Introduction to Object Oriented Programming (IOOP)

CT044-3-1

Group Assignment Marking Scheme

Page 1 of 2

Individual Component (30%)

Very Poor

Poor

0-2
Presentation
(10%)

Did not present

34

Contribution
(workload
matrix) (10%)

Was not able to answer any

questions posed correctly

Barely able to explain the codes

and / or work done

Did not know how to run the

system

Not able to answer

questions posed correctly

Did not contribute at all to

the project

3-4

0-2

Minimal contribution
overall solution

Able to explain some codes /

work done

Was able to answer some

questions posed correctly

Average contribution to the

overall solution

Markers Comments :

Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation

Good explanation of codes

and / or work done

9-10

Excellent explanation
codes / work done

Able to show additional /

new ideas / codes

Able to answer all questions

posed correctly

7-8

5-6
to the

Excellent

7-8

5-6
most

3-4

Good

5-6

0-2
Q&A
(10%)

Adequate

Was able to answer most

questions posed correctly

9-10

7-8

Good contribution to the

overall solution

of

9-10

Contributed the most to the

project

Introduction to Object Oriented Programming (IOOP)

CT044-3-1

Group Assignment Marking Scheme

Page 2 of 2

Group Component (70%)

Very Poor
0-4

Poor
59

Not done

Design
(20%)

Very simple / basic design in

terms of logic and style

Average design in terms of

logic and style

Good design with a variety

of styles and unique logic

Design solution covers less

than 40% of basic requirements
of the system

Major errors in design such as

symbols used / UML notations
(UML use case and class
diagram)

Design solution covers

between 40% - 60% of the
basic requirements of the
system

Design solution covers

between 60% - 70% of the
basic requirements of the
system.

Some errors in design such

as symbols used / UML
notations (UML use case ,
class diagram)

Minor errors in design in

terms of symbols used /
UML notations (UML use
case and class diagram)

6 11

No integration
classes

between

Little
integration
classes

Inconsistent
between classes

interfaces

Some consistency in
interfaces between classes

Very poor OOP coding

styles

Poor OOP coding styles

05
Documentation
(25%)

12 15

Not complete
Sections of the assignment
merely put together with
many missing components

Good
14 17

05
Class
Integration
(25%)

Adequate
10 13

between
the

Less
than
40%
documentation complete

Average
integration
between classes

Good integration between

classes

Average consistency in the

interfaces between classes

Good consistency in the

interfaces between classes

Average OOP coding styles

Good OOP coding styles

Poor layout / flow

12 15
of

Minimal basic documentation

standards adhered to

Excellent design with a

variety of styles and unique
logic

Design solution covers

more than 70% of the basic
requirements of the system.

Hardly any errors in design

in terms of symbols used /
UML notations (UML use
case and class diagram)

16 19

6 - 11

Excellent
18 20

20 25

Excellent integration classes

Excellent
styles

16 19

Excellent consistency in the

interfaces between classes
OOP

coding

20 25

Between 40% - 50% of the

documentation complete

Between 60% - 70% of the

documentation complete

Between 70% - 80% of the

documentation complete

Average layout / flow

Good layout / flow

Excellent layout / flow

Sample outputs available

with hardly any explanation

Sample outputs available

with
some
relevant
explanation

Sample outputs available

with good explanation

Basic
documentation
standards adhered to

Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation

Basic
documentation
standards adhered to

Documentation
adhered to

standards

Introduction to Object Oriented Programming (IOOP)

CT044-3-1

Group Assignment Marking Scheme

Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation

Page 3 of 2