance Testing:
Evaluates: How well you can system-test/acceptance-test a product
Based on: bugs you found in the PE. In addition to functionality bugs, you get credit for reporting documentation bugs and feature flaws.
Grading bugs found in the PE
- Of Developer Testing component, based on the bugs found in your code3A and System/Acceptance Testing component, based on the bugs found in others' code3B above, the one you do better will be given a 70% weight and the other a 30% weight so that your total score is driven by your strengths rather than weaknesses.
- Bugs rejected by the dev team, if the rejection is approved by the teaching team, will not affect marks of the tester or the developer.
- The penalty/credit for a bug varies based on the severity of the bug:
severity.High>severity.Medium>severity.Low>severity.VeryLow - The three types (i.e.,
type.FunctionalityBug,type.DocumentationBug,type.FeatureFlaw) are counted for three different grade components. The penalty/credit can vary based on the bug type. Given that you are not told which type has a bigger impact on the grade, always choose the most suitable type for a bug rather than try to choose a type that benefits your grade. - The penalty for a bug is divided equally among assignees.
- Developers are not penalized for duplicate bug reports they received but the testers earn credit for duplicate bug reports they submitted as long as the duplicates are not submitted by the same tester.
- i.e., the same bug reported by many testersObvious bugs earn less credit for the tester and slightly higher penalty for the developer.
- If the team you tested has a low bug count i.e., total bugs found by all testers is low, we will fall back on other means (e.g., performance in PE dry run) to calculate your marks for system/acceptance testing.
- Your marks for developer testing depends on the bug density rather than total bug count. Here's an example:
nbugs found in your feature; it is a big feature consisting of lot of code → 4/5 marksnbugs found in your feature; it is a small feature with a small amount of code → 1/5 marks
- You don't need to find all bugs in the product to get full marks. For example, finding half of the bugs of that product or 4 bugs, whichever the lower, could earn you full marks.
- Excessive incorrect downgrading/rejecting/marking as duplicatesduplicate-flagging, if deemed an attempt to game the system, will be penalized.
4. Project Grading: Documentation [ 10 marks]
Evaluates: your contribution to project documents
Method: Evaluated in two steps.
- Step 1: Evaluate the whole UG and DG. This is evaluated by peers who tested your product, and tutors.
Admin tP → PE → Grading Instructions for User Guide
Evaluate based on fit-for-purpose, from the perspective of a target user.
For reference, the AB3 UG is here.
Admin tP → PE → Grading Instructions for Developer Guide
Evaluate based on fit-for-purpose from the perspective of a new team member trying to understand the product's internal design by reading the DG.
For reference, the AB3 DG is here.
- Step 2: Evaluate how much of that effort can be attributed to you. This is evaluated by team members, and tutors.
Admin Peer Evaluations → Questions used for Evaluating the Contribution to the UG
Admin Peer Evaluations → Questions used for Evaluating the Contribution to the DG
Uses the Equal Share +/- N% scale for the answer
- In addition, UG and DG bugs you received in the PE will be considered for grading this component.
These are considered UG bugs (if they hinder the reader):
Use of visuals
- Not enough visuals e.g., screenshots/diagrams
- The visuals are not well integrated to the explanation
- The visuals are unnecessarily repetitive e.g., same visual repeated with minor changes
Use of examples:
- Not enough or too many examples e.g., sample inputs/outputs
Explanations:
- The explanation is too brief or unnecessarily long.
- The information is hard to understand for the target audience. e.g., using terms the reader might not know
Neatness/correctness:
- looks messy
- not well-formatted
- broken links, other inaccuracies, typos, etc.
- hard to read/understand
- unnecessary repetitions (i.e., hard to see what's similar and what's different)
These are considered DG bugs (if they hinder the reader):
Those given as possible UG bugs ...
These are considered UG bugs (if they hinder the reader):
Use of visuals
- Not enough visuals e.g., screenshots/diagrams
- The visuals are not well integrated to the explanation
- The visuals are unnecessarily repetitive e.g., same visual repeated with minor changes
Use of examples:
- Not enough or too many examples e.g., sample inputs/outputs
Explanations:
- The explanation is too brief or unnecessarily long.
- The information is hard to understand for the target audience. e.g., using terms the reader might not know
Neatness/correctness:
- looks messy
- not well-formatted
- broken links, other inaccuracies, typos, etc.
- hard to read/understand
- unnecessary repetitions (i.e., hard to see what's similar and what's different)
UML diagrams:
- Notation incorrect or not compliant with the notation covered in the module.
- Some other type of diagram used when a UML diagram would have worked just as well.
- The diagram used is not suitable for the purpose it is used.
- The diagram is too complicated.
Code snippets:
- Excessive use of code e.g., a large chunk of code is cited when a smaller extract of would have sufficed.
Problems in User Stories. Examples:
- Incorrect format
- All three parts are not present
- The three parts do not match with each other
- Important user stories missing
Problems in NFRs. Examples:
- Not really a Non-Functional Requirement
- Not scoped clearly (i.e., hard to decide when it has been met)
- Not reasonably achievable
- Highly relevant NFRs missing
Problems in Glossary. Examples:
- Unnecessary terms included
- Important terms missing
5. Project Grading: Project Management [ 5 + 5 = 10 marks]
5A. Process:
Evaluates: How well you did in project management related aspects of the project, as an individual and as a team
Based on: tutor/bot observations of project milestones and GitHub data
Grading criteria:
-
Project done iteratively and incrementally (opposite: doing most of the work in one big burst)
-
Milestones reached on time (i.e., the midnight before of the tutorial) (to get a good grade for this aspect, achieve at least 60% of the recommended milestone progress).
-
Good use of GitHub milestones mechanism.
-
Good use of GitHub releases mechanism.
-
Good version control, based on the repo.
-
Reasonable attempt to use the forking workflow at least for the early part of the project.
-
Good task definition, assignment and tracking, based on the issue tracker.
-
Good use of buffers (opposite: everything at the last minute).
5B. Team-tasks:
Evaluates: How much you contributed to team-tasks
Admin tP → Expectations: Examples of team-tasks
Here is a non-exhaustive list of team-tasks:
- Setting up the GitHub team org/repo
- Necessary general code enhancements
- Setting up tools e.g., GitHub, Gradle
- Maintaining the issue tracker
- Release management
- Updating user/developer docs that are not specific to a feature e.g. documenting the target user profile
- Incorporating more useful tools/libraries/frameworks into the product or the project workflow (e.g. automate more aspects of the project workflow using a GitHub plugin)
Based on: peer evaluations, tutor observations
Grading criteria: Do these to earn full marks.
- Do close to an equal share of the team tasks (you can earn bonus marks by doing more than an equal share).
- Merge code in at least four of weeks 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Admin Exams
There is no midterm exam. Information about the final exam is given below.
- The final exam will be as per the normal exam schedule, and will count for 30% of the final grade.
- The exam will be done online.
- We will be following the SoC's E-Exam SOP, combined with the deviations/refinements given in the section below. Please read the SOP carefully and ensure you follow all instructions.
SOP deviations/refinements
-
Tools: LumiNUS, Zoom, Microsoft Teams (MST), PDF scanner, PDF reader.
-
The webcam view should capture all three of these: your upper body (side view), the entire screen area of your monitor, the working area of the table. Here is an example:
-
Recording of your PC screen is not required.
-
Only one computer screen is allowed.
-
You may not use a second laptop/computer as the web cam. Use either an external webcam or a mobile phone instead. Reason: the screen of that second computer will not be captured in the video feed.
-
Not allowed to use the printer or other devices during the exam.
-
Soft copies of notes: only PDF format is allowed. Other formats (e.g., MS Word, .txt, html) are not allowed. No limitation on what the PDF file contains or the number of PDF files to be used.
You may use any hard copies or written materials too. -
The Browser should only be used to access LumiNUS. Accessing other websites (including the module website) is not allowed.
It turns out that the textbook PDF file plays better with browsers than PDF viewers. Therefore, viewing the textbook PDF in the browser is allowed. But other PDFs should be opened in a PDF viewer.
The reason for restricting the use of the browser to view PDF files is that allowing it makes it harder for invigilators to detect students accessing unauthorized websites. -
Use Microsoft Teams or Zoom private messages to communicate with the invigilator.
-
The quiz will not appear on LumiNUS until a few minutes before we release the password. Wait until we announce that the quiz is available to see.
-
When the invigilator asks you to do an identity check, turn your face towards the camera, move closer to the camera, remove face mask (if any), and hold the pose until the invigilator tells you to go back to your working position.
-
If you have a doubt/query about a question, or want to make an assumption about a question, please write it down in the 'justification' text box. Do not try to communicate those with the invigilator during the exam. We'll take your doubt/query/assumption into account when grading. For example, if many had queries about a specific question, we can conclude that the question is unclear and omit it from grading.
-
If you encounter a serious problem that prevents you from proceeding with the exam (e.g., the password to open the quiz doesn't work), PM the invigilator using MS Teams (failing that, use Zoom chat).
-
If your computer crashed/restarted during the exam, try to get it up again and resume the exam. LumiNUS will allow you to resume from where you stopped earlier. However, note that there is a deadline to finish the quiz and you will overrun that deadline if you lose more than 5 minutes due to the computer outage.
Format
- The exam will be divided into 2 sections.
- Each section is worth 15 marks. There are no negative marks in the exam.
- Both sections should be completed in one sitting. Duration: 1 hour
Final exam - Section 1
- The first section will contain 30 True/False questions.
- Questions will appear in random order.
- You will not be able to go back to previous questions.
Reasons:
1. to minimize opportunities for collusion
2. not unreasonable for the materials tested and the proficiency level expected -- i.e., when using this knowledge in a real life SE project discussion, it will be rare for you to go back to revise what you said earlier in the discussion - Recommended duration: 23 minutes (recommended: allocate 40 seconds per question, which gives you a 3 minutes buffer)
- You are not required to give a justification for your answer in this section.
Final exam - Section 2
- The second section will contain 15 MCQs
- Questions will appear in random order.
- You will not be able to go back to previous questions.
Reasons:
1. to minimize opportunities for collusion
2. not unreasonable for the materials tested and the proficiency level expected -- i.e., when using this knowledge in a real life SE project discussion, it will be rare for you to go back to revise what you said earlier in the discussion - Recommended duration: 35 minutes (recommended: allocate 2 minutes per question, which gives you a 5 minutes buffer)
- You are required to give a justification for your answer in this section. The question will specify what should be included in the justification. Answers without the correct justification may not earn full marks. However, we'll give full marks up to two correct answers that do not have justifications (or that have incorrect justification) (to cater for cases where you accidentally proceeded to the next question before adding the justification).
Exam briefing, mock exam, practice exam paper
- There will be an exam briefing in the penultimate lecture. It will include a minimal mock exam, just to help you understand the structure.
- You will be given a practice exam paper (of proportionally reduced size of the full paper) to help you practice timing. That practice paper will be released at least one week before the exam.
Exam briefing, mock exam, practice exam paper
- There will be an exam briefing in the penultimate lecture. It will include a minimal mock exam, just to help you understand the structure.
- You will be given a practice exam paper (half the size of the full paper) to help you practice timing. That practice paper will be released at least one week before the exam.