Assignment 1 – peer review

Assignment 1 – peer review

(System and Network Administration, UG/PG, S2, 2021)

 

Please carefully read the whole assignment description and the required background documents before you start your work. 

 

Assignment 1 – peer review weighs 10% of the total marks of this unit and, Friday, the latest. The deadline is of the local time in Canberra, ACT, Australia. It is your responsibility to correctly adjust your clock.

 

Please be reminded the following statements from the unit outline about assignment submission.

 

Extensions

 

Students can apply for an extension to the submission due date for an assessment item through extenuating, evidenced circumstances (specific details are found through the Assessment Policy and Procedures, Section 9.12). Extensions must be applied for before the due date. Documentary evidence (e.g. medical certificate) will be expected for an extension to be granted, however this will not guarantee that the application will be successful. The Unit Convener or relevant Discipline Convener will decide whether to grant an extension and the length of the extension.

 

An Assignment Extension form is available from the Student Forms page.

 

Late submission of assignments without an approved extension will result in a penalty of 5% reduced marks from the total available, per calendar day late. An assignment submitted over 7 days late will not be accepted.

 

 

This assignment is for peer review activities, and no assignment report submission needed. Please use this opportunity to bounce ideas and form your assignment group.

 

Assignment 1 report is about the very basic design of the IT infrastructure for a fictitious organisation. The organisation setup may be different from one to another, and so is the IT infrastructure design. The same theory applies differently to different settings. It is very difficult for one to cover all scenarios. Yet, the best way to learn in the fields is learning by examples. The purpose of the peer review is for all students to learn from each other, to broaden the views, to deepen understanding, and to improve the learning outcomes of the unit.

 

Note: this is an individual assignment. Each student is required to peer-review 4 reports, randomly assigned to you by Canvas, of your classmates’. After reading each report, you will provide 2 sets of short comments, details below. A total of 2.5 marks will be awarded to the reviewer for conducting 1 peer review by completing the above 2 points. Each student (i.e., reviewer) is required to conduct 4 peer reviews for a total of 10 marks.

  1. improvement suggestion:

After reading your report, I can see something is missing or something can be done better. This is my suggestion for you to consider.

 

If no suggestion can be made, please state so followed by a brief summary of the reviewed report against the assignment requirements. The brief summary is required. A simple “no suggestion” will not attract any marks.

 

  1. learning from you:

After reading your report, I learned that I could improve my design by doing so.

 

If no point can be learned, please state so followed by a brief summary of the reviewed report against the assignment requirements. The brief summary is required. A simple “no suggestion” will not attract any marks.

 

Although only limited writing needed, the marking still follows the same marking rubrics, in next page.

 

the marking rubrics

A/Prof Wanli Ma, School of ITS, SciTech, University of Canberra, 2021, S2

 

Please note that a report is marked in its entirety based on the marking rubrics also in their entirety. A report cannot be marked by its individual keywords in isolation; nor can any individual marking rubric be applied in isolation by itself alone. For example, the irrelevant content in the report cannot be treated as if it does not exist. To the contrary, any irrelevant content weakens the logic flow and reduces the relevance of the report.
85%-100% 75%-84% 65%-74% 50%-64% <50% 0%
•       all required topics covered

 

•       comprehensive

understanding of the topics

covered

 

•       thoroughly coherent

 

•       relevant and accurate with in-depth analysis

 

•       convincible, sound, and smooth logic

 

•       excellent writing, concise, clear, and complete

 

 

•       all claims backed up by evidence or argument

 

•       no irrelevant nor inaccurate

        statements

•       all required topics covered

 

•       good understanding of the topics covered

 

 

•       well coherent

 

•       relevant and accurate

 

 

•       sound logic

 

 

•       clear writing, concise, and complete

 

 

•       majority claims backed up by evidence or argument

 

•       no irrelevant nor inaccurate

        statements

•       most required topics covered

•       reasonable understanding of the topics covered

 

 

•       coherent

 

•       largely relevant and accurate

 

•       good logic

 

 

•       generally clear writing, reasonably concise, and mostly complete

 

•       most claims backed up by evidence or argument

 

•       occasionally irrelevant and inaccurate statements with little impact on the report in a whole

•       most required topics covered

•       basic understanding of the topics covered

 

 

•       reasonably coherent

 

•       relevant and accurate in general

 

•       basic logic

 

 

•       understandable writing, somewhat clear, and largely

complete

 

•       claims largely backed up by evidence or argument

 

•       a few irrelevant and inaccurate statements with noticeable impact on the report in a whole

little or no

understanding of the topic, with irrelevant content, unstructured and unclear writing

just a few keywords without meaningful sentences

 

 

=== Have Fun ===