## Write Up (/75) - [ ] [[Analysis (9 Marks)]] - [ ] [[Design (12 Marks)]] - [ ] [[Implementation (42 Marks)]] - [ ] [[Testing (8 Marks)]] - [ ] [[Evaluation (4 Marks)]] ## Word Document - [ ] Table of contents - [ ] Page numbers - [ ] Name and Candidate number in Header/Footer - [ ] Emailed to AJB ## Documentation - [ ] Candidate Record Form (CRF) - [ ] Project Log - [ ] Video Recording ## [[Analysis (9 Marks)]] - [ ] Problem: Statement of the problem - [ ] End user named - [ ] Outline of research method: interviews, walk through current system, screenshots and printouts of current system - [ ] The research itself - [ ] Summary of research - [ ] Background given in sufficient detail for a third party to understand the problem being solved / investigated - [ ] Modelling: Sketches of all forms, screens, printouts - [ ] DFD, Structure diagrams if appropriate - [ ] Sample data fully scoped - [ ] A numbered list of measurable,  specific objectives, covering all required functionality. Each objectives is single purpose and at a level of detail that is without ambiguity - [ ] Table of activities completed for all 20 weeks of the project ## [[Design (12 Marks)]] ### Overview - [ ] Discuss technologies used (Java, Unity, MySQL) - [ ] Modules used and how they link together ### For each Module - [ ] Sketches - [ ] Data representation - [ ] Sample Data - [ ] Description of algorithms - [ ] Code ### Database - [ ] ER Diagram design - [ ] Description as to what data needs to be stored and what this might look like in the system. - [ ] Example data - [ ] Design of the UI or talk through of how data might be displayed back to the user. ### APIs - [ ] APIs to be used and calls required. - [ ] List of the key functions from the API to be used - [ ] Example data to be passed into the API and what the system would return - [ ] Discussion of how algorithms may work, pseudo-code or diagrams ## [[Implementation (42 Marks)]] - [ ] Page references of suitable code typed on Implementation section of project log - [ ] Description of what is being done (recursion, oop etc) - [ ] Cross referenced to Design ### [[Testing (8 Marks)]] - [ ] 20 - 30 Tests - [ ] Carefully Selected Test Data - [ ] Screenshots showing evidence of system - [ ] End User run through ### Evaluation - [ ] Reflection of their solution against ideas set out in Analysis - [ ] Evaluate against objectives - [ ] Independent feedback from end user as separate letter - [ ] How the outcomes could be improved It would be beneficial for an evaluation to start with an honest and fair reflection on their solution compared to the ideas set out in the Analysis section. To gain a level 4 mark a student should have reflected on the whole project as well as the individual objectives. #### Examiners Comments on Evaluation Students with good objectives set in their analysis section could go on to score well in the evaluation section. They should, however, be careful to paint a fair evaluation of their project. If certain objectives have not been met very well then it is more beneficial to actually reflect on this rather than gloss over it. In the same way user feedback should also be honest as it was common for a project to receive glowing user feedback when it was obvious from the technical solution and testing that there were serious limitations to be commented upon. To gain the top level a student is required to consider some improvements in detail and whilst not necessarily producing final code it would be appropriate for a student to take at least one idea and consider the changes and challenges this would present if it were to be implemented. It was evident this year to see students not reflecting on the project as a whole. It would be beneficial for an evaluation to start with an honest and fair reflection on their solution compared to the ideas set out in the Analysis section.