Hide menu

TDDE41 Software Architectures

The criteria for evaluating work in TDDD05

Level Grade
1 Grade 3
2 Grade 4
3 Grade 5
If the submission does not the minimal criteria for a given section then the grade for that section is 0. When assigning a grade, we rely on common sense. Eg: a single spelling mistake in an otherwise very well written paper can tolerated. The grade covers both the poster and the project report. The poster should inculed:
  1. A clear statement of the problem
  2. A coincise desctiption of the solution, with a focus on how the quality criteria were met
  3. Quantifiable results from validation
  4. Conclusions, analysis
The report should include:
  1. An architecture desciption
  2. A discussion of architectural decisions, where relevant presentation of tools and outline of alternatives
  3. Setup of validation and quantifiable results from any tests
  4. Analysis and discussion of results
  5. Discussion of the integration process - was it succesful? why/why not? what compromises had to be made? how did it impact the development of the module?

Independece

  1. The work is based on the material referenced on the course web-site, includes a lot of direct quotes.
  2. The work generalizes from the course material and uses several own references to sources describing the selected technique and it's applications.
  3. The work references mostly sources independent from course material and uses published references.

Context

  1. The work describes clearly in what context the technology should be used and justifies the advantages.
  2. The work does everything in 1, and in addition outlines alternatives and uses references to support the claims.
  3. The work does everything in 1 and 2 and in addition takes a critical approach to the feasibility of the claims, supported by references.

Technical Soundness

  1. The work includes references to a concrete technological approach with code examples but is limited in scope or validity.
  2. The work does everything in 1 and is able to link well the implementation concepts with theoretical concepts presented in the the course and literature resources.
  3. The paper does everything in 1 and 2 and is able to provide a critical evaluation of the approach based on measurable data and/or a well motivated comparison to other techical approaches.

Language and form (Poster)

  1. The poster conveys the main ideas, the text is mostly error free. Some concepts are unexplained, the different concepts presented on the poster are not well connected together visually, the poster is hard to read and/or understand.
  2. The text contains no errors related to spelling, grammar or form and is easy to read. Some terms may be introduced without explanation, or there may be informal language used. The poster has a struture similar to that of a research poster with minor issues. The layout of the poster does not help understand the concepts better.
  3. The text contains no errors related to spelling, grammar or form and is easy to read. The style of the poster is similar to that of a research poster, and all terms are sufficiently explained. All concepts introduced are relevant and necessary. All the references are complete and well formatted. The graphics and text used in the poster work cohesivly to create an overview of the problem and the proposed solution.

Analysis

  1. The work clearly defines a research quesion, but it may be limited in scope or validity. Claims are based on others' code examples or single sources.
  2. The work clearly defines a research quesion, and this question is of some general interest. Some methodology is proposed but not completely followed through. The solution compiles the results from several sources and generalizes from several code examples.
  3. The work clearly defines a research quesion, and this question is of general interest. The work combines claims based on litterature literature overview with a critical evaluation of the results from several own code examples. The method used makes it clear that the results are of general applicability.

Some examples from last year

Posters 1, 2 and 3 are some good posters from last year. The project topics were different last year, however the grading criteria were the same.

Plagiarism

Attention, articles will be checked for plagiarism. Here are some good references on how to avoid plagiarism in your work:

PLAGIERING OCH UPPHOVSRÄTT

NoPlagiat: self-study tutorial for avoiding Plagiarism and Copyright Issues

Page responsible: Lena Buffoni
Last updated: 2020-04-23