# Organization of the course

Summer semester 2017, lectures on Mondays from 11:00 in KN: E-301. labs on Monday at 14:30 in KN: E-310

Lectures: Dr. Bestoun S. Ahmed Al-Beywanee

Labs: Jiří Šebek, Jiří Pechanec

Assessments

 Progress report evaluation criteria (10%) ~Week 11

Progress report requirements and points distribution for SWA (Week 11) report11week.xlsx

In order to get points for the progress report, there are sections must be available in the report.

1. Introduction,
2. Aim and objectives
3. Scope of the project
4. Job distribution among the team members (For more than one student)
5. Time scheduler from the beginning until the end.
6. Expected output of the project
7. Methodology
8. Achievements of the project so far.
9. Used resources and references
10. Planned evaluation process.

Each section should be available in the report. In case of missing any section, the student will loss (1 point for each missing section). When the section is available, the work will be evaluated based on the amount of work for (~ 11 weeks). These sections could be reused for the final report also.

If the group contains one student, then number (4) of the evaluation criteria will be change to the following.

4. Stages the student followed during the project time.

 15% Presentation
20% Final Report
5% Quality  and progress assessments 

Presentation (15%) assessment_form_for_presentaiotn_of_projects.docx

The assessment is based on the following points

• Organization (3%)
1. The type of presentation is appropriate for the topic and audience.
2. Information is presented in a logical sequence.
3. Presentation appropriately cites requisite number of references.
• Contents (8%)
1. Introduction is attention-getting, lays out the problem well, and establishes a framework for the rest of the presentation.
2. Technical terms are well-defined in language appropriate for the target audience.
3. Presentation contains accurate information.
4. There is an obvious conclusion summarizing the presentation.
• Presentation (4%)
1. Speaker maintains good eye contact with the audience and is appropriately animated (e.g., gestures, moving around, etc.).
2. Speaker uses a clear, audible voice.
3. Visual aids are well prepared, informative, effective, and not distracting.
4. Length of presentation is within the assigned time limits.

Final Report (20%) finalreport.xlsx

The assessment is based on the following points

• Motivation & Problem Definition (3%)
1. Does this report sufficiently describe motivation of this project?
2. Does this report describe when and how this research can be used by whom in terms of examples and scenarios?
3. Does the report clearly define the problem?
• Approach (3%)
1. Does the report clearly & adequately resent your research approach (algorithm description, pseudo code, etc.)?
2. Does the report include justifications for your approach?
3. Does the report provides more than one alternative style for the application?
• Evaluation (3%)
1. Does this report clarify your evaluation’s objectives (research  questions raised by you)?
2. Does this report justify why it is worthwhile to answer such research  questions?
3. Does this report concretely describe what can be measured and  compared to existing approaches (if exist) to answer such research questions?
• Results (4%)
1. Does the report include empirical results that support the author’s  claims/ research goals?
2. Does the report provide any interpretation on results?
3. Is the information in the report sound, factual, and accurate?
4. Does the report provides comparison between different approaches and gives recommendation?
• Discussions and conclusions (4%)
1. Does the report provides and adequate discussion of the content?
2. Did the report demonstrate consideration of alternative approaches?
3. Does the report discuss threats to validity of this evaluation?
4. Does the report provides and adequate concluding remarks of the content?
• Clarity and Writing (3%)
1. Overall quality of visualization and presentation
2. How well are the ideas presented?
3. Overall quality of writing and readability

Quality and progress assessments (5%)

1. Overall quality and novelty of the project
2. Contribution and new approaches added to the existing ideas.
3. Quality of the chosen styles
4. Does the evaluation criteria process is clear?
5. Amount of work and effort

Sources:

• R. N. Taylor, N. Medvidovic, E. M. Dashofy, “Software Architecture: Foundations, Theory, and Practice”, 2009
• Bass, L .: Software Architecture in Practice, Addison-Wesley Professional, 2012.
• Fowler, M .: Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture, Addison-Wesley Professional, 2002.

Groups: