FIT1008 / FIT1054 / FIT2085 – Introduction to Computer Science – Assessment 3 – Marking Guide / Rubric

NOTE: a minor mistake is a mistake that could quite simply be a slight oversight that does not break the overall functionality of the program and still exhibits the learning outcomes of
the unit. A major mistake is a mistake that occurred most likely due to the lack of understanding of the learning outcomes of the unit or requires a lot of work to rectify. The examples
of minor and major mistakes in the criteria below are not exhaustive.

PERFORMANCE
CRITERION
POOR UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT

Hash Tables – 10 marks

Implementation of the Hash Function Hash function is - Adequate - Hash function

non-existent or implementation of distributes the keys
Example Mistake: The hash function is not able to hash keys, or does not hash into a valid incorrect the hash function uniformly, thus,
index. (0 marks) and it performs the minimising the
desired function number of collisions
(1.5 marks) (3 marks)

Statistical Analysis of the Hash Table Performance Statistical analysis Statistical analysis of Adequate analysis of Good analysis given Extremely detailed
missing from the the calculations the calculations about the figures statistical analysis
Example Mistake: Counting conflicts every time linear probing is being done, Counting an submission lacking basic produced by the calculated from the using graphical
incorrect attribute instead of the one that needs to be counted while linear probing, not using (0 marks) conceptual hash function hash functions annotation and a text
large enough inputs to validate hypothesis knowledge implementation (3 marks) explanation of what
(1 marks) (2 marks) is happening
(4 mark)

Correctness of implementation of missing Hash Tables methods Poor or no A few major errors in One major or Minor errors with the Excellent
implementation of the implementation multiple minor errors implementation of implementation of
Example Major Mistake: Inserting keys after rehashing is not functional. the hash table and of the hash table with the the hash table and the hash table and
related functions and related functions implementation of related functions related functions with
Example Minor Mistake: Poor choice of resized table size as to avoid collisions. (0 marks) (0.5 marks) the hash table and (2 marks) no errors
related functions (3 marks)
(1.5 mark)

BSTs & AVLs – 10 marks

Required BST Functionality Missing or poor A few major errors in One major or Minor errors in the Excellent
implementation of the implementation multiple minor implementation of implementation of
Example Major Mistake: the missing methods of the missing mistakes in the missing methods the missing methods
get_minimal() searches through the entire subtree to find the minimum. in the given BST methods in the given implementation of in the given BST in the given BST
(0 marks) BST the missing methods (1.5 marks) (2 marks)
Example Minor Mistake: (0.5 marks) in the given BST
get_minimal() or get_successor() do not work when called with current as a leaf node. (1 mark)

Required AVL Functionality Missing or poor A few major errors in One major or Minor errors in the Excellent
implementation of the implementation multiple minor implementation of implementation of
Example Major Mistake: the missing methods of the missing mistakes in the missing methods the missing methods
Insertion does not guarantee that the tree is balanced. in the given AVL methods in the given implementation of in the given AVL in the given AVL
(0 marks) AVL the missing methods (3 marks) (4 marks)
Example Minor Mistake: (1 mark) in the given AVL
Node height is not updated correctly on a particular case of insertion. (2 mark)

Finding Range of Ith to Jth Largest Entries Missing or poor A few major errors in One major or Minor errors in the Excellent
Fatal Mistake: implementation (or a the implementation multiple minor implementation of implementation of
Worse than O(N) complexity solution given, where N is the number of nodes. fatal mistake) of of Range mistakes in the Range Range
Range (1 mark) implementation of (3 marks) (4 marks)
Example Major Mistake: (0 marks) Range
Solution is O(N) complexity, where N is the number of nodes. (2 marks)

Example Minor Mistake:

Range function does not work when i-j spans the entire tree.

Game Design Decisions – 20 marks

Trader Class Python in-built ADTs - Half of the chosen - Excellent choice of
Example Mistakes: used/implemented ADTs fit well for the ADTs for all the
Poor / Inefficient ADT choice for a particular Trader Class. (0 marks) purpose functionality required
(1 mark) (2 marks)

Implementation of select_food_and_caves Extremely Low Low Quality Solution Solution attempt Good solution, fits Excellent solution,
Quality Solution - - Outside of solves the problem within complexity fits within complexity
Fatal Mistake: Like very poor complexity bounds but misses a crucial bounds but has bounds using the
An exponential complexity of select_food_and_caves() complexity / not (2.5 marks) part of the solution, some issues with algorithms and data
attempted / affecting the code quality or an structures discussed
Example Mistakes: completed (0 marks) complexity of the easily overlooked within the unit (10
Cave quantities not respected. Complexity of the method is not within bound. approach (5 marks) issue which affects marks)
complexity (7.5
NOTE: (Mark scales are indicative only, mark range varies between 0 and 10 and is marks)
decided based on correctness, efficiency, and strategy in solution. A good partial
attempt will be awarded partial marks)

Implementation of select_for_players Extremely Low Low Quality Solution Solution attempt Good solution, fits Excellent solution,
Quality Solution - - Outside of solves the problem within complexity fits within complexity
Fatal Mistake: Like very poor complexity bounds but misses a crucial bounds but has bounds using the
An exponential complexity of select_for_players() complexity / not (1.25 marks) part of the solution, some issues with algorithms and data
attempted / affecting the code quality or an structures discussed
Example Mistakes: completed (0 marks) complexity of the easily overlooked within the unit (5
Non-optimal way of generating emeralds. approach (2.5 issue which affects marks)
In some cases a player spends more emeralds than they have. marks) complexity (3.75
marks)
NOTE: (Mark scales are indicative only, mark range varies between 0 and 5 and is
decided based on correctness, efficiency, and strategy in solution. A good partial
attempt will be awarded partial marks)

Correctness [Miscellaneous classes and Game initialisation] Poor or no Three or more Two mistakes with One mistake with the Excellent
implementation of mistakes in the the implementation implementation of implementation of
the game logic implementation of of the game logic the game logic the game logic with
(0 marks) the game logic (1.5 mark) (2 marks) no errors
(0.5 marks) (3 marks)

Documentation – 10 marks

Overall Strategy Documentation Setup Setup documentation Setup documentation Strategy Strategy
Documentation requirements for the select_food_and_caves and select_for_players questions Documentation is is lacking logic and a is adequate, documentation is documentation is
- Worked examples, Complexity Analysis, and an explanation of the strategy is required. poor or missing worked example covering most of the good and it details excellent, covers all
(0 marks) (1 marks) functionality. Poor most of the functionality with
complexity analysis functionality with examples and
(2.5 mark) some pretty good complexity analysis
complexity analysis (5 marks)
(3.5 marks)

General Code Documentation Many major mistakes Multiple major errors, At most 3 major At most 1 major error At most 1 minor
/ extremely low quality of code is errors or many minor and at most a few mistake. Great
Example Major Mistakes: quality poor (instructions mistakes. Code minor mistakes. quality overall
Insufficient commenting for multiple methods; multiple methods missing type hints or type hints (0 marks) likely not obeyed) quality is passable Good code quality (5 marks)
incorrect; complexity documentation absent on any function required, multiple methods with (1 marks) (2.5 mark) overall
complexity documentation present but incorrect/incomplete; multiple methods missing method (3.5 marks)
summarisation in function header.

Example Minor Mistakes:

One function missing type hints or type hints are incorrect; one function with complexity
documentation present but incorrect/incomplete; pre-conditions not documented in appropriate
methods (each one missing is a separate error); single method missing method summarisation
in function header; class constants not uppercase.

Peer Evaluation – Multiplier for Group Work min((Mark / 15) + 0.2, 1)

Contribution (10 marks) No Contribution: Poor Contribution: Limited Good Contribution: Great Contribution:
(a weighted mean value (see footnote) will be computed across all the peers’ reports) Contribution:
The student did not The student’s The student The student went The student provided
Use this section to award marks to your peers on how they contributed to the group work. Peer contribute to the contribution to the submitted an above the norm an exceptional
contribution includes how the team member helped with coding in the assessment and what solution. solution was adequate towards their standard in their
their overall code contribution was during the course of the assessment. (0 marks) minimal. contribution to the contribution and contribution to the
(2 marks) solution. helped peers. solution.
 (6 marks) (8 marks) (10 marks)

Communication (5 marks) No Communication: Poor Limited Good Great

(a weighted mean value (see footnote) will be computed across all the peers’ reports) Communication: Communication: Communication: Communication:
The student was The student’s The student did not The student was The student attended
Use this section to award marks to your peers on how communicative they were during the largely absent from communication to attend some of the present during all meetings and was
course of the assessment. Communication encompasses all communication, written, meetings all group meetings the team was poor, agreed-upon meetings and exceptional in
as well as attentiveness during applied assessment sessions and commitment to deadlines. and had no mostly unable to meetings without communicated well upholding
communication. reach. explanation or with the group, communication
(0 marks) (1 mark) warning attending most standards.
(3 marks) meetings. (5 marks)
(4 marks)

Interview – 50 marks

Student Knowledge (40 marks) No Knowledge: Poor Knowledge: Limited Good Knowledge: Great Knowledge:
Knowledge:
The student’s knowledge of the subject matter demonstrated in the interview. This section The student was The student The student The student The student
covers the marks obtained for being able to answer 5 questions about the subject matter of the absent or demonstrated poor demonstrated limited demonstrated a good demonstrated
assessment. The questions will be randomly selected from the bank of questions provided. demonstrated no knowledge of the knowledge of the overall command of exceptional
(Mark scale is indicative here - marks are to be given from 0 to 40 (inclusive)) knowledge of the subject matter (not subject matter and the subject matter. standards of
subject matter. being able to answer the concepts. (30 marks) knowledge, helping
(0 marks) basic questions (20 marks) out peers in subject
about the concepts) matter concepts.
(10 marks) (40 marks)

Explanation of Design Choices Made (10 marks) No Confidence: Low Confidence: Slight Confidence: Moderate High Confidence:
Confidence:
The student’s explanation on why particular choices were made during the development of the The student The student The student The student The student had
solution for the assessment. The student should be able to explain how they came up with the demonstrated no demonstrated low demonstrated slight demonstrated above exceptional
solution and what choices they would make given no constraints. This section also covers confidence while confidence, unable confidence in the average confidence, confidence in design
marks for being able to answer questions regarding these design choices and scenarios that explaining the design to explain the design design choices, answering any choices, answering
the demonstrator asks during the interview. choices. choices. vaguely explaining questions about any questions the
(0 marks) (2 marks) them. particular scenarios. demonstrator asked.
(6 marks) (8 marks) (10 marks)

Footnote on Peer Evaluation weighting

In order to recognise the increased workload that groups of 2 or 3 will experience, and to limit the effect a single group member may have on
the grade, we will calculate the weighted average peer evaluation in the following way:
● If you are in a group of 4, we simply sum up the peer evaluation from the 3 other students and divide by 3.
 ● If you are in a group of 2/3, we generate an average including 2/1 fake students who always give you 15/15.
For example, if you are in a group of 3, and receive a peer evaluation grade of 5/15 and 8/15 from your peers, then your peer evaluation mark
would be:
(5 + 8 + 15) / 3 = 28 / 3 = 9.33 / 15

Which would give you a group work multiplier of 9.33 / 15 + 0.2 = 0.82.

Important: Note that students that do not contribute to the assessment in any discernible way will have their evaluations of their peers
disregarded and replaced with 15s. This will only occur if sufficient evidence is provided.